|
|||||||||||||||
|
COVER STORY
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Greed was the agenda of the day!
by Philip Khoo
When the call was made to renew NEP, complete with keris (traditional dagger) and all, there was no more doubt: Greed was the agenda of the day! Well, greed and chauvinism. The chauvinism couldn�t be more obvious. In what other nation could a section of the people push their self-declared agenda to be �the national agenda�? If, say, a group of Chinese had presented what they called �the Chinese agenda� as a candidate for �the national agenda�, there would be � and correctly so � howls of protest. Why then should it be different when UMNO Youth presented what they called the �Malay agenda� as �the national agenda�? Moreover, was what they declared the Malay agenda or even a Malay agenda, that is, a plan to address the needs, interests and aspirations of the vast majority of Malays? No, not by a long shot. At the Assembly, there were several pronouncements that the NEP had failed. These were made by quarters who instituted the policy and oversaw its implementation. Did we see a finger pointed at themselves? Did we hear an apology or self-criticism of what had been done wrong? Those same quarters made claims about Malay culture and its weaknesses. Yet, it escaped them that when they pointed a finger at others, most of their other fingers pointed back at themselves. Still, why do I say that the declarations of NEP�s failure bore symptoms of greed? The real NEP The greed was evident because the primary reason for insisting that the NEP had failed, and the proposed major emphasis of the new �national� agenda is the �30 per cent share� in public listed companies. Does UMNO Youth � the self-proclaimed conscience of UMNO � mean to tell us that the 30 per cent share in listed companies was the be-all and end-all of the �real� NEP? Was everything else mere window-dressing � all the serious stuff of the first Outline Perspective Plan, the fine words of the Second Malaysia Plan, the many speeches of UMNO leaders, and all that has been taught in our schools and universities? Let us recall the NEP�s two prongs: 1. to eradicate poverty regardless of race, and 2. to abolish the identification of race with economic function. The first prong is self-explanatory. It contained a pledge to do our best to raise everyone out of poverty. It was a noble and honourable pledge. The second prong is best explained by what schoolchildren used to learn in the 1950s and 1960s � �Awang the fisherman, Ah Chong the miner, and Ramasamy the rubber tapper�. This prong bore another pledge: We would do our best to open up every field of endeavour to everyone so that future generations of schoolchildren would not identify a race with an occupation, and an occupation with a race. Again, this was a noble and honourable pledge despite the subsequent excesses and abuses. Tucked away in the details was the target of �30 per cent share ownership�. We must read this in context! Then, Malay and bumiputera poverty was running at well over 50 per cent. Then, Malay and bumiputera participation in industry and commerce was almost non-existent. Thus the 30 per cent share was part of an attempt to jumpstart Malay and bumiputera participation in the so-called modern sectors of the economy. Leave aside the 30 per cent share ownership issue for the time being. Clearly the NEP has succeeded! Then and now - NEP a success In 1970, the rate of absolute poverty was around 50 per cent overall and 66 per cent for the Malays. Now that poverty rate is well under 10 per cent. Kuala Lumpur, practically a racial ghetto in 1970, is today a multiracial, cosmopolitan city. It would be a foolish person indeed who, seeing Awang at Bukit Bintang, would think, �Aha! Awang the fisherman� (although there is still too much of �Ramasamy, a member of the rural and urban underclass�). In fields such as the registered professions � a subset of all professionals � the NEP has been a success, especially if one looks at trends. The occupational category of �Professionals� (covering scientists, engineers, architects, accountants, doctors, dentists, etc.) shows the NEP to have been a resounding success. In 2000, bumiputera accounted for nearly 59 per cent of all persons in that �Professional� category. Moreover, if one uses �age group� as a proxy for time, the trend shows an increase in the bumiputera proportion of �Professionals�. That proportion has risen from 43 per cent in the �50-59 years� age group to 63 per cent in the �30-39 years� age group. These statistics show the change in the race-occupation matrix. Table A provides a summary. For all the numerous injustices happening at the micro- and individual level, and specifically to non-Malays, the NEP�s second prong has also been a stellar success Its success benefits us all. No nation can survive or call itself a nation if it tolerates the skewed race-occupation matrix of the 1960s. To those too young to remember, allow me to state that a policy like the NEP � without the excesses of implementation � was a necessity. But its success doesn�t mean there�s nothing major left to do if we want to fashion a nation in which all have an equal opportunity and all can live in dignity. Rampant relative poverty Absolute poverty (even though measured by a somewhat suspect poverty line income) has been overcome. But relative poverty is rampant. Today, it is increasingly rare to find a single-income household. Too many households find it impossible to get by on a single income, since prices have spiralled for the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing, fuel, transport, education and recreation. Let�s return to the �30 per cent ownership� target. The target signified a laudable attempt to ensure that all had a stake in the nation. However, the rural and urban poor and lower income weren�t, and aren�t thinking about share ownership. Nor would they acquire anything � more than one �lot� or even a few �lots� � that could be called wealth. What would a stake in the nation mean for the poor and lower income? It means having a decent job at decent wages. Then can they lead a life of dignity and modest comforts: a decent house (not a plush condominium or exclusive bungalow in Damansara Heights); a working car, even better, efficient and cheap public transport (not a Porsche or Mercedes); proper clothing (not Armani suits); and decent food (not air-flown choice cuts). Unfortunately, such a life of dignity and modest comforts may be spiralling out of the reach of too many households. At least, one would sympathise if this modest expectation served as a new �national agenda� that is tied to saccharine talk of �people oriented development�. But, no! Instead, it was, �How come I didn�t get the AP�s?� and �30 per cent for me, or the keris (for whom?)�! Dreams of towering wealth Just who is this �I/me�, the centre of the so-called new �national� agenda? Forget the masquerade. If this were truly about bumiputera as a whole, there would have been some saving grace, considering the conditions of the Orang Asli and the majority of the bumiputera of Sarawak and Sabah need improving. But, really, talk of bumiputera interests at the assembly was all eye-wash. Why? Because only a very small proportion of people can hope to hold any large amount of shares in public listed companies in any market economy. Malaysia is no exception. Here, information on the distribution of share ownership at the individual level is not easily available because of an obsession with size distribution by race. But when we say �Malays own 19 per cent of the shares of public listed companies�, we don�t mean all, or even most, Malays own those shares. Indeed, a majority of Malays don�t own any share, and the majority of those who hold shares own miniscule quantities.
