The muted cry

I was somewhat distracted by the statement of MCA Vice President a week ago pertaining to his suggestion to abolish the mandatory 30% bumiputra equity in local main board companies, to ensure that they stay competitive with the current economic upside down. Such statement had blown my top as much as the resentment caused by the racial sentiment uttered by Ahmad of Bukit Bendera. Playing racial card is a prevalent political gimmick to shatter the building of the nations.

Before I proceed upon to articulate my superficial thoughts concerning the matters, I had made a 'little effort' to dissect the reasonings of his suggestion. Please take note on the words 'superficial thoughts'. To a certain extent, I am somewhat agree upon his statement, but this has to be considered within the ambit of National Economic Policy (NEP) goals and the term of 'racial equality'. Apparently, the objectives of NEP are noble, but one may view that the RACE- BASED advantages would be discriminatory. I am in line with such view. Honestly, I think that in order to eradicate poverty and to ensure the socioeconomic balance, what we have to focus is the real impoverished groups, not on certain racial groups.

Among the goals of NEP is to eradicate poverty and to reduce the socioeconomic disparity between the races throughout the nation. The initial ratio back in 1970 is 2.4(Bumiputra: 33(Non Bumi):63(Foreign Ownership). By the setting of the NEP, the government targetted to move the ratio to 30(Bumi):40(non Bumi):30(foreign ownership). Explicitly, the target has yet to be achieved, but had shown a better improvement. In 2004, the ratio had shown a significant changed. The precise ratio in that year is: 18.7 (Bumiputra): 40.9(Chinese): 1.5(Indian):28.8(Foreign companies):10% etc.

Why the government focused for the betterment of the Bumiputra in NEP?The bumiputras make up the majority, 65% of the population. 27.6 are Chinese, whereas Indian descent comprised 8% of the population. According to a statistic in 2004, the poverty among the Bumi formed the highest percentage amounting to 8.3%, the Indian 2.9%, and the Chinese 0.9%.

From these figures, we can infer that the objectives hits the right line to enrich the Bumi in term of the mandatory policy in order to ensure racial equality, socially and economically. Racial equality should not only been perceived in light of legal aspect, but also social and economic aspect. It is crystal clear that the Bumiputras formed the largest poverty group, thus the motive behind the preferential treatment is justified. It is not to put the Malays in a superior position, but to bring them up to the level of the non-Malays. Repealing the laws will not only fail to create racial equality, but will in fact deepen the cleavage between races. As proposed by Tun Dr M, the 30% equity should be retained as the objectives of the NEP had not been achieved yet.

However, the fate of the poverty groups among the Chinese and Indian should not be neglected. In The Malay Dilemma, Tun Dr M conceded that:

"It goes without saying that if the small number of the non-Malays who are financially handicapped are assisted towards achieving what their richer countrymen had achieved, then the disparity between the Malays and the non-Malays would increase even more".

I do not agree with Tun pertaining to this excerpt. Poverty should be cured without any biasness. That is why the certain leaders reiterated that NEP should be re-structured to provide the betterment for all impoverished communities regardless of their races. NEP objectives should be stayed, but the programme needs minor changes. The current policies of the NEP are known to benefit certain Malay groups crystallized by the practice of nepotism. The rich should not become richer at the advantage of the poor. Hence, NEP should be reviewed to provide a better cure for the economic disease and racial pandemic.