It is the mechanics, not the arithmetic that matters

NO HOLDS BARRED

Thursday, 25 March 2010 Super Admin

 

If you compare what the Malays owned in 1990 to the wealth of the Chinese and Indians in 1970, the Malays may already have a 30% share of the economic pie. But when you compare it to what the Chinese and Indians owned in 1990, it is not 30%. It is just 3%.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Zaid: Clueless Perkasa blames all but Dr M

By Stephanie Sta Maria, Free Malaysia Today

Pakatan Rakyat trouble-shooter Zaid Ibrahim believes that Malay right-wing pressure group Perkasa and its chairman Ibrahim Ali are trapped in a time warp.

According to the former law minister, the “Umno tentacle” appears to be clueless about the bigger picture, preferring instead to indulge in stone-age politics.

“They are worked up about Malay rights being threatened but do not care about what's happening to Petronas' money or about the massive corruption in the system,” he told FMT in a recent exclusive interview.

Zaid lambasted the movement for merely skimming the surface as opposed to diving deep into the issues which the Malay community is confronted with.

“Instead of conducting a serious analysis on the real reasons for the lack of progress among the Malays, they indulge in chest-thumping speeches.

“They blame everyone for the problem except themselves and (former premier Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad),” he said.

However, Zaid is confident that the Malays are much wiser now and will not fall for such political gimmicks.

Creating a sense of alarm

Last week, the PKR leader slammed Perkasa for twisting the facts concerning the special rights of the Malays, and described the movement as irresponsible.

He accused Perkasa of intentionally injecting a sense of alarm into the Malays in order to achieve its political aims.

Zaid also took its chairman to task for repeatedly stressing that Malay privileges as provided for in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution have to be protected.

"Even I am Malay but who wants to take our rights away that he (Ibrahim) has to protect them?" he added.

Perkasa is scheduled to hold its inaugural annual general meeting this Saturday, and was forced to make an eleventh hour change with regards to its guest of honor after the Sultan of Selangor decided to give it a skip.

Ibrahim is also mulling legal action against the Sun newspaper over a report which claimed that the sultan was concerned about Perkasa's image as a "chauvinist" group.

The Perkasa chief was particularly peeved with another report in the English daily which stated that the sultan had told Ibrahim to tone down his ultra-Malay image.

Now, Mahathir is slated to officiate the Perkasa annual meet.

*************************************************

For 35 years since the mid-1970s we have been trying to tell the government that the New Economic Policy is not working and unless the powers-that-be do something we are going to see the NEP end in 1990 with no solution to the grouses of the Malays. And when I say ‘we’, whom do I mean? I mean the Dewan Perniagaan dan Perindustrian Melayu Malaysia (DPPMM) or the Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia.

This was back in the mid-1970s, 35 years or so ago. But we did not see Ibrahim Ali then. He was nowhere to be seen. And neither were any of the other PERKASA people. We did not see their faces. They did not see fit to involve themselves in the Malay Chamber that was fighting tooth and nail with the government to correct the shortcomings of the NEP.

I recently wrote about this matter so I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. In that previous article I gave a long commentary about the history of our ‘struggle’ and the frustrations we faced over 20 years from the 1970s to the 1990s. I also mentioned how the government blamed the Malays for this shortcoming and that the government can’t keep giving to the Malays when the Malays themselves have no sustaining power, as the Minister of Trade Rafidah Aziz said.

Let us rewind to 1970 when the NEP was first conjured.

It is said the NEP was the result of the 13 May 1969 race riots. And it is said the May 13 race riots was because of the plight of the Malays and their unhappiness about the wealth of this country being monopolised by the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. So the Malays, Chinese and Indians from Umno, MCA and MIC respectively -- then under the coalition called the Alliance Party -- agreed that there would be a 20-year ‘correction’ policy so that the Malays can catch up with the rest and the gap between the haves and haves-not can be reduced.

This was a policy -- which was actually an aspiration (hasrat) -- which was agreed by the three parties in the Alliance Party. And it was agreed that it would run for 20 years.

But who were the architects of this policy? Who was the mastermind? Was this policy drawn up after consultation with the Malay business community or the Malay Chamber of Commerce or did some civil servant somewhere just put pen to paper and came out with the marvellous plan?

Back in the 1970s we already asked: why 30%? Someone decided that the target for the Malay share of the economic pie would be 30%. Where did this 30% target come from? Whose idea was it?

Malays make up more than 50% of this country’s population. Some say it is 60%, depending on what you consider Malay. So, if the objective of the NEP is to see a more equitable distribution of wealth according to the racial composition of this country, should the target not be 60% instead of 30%? Or, to be realistic, should the target not be 10% or 12% or 15% instead?