If we want to make a �national� issue out of share ownership, why don�t we investigate this concentration of ownership of public listed companies and of unit trusts in a few hands? A study by World Bank staff shows that one-quarter of the share value (by market capitalisation) in Malaysia�s public listed companies is held by the top ten families. Is this an issue for UMNO Youth? No, their burning issue is why ownership isn�t concentrated in their hands! How greedy and self-centred can UMNO Youth be? Must the nation�s resources and efforts be marshalled towards fulfilling dreams of towering wealth for a handful of not-so-towering people? Bumiputera lower classes - only silence In contrast, consider what a truly national agenda should emphasise. There are too many companies that pay production workers an entry-point monthly salary of RM500 or less. Every time workers demand better salaries, they are told that wage increments would make the country uncompetitive The 2000 Census shows the majority of our production workers to be Malays and bumiputera. As seen in Table 1, bumiputera form 65 per cent and 60 per cent of Malaysian citizens working as �plant and machine operators and assemblers� and in �elementary occupations� respectively. These people, placed at the bottom of the heap of the modern economy, total 1.2 million (bumiputera) workers, or more than one-quarter of all employed bumiputera. Does anyone seriously believe that UMNO Youth wants to renew the 30 per cent share ownership target in order to benefit these 1.2 million workers? Is the 30 per cent meant to benefit the 760,000 bumiputera in agriculture and fisheries? Or the 560,000 bumiputera �service workers and shop and market sales workers�? The 450,000 bumiputera �clerical workers�? The 300,000 bumiputera �craft and related trades workers�? Together, they total 3.25 million persons, or 73 per cent of all employed bumiputera (and 44 per cent of all employed citizens). Will the so-called new �national agenda� allow the vast majority of them to acquire wealth through share ownership? Or only to dream about wealth while they can�t do more than save a bit in ASB? When UMNO Youth leaders stretched their notion of 30 per cent share ownership to include �intellectual property�, they weren�t thinking at all: how does one set a quota on this? When they talked of APs and ownership of land, housing and business premises, they were thinking, but of themselves and their pals. They weren�t thinking of the 73 per cent of all employed bumiputera who can barely afford to buy decent housing at current prices and who aren�t getting an AP or two to triple their annual incomes. If UMNO Youth�s concern was genuinely about all bumiputera, an agenda for agriculture and, especially for smallholders, would be much more thoughtful since the 760,000 bumiputera in agriculture and fisheries constitute 82 per cent of citizens in that occupation. On something fundamental like this�silence! Focus on share ownership Instead, UMNO Youth leaders want to go head-to-head with the tiny few owning the 80 per cent of shares held by the top twenty shareholders in the average Malaysian public listed company. Is that what being �national� means?
For the �national majority�, the core issue is how to get companies to be responsible corporate citizens who provide better working conditions and don�t transfer their costs to the public. Heart of the matter - inequality After 30 years of NEP, the old race-occupation rigidities have been overturned. It is time to ask how we can reach �developed country status� and become a serious player in the global knowledge economy. To do so, we need to focus on the real sources of inequality in this country. Study after study after study has shown that the major source of inequality is intra-race inequality. This intra-race inequality is in fact worse for the bumiputera than for others. But UMNO and UMNO Youth ignore this intra-race inequality. To that extent, they are prepared to take the country along dangerous paths. Why else would UMNO be willing to dump meritocracy if it obstructs their narrow, self-centred, greedy goals? No thinking person I know believes meritocracy to be a panacea, a cure-all. But it is an indispensable part of any genuine solution to the country�s shortcomings. No doubt meritocracy should be coupled with policies and practices that ensure that every one has a truly equal opportunity to prove his or her worth. If needs be, some policies may be racially oriented: for example, specific policies are required to address the situation of the Orang Asli or the Penan. Other policies should be oriented towards need: thus, we should assist the lower income and the poor, regardless of race. In short, we urgently need a meritocracy tempered with a social democracy. We need an approach that compensates for accidents of birth � such as being born into poverty or in a remote area with poor facilities, of being born with a physical disability or being inflicted with one, or of being left orphaned or living with a single parent. It is time to call a halt to UMNO�s toxic politics, and the greed of its leaders, a majority of whom, today, were born with a proverbial �silver spoon� and are already well-off, if not tremendously wealthy. It is time for patriotic Malaysians to insist that a national debate be initiated on the sources of the nation�s problems and the means to face the challenges that confront us. Else this fake �national� agenda being foisted on us will be the death of our nation yet � for have no doubt about it, their real slogan is not �Tak kan Melayu hilang di dunia� ('Never will the Malays disappear from the face of the earth') but �Tak kan �I� hilang di dunia� ('Never will "I" disappear...'), never mind if, in seeking to advance that �I�, Malaysia �hilang di dunia�. Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. If you prefer to read our web-based edition, please support our work and make a donation. Now tell us what you think in fewer than 250 words. Your comments may be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. | |||||||||||||||
They weren�t thinking of the 73 per cent of all employed bumiputera who can barely afford to buy decent housing at current prices and who aren�t getting an AP or two to triple their annual incomes.