Yes, this was one of the questions we posed back in the 1970s. Is the 30% target realistic? Is it achievable? Is it fair? And whose idea was it that it should be 30%?

No one could tell us. In fact, no one appeared to know the answer. Someone, somewhere, said that the target for the Malay share of the economic pie should be 30% and everyone just agreed without exploring whether this is fair, realistic, achievable and whatnot.

We were not disputing the 30% target or stating that it should not be 30%. We just wanted to know what the basis was for pegging it at 30%. Was research done and did the findings of the research show that it should be 30%? Or was 30% a figure plucked from the air, a ‘look good’ figure, with absolutely no basis whatsoever?

No one could enlighten us. Someone, somewhere, somehow decided that the Malay share of the economic pie should be 30% and everyone went along with this because the figure of 30% looked good. 60% will make the Chinese jump and 10% will appear like Umno is not serious enough in helping the Malays. So 30% just looked like a great figure. It was a ‘look good’ figure.

The problem is, today, we are ‘locked’ in that 30% target. Never mind if it is fair, realistic or achievable. It had already been somehow decided by someone that the target should be 30% so we have no choice but to go along with that figure. It is too late to change it now.

That is the main problem with the NEP. A target had been set but no one knows whether this should have been the target. And now that target can’t be met so there is pressure to extend the NEP, although by another name, so that the 30% target can be met. They can’t change the target. So they change the duration to meet that target.

However, has anyone done any research on this matter? If the 30% target can’t be met in 20 years (and we now know it can’t), if it can’t be met in 40 years (and we know it still can’t because it is already 40 years), then how many more years will we need? Do we know? Does anyone know? Is this going to be a never-ending policy? In other words, will the NEP go on and on for as long as the 30% is not yet met, even if it needs to go on another 100 years or 200 years?

Perkasa wants the NEP to be fixed according to the target and not the duration. It should not be 20 years or 40 years or 100 years. It should be for as long as the 30% is still not yet met. That could be till the end of time.

Is this fair? Is it realistic? Is it achievable?

The next point that we raised 35 years ago back in the mid-1970s is about the implementation of the NEP. The NEP is good in theory even if we can question the logic of the 30% target. But the way it was being implemented would guarantee its failure. Malays are too focused on the arithmetic. No one talks about the mechanics. Even if the arithmetic (the 30% target) is correct, the NEP will not work if the mechanics is wrong. And the mechanics is very wrong, as I pointed out in my previous article.

The Malays blamed Umno and the GLCs. It is the unfair competition from the Umnoputeras and the GLCs that resulted in the problems faced by the Malays. The government, in turn, blamed the Malays. The government gave so much to the Malays but the Malays were not able to hold on to it. The Malays lost it all. And that is why the Malays failed to meet the 30% target, argued the government. If the Malays had held on to what the government gave them then the Malay share of the economic pie could even exceed 30%.

Then we had the ‘moving target syndrome’. The architect of the NEP and whoever it was that fixed the target at 30% assumed that the world would stand still for 20 years while the Malays tried to catch up. In other words, the Chinese and Indians would go to sleep and would not do business and would not increase their wealth for 20 years. Then, in 20 years, the Malays would have caught up with the Chinese and Indians and would own 30% of the economic pie.

But the Chinese and Indians did not stand still or go to sleep. They continued to do business and make money. And they increased their wealth over those 20 years. So, 20 years later, when the Malays compared what they own to what the Chinese and Indians own, they discovered that they had only 3% of the economic pie and not 30% as planned.

No doubt the Malays started at just 1.5% and therefore managed to increase their wealth 100% over 20 years. But the Indians and Chinese also increased their wealth over that same 20%. So, if you compare what the Malays owned in 1990 to the wealth of the Chinese and Indians in 1970, the Malays may already have a 30% share of the economic pie. But when you compare it to what the Chinese and Indians owned in 1990, it is not 30%. It is just 3%.

Let me put it another way. The Malays were jogging at a speed of 10kph (slow and easy). But the Chinese and Indians were not sleeping under a tree. They were running at a speed of 20kph like there was no tomorrow. But then the Chinese and Indians were already 20 kilometres ahead of the Malays to start off with. So, after an hour, the Malays had gained a distance of only 10 kilometres while the Chinese and Indians were 40 kilometres in front, 30 kilometres ahead of the Malays.

Now, if the Chinese and Indians had stopped running and instead had slept under a tree or had run backwards rather than forwards, today, we would have no more problems.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

 Letter to Singapore PM

Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:36 |   

Dear Prime Minister,

May you and family be in the best of health and blessings. If there is a way, can you ask local papers or media channels to stop from reporting or discussing the remarks made by MM Lee about Malaysian Chinese?

I say this coz comments published in Singapore (supporting MM’scomments) are made from a skewed angle and do not take into account the historical reasons. The comments so far are made by Chinese Singaporeans who do not really understand the issues. They also seem to suggest that similar problems do not exist in Singapore when, in fact, Singapore Malays in their own motherland, Singapore, are treated more dismally that Malaysian Chinese in the land of Malay Bumis.

Indeed, if this issue is to continue, then it is only fair to show that Chinese leaders in Singapore are doing greater injustice to Singapore Malays than Malay Malaysian leaders to Malaysian Chinese.

The Malaysian Chinese are not bumis in Malaysia yet they get nearly every thing:

a) Right to have Chinese vernacular education from preschool to university.

b) Right to retain their Chinese names [The Chinese in Indonesia and Thailand get nothing of that sort. Worse, they have to have Thai or Indonesian names]

c) Right to display Chinese names in Chinese characters in huge public adverts in buildings and public places

d) In development projects, they reap early profits as all projects require infrastructures and these materials are controlled by Malaysian Chinese

e) Voting strength by constituencies also show so many Chinese advantage.

It is good for us not to say that Malaysian Chinese are “marginalized”. If they want to talk about marginalization or injustices, it is better that they talk about Singapore Malays who, in their own motherland, are marginalized and subject to so many injustices:

1. Malay language has lost its stature in the State and industry

2. Chinese language has now become a universal precondition in employment

3. Malays are “cordoned off” in National Service. Many key security sites are out-of-bounds to Malays [Even Malay Ministers and MP’s are not allowed to enter such areas]

4. The Civil Defence takes in high proportion of Malays consideringthelower stature of CD and the higher death and injury risk in CD services

5. No Malays are holding key positions in government and statutory boards.

6. Malay MP’s are given sinecures. In fact Malays are deemed fit only to be Ministers in Sewerage, Drainage, Refuse, Welfare and Drugs matters

7. Promotions and postings in government and statutory boards also show the Singapore Chinese’ disdain towards Singapore Malays

8. Recent retrenchments also reflected that Singapore Malays “should go first”

9. Proportion of Singapore Malays who remained unemployed is high, notwithstanding good educational and vocational qualifications

10. Vast in-take of Chinese from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan into Singapore but strict control of Malays from Malaysia and Indonesia.

I hope your office would do something to stop this, or rectify the matter by giving the issue its proper balance.

I cc this note to BH Singapore and Malaysia.

I do not cc to Straits Times as they do not publish letters of this kind.

I cc to TODAY coz two strong letters were published in today’s TODAY edition.

Regards

Mansor Haji Sukaimi

Former Member of Parliament (1976-1984)

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Seeds of racism: A look at national identity from child developmental perspective

Contributors

WRITTEN BY CT WONG

A Malay boy – in his middle or late childhood years – was captured on video attempting to stomp on the gory cow head during the protest against a Hindu temple by Muslims in Shah Alam. The boy displayed a simultaneous attraction and repulsion to the act, and viewers were left with an indelible image of how he tried to step on it but nonetheless quickly withdrew his leg. One wonders what kind of attitude towards other races and religions the boy will adhere to when he grows up. We may be able to find some clues in general if we start from the question of how a child develops his identity from young. Children do not have historical baggage like adults. However, this does not mean that they are neutral or passive observers of events happening around them. In fact, studies have shown that in-group favouritism, i.e. positive feelings about the national group to which a person belongs, is common among children and adolescents. Individuals also hold stereotypes about their own and other national groups. Our federal constitution marks us out as different from one another. We are categorized as Malays and non-Malays, or the in-groups and the out-groups. This has far-reaching polarising consequences on the psyche and character of Malaysian citizens. Studies by Henri Tajfel, a British social psychologist, have shown that mere categorisation itself is a potential source of racial prejudice and discrimination. Hence, it is important to explore the meaning of identities so that we can avoid any possible blind spots of the early framers of the constitution. Group membership Racists are not born but made. One of the starting points in understanding in-group affiliation and bigotry is from child development as young people develop a subjective sense of national identity gradually. For this sense of national identity, children first need an awareness that there are groups or categories of people like Malaysians, Singaporeans, English or French, etc. These different peoples are seen as groups instead of singular individuals. In early childhood, children do not have this idea of grouping nor do they comprehend that they themselves are a member of a particular group. But once they are of an age to realise that they belong to a certain group, then just like adults, they attribute different levels of importance to their membership. Children often regard birth of place as a very important criterion to judge group membership. Other criteria commonly used include parentage or ancestry, ethnicity, religion, use of language, cultural practices, loyalty to traditions, national institutions, etc. In the Malaysian context, these criteria may be utilised deliberately for a political purpose, e.g. social markers in the segregation or exclusion of certain ethnic groups. National emblems such as the various institutions, symbols, historical figures and traditions which represent or symbolise the national group or nation form an important part of the subjective sense of national identity. Children may or may not identify strongly with these emblems. For example, a national museum that aims to portray mainly the legacy of only a certain ethnic group would alienate the other groups. In children, the symbols can evoke feelings of national shame or national pride or just sheer indifference. The sense of national identity is context-dependent and not static. It is closely related to everyday behaviour like the language(s) the child learns to speak, the way of life adopted by his family, contents of TV programmes and newspapers, contents of school curriculum etc. All these pervade our everyday life and yet, unless certain events prompt our thinking, we hardly analyse what impacts on the formation of identity. It is thus important to step away from the racial perspective that has dominated so much of debates and reflections on our race relations, and look at national identity from the social sciences models. Cognitive-developmental theory Expert viewpoints can help to shed light on this issue. The two main theoretical approaches to the development of national identity during childhood and adolescence rooted in different psychological traditions are the cognitive-developmental theory of Piaget, and the social identity theory from Tajfel. Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, links the development of national identity to children’s general cognitive development. He starts from the stage where children engage in reasoning at the concrete level up to the abstract level (e.g. from thinking in terms of cities up to national group membership). These thought processes happen irrespective of ethnic background. Using the concept of children’s development in cognitive abilities in general, Frances Aboud, a Canadian professor of psychology argued that the cognitive change leads to the reduction of in-group favouritism between 6-12 years old. Her studies showed that children’s in-group favouritism peaks at around the age of 6, attributing positive characteristics mainly to their own groups and negative ones to the out-groups. However, the polarising tendency decreases between 6 and 12 as children attribute more negative characteristics to their own group and positive ones to the out-groups. The children are able to use multiple classifications and to judge the deeper similarities between superficially different groups as well as to distinguish differences within their own group. The implication of this finding is that children develop bias and stereotypes as young as around six years of age. However, because of their capacity for abstract thinking, these biases do not remain fixed and unchangeable. Social identity theory Tajfel and John Turner’s social identity theory proposes that when a child identifies with the national group, in-group favouritism occurs. The child derives positive self-esteem or self-worth by being a member of that particular group. However, the in-group and out-group comparison could give rise to a sense of superiority and not mere comparison of differences – this is where racial differences turn into racism. Tajfel also argued that mere categorisation itself could lead to prejudice. Drew Nesdale, an Australian Professor of psychology, has linked the concept of child development to social identity theory. He argues that there are four phases in the development of national and ethnic identities: 1) Undifferentiated phase – prior to age between 2 and 3, racial and national cues are not yet important to young children, 2) Group awareness phase – beginning at 3 years of age, ethnic and national awareness starts to emerge. Self-identification as a member of the in-group occurs, 3) In-group favouritism phase – beginning at about 4 years, self-identification leads to in-group favouritism and, 4) Out-group prejudice – starting at about 7 years of age, there is a shift of focus to out-groups. Prejudice and negativity towards out-groups starts to emerge. According to Nesdale, whether children enter Phase 4 depends on their level of identification with the in-group, the extent to which other members of their social group hold negative or prejudiced attitudes, and whether the group feels threatened. This is where the parents, teachers and other significant influences in the children’s life condition them into holding prejudices against other racial or national groups. I-am-M’sian tag inadequate  Though the above theories are able to explain certain phenomenon, so far there is no empirically adequate theory to explain all the different aspects of development of national identities. There are many different factors involved in a child’s development like the geographical location (city or rural areas), language use (primacy of mother tongue) and ethnicity factors in equal education and employment opportunities, etc. Moreover, the media, school, family, social environment and the children themselves all mutually interact with each other in a web of relationships. Of all these factors, ethnicity as a social marker evokes much strong feelings towards or against national identification. Hence, national identity is not just a name-tag or badge which we wear that says “I am a Malaysian”. It is a complex and dynamic psychological structure involving a system of core beliefs about the national group, and associated emotions and feelings. Mere categorisation in racial entities has sowed the seeds of prejudice which leads to the pervasive racial discrimination. The insights from the above studies of child development are mainly from the West. If we really want to address the urgent issues of racial prejudice and to develop anti-racist education, then we need to do own exploration and investigation. Without reforming all the racialist approach at governmental policy and implementation level, merely changing the name tag or labelling to ‘1 Malaysia’ is tackling the issue at the wrong end.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings: