Infernal Ramblings
A Malaysian Perspective on Politics, Society and Economics

Distinguishing Ketuanan Melayu and the New Economic Policy

Written by johnleemk on 6:26:55 am Apr 7, 2007.
Categories:

One of the most interesting and illogical arguments used to defend the racist notion of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) is that ketuanan Melayu is inextricably bound up with affirmative action policies such as the New Economic Policy. Any challenge to Malay supremacy, then, is a challenge to helping the Malays advance economically, under this view.

I once thought that this is not a widespread opinion — one held only by a few fringe zealots unable to tell the difference between the apartheid-like ketuanan and the more just principles of equality of opportunity underlying the NEP. I have had to revise my thoughts, however, after looking at some debates on this issue — it's quite clear that a lot of people labour under the misconception that Malay supremacy and the NEP are the same thing.

In the first place, why is there this misunderstanding? I think it is because the government has always used the same rhetoric to support both ketuanan Melayu and affirmative action policies such as the NEP. It's a brilliant example of Orwellian doublethink. On the one hand, Malaysians are supposed to be given a level playing field through affirmative action; on the other, they are supposed to be given a plainly tilted playing field by explicitly ketuanan-based policies.

The fact is, though, that there is a clear difference between Malay supremacy and the ideals of the NEP. Nobody disputes the need to help the Malays progress economically, except for a few Chinese chauvinists. Who would begrudge helping a fellow Malaysian?

What is disputed is the need to enthrone one race over another in order to help that race progress. If one race has been discriminated against for centuries, is the solution then to totally reverse the situation, and totally discriminate against other races? It's not logical — it just doesn't make sense.

After all, in 1960s America, what was the solution to a century of segregation and before that, a century of slavery? Was it to make the blacks the new masters, the new tuan of the United States? Of course not — the solution was affirmative action, to create an equality of opportunity. Funds were poured into helping the blacks advance, primarily through education — but nobody except black supremacists argued that the blacks deserved to become the new lords of America.

Similarly, in South Africa, they did not solve the problems of apartheid by making the blacks the new tuan of South Africa and disenfranchising the whites. Instead, they leveled the playing field and gave all races equal opportunities. The result is a remarkable egalitarianism when it comes to race, especially at the elite levels — enter any upscale restaurant or social club in Johannesburg, and you'll see a panorama of black and white clientele. The poor blacks have of course not had it anywhere as good, but they are also advancing in their own way.

The solution to discrimination is not and never will be more discrimination. If we want to progress, the last thing we want is more ketuanan. Before ketuanan Melayu, we had ketuanan mat salleh. We've had more than enough ketuanan in Malaysia — we don't need a single pinch more, thank you.

What we want for this country is true equality of opportunity for all Malaysians. The NEP served to advance this goal, although its lousy implementation has actually worsened the inequities in this country (especially intraethnic ones).

No Malaysian begrudges another Malaysian the opportunities to make themselves a better person. What we begrudge is being denied similar opportunities, and being told that we are just second-class citizens, pendatang asing. This is completely unnecessary for the disadvantaged Malay community to advance. Malaysia can, and should, move forward as a nation unencumbered by this antiquated notion of ketuanan. In Malaysia, no one race is the tuan — Malaysians are the masters of Malaysia.


If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:

Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.

Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.


Comments

Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)

Related comments from forum thread "Comparing South Africa and Malaysia":
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 948
IP Logged

Posted at 10:10:44 am Nov 8, 2005
In many ways, South Africa and Malaysia are different. South Africa has only two major races; Malaysia has three. South Africa is in, well, Africa, and Malaysia is, well, truly Asia. South Africa has a violent history of bloodshed. Malaysia, aside from a few crazy communists and some hotheaded Malays, has had a relatively peaceful past.

And if we look closer, there are even more subtle differences and yet similarities. For instance, both countries have implemented forms of apartheid; South Africa's was targeted at the Black majority, and imposed by an oligarchy of the minority, while Malaysia's was targeted at the non-Bumiputra (including non-Malay aboriginal groups) minority, and imposed by a tyranny of the majority. South Africa's apartheid is in its past; Malaysia's apartheid looks to be just beginning and growing.

South Africa faced international pressure to tear down its apartheid; Malaysia has seen its apartheid largely overlooked. While South Africa isolated Blacks and overtly treated them as dirt, Malaysia just told the non-Bumiputras one thing and did another - with the government begging foreign graduates to "come home" and yet appointing politicians who yell "you tak suka, you keluar dari Malaysia".

Of course, there are some similarities. South Africa and Malaysia have both implemented policies designed to segregate their people; while in South Africa it was confining Blacks to particular areas, in Malaysia, the education system ensured a whole generation would grow up making friends from only one culture and race. And for the big whopper...

South Africa has now implemented policies designed to aid the majority Blacks, largely by encouraging the development of Black millionaires. Incidentally, so has Malaysia - 35 years ago. South Africa's policy is called BEE - Black Economic Empowerment. Malaysia's is called, variously, the New Economic Policy, National Development Policy or, the brand new name - New National (my ass) Agenda. South Africa's policy has been criticised as only benefiting the rich Blacks, who just happen to be close to the ruling party. So has Malaysia's. (As Lee Kuan Yew poignantly said, "Of course there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses?"

However, there the similarities end. While Malaysia has ignored such cries to create a more egalitarian society, South Africa has recently embarked on brokering deals that benefit more Blacks - the largest change ever in the ownership of the famous DeBeers diamond company involved handing over 13% of the shares to, among others, the disabled, disadvantaged women, De Beers employees and pensioners and communities living around the DeBeers mines.

South Africa's apartheid eventually broke down due to the lifelong efforts of one outstanding man, Nelson Mandela. Will Malaysia's apartheid collapse? That is a pointless question. All political and economic systems throughout history based on dividing the people of a nation and oppressing them have fallen. The only question is when and how the system will collapse. Is it 50 years down the road? A hundred? Will it fall violently or peacefully? What will replace it? That is an open-ended question, and as Malaysians and citizens of the world, it is our task to ensure that the answer to when is soon, the answer to how is through peaceful means, and the answer to what will be its replacement is an egalitarian system providing equal rights for all.
Last five replies (5 comments not shown):
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 948
IP Logged
Posted at 11:47:47 am Nov 19, 2005
There is only two ways as I see it. Many Chinese will not accept being forced to learn Malay when they know Malays are not the only Bumiputra and Dayak, Portugese and Kadazandusun are also Bumiputras.
Exactly. Coercion is not the key. Arbitrarily assigning Chinese to Penang is coercively forcing them to identify themselves with Penang, regardless of their true feelings.

OTOH, English is a universal languages acceptable to all races, Dayaks, Kadazandusun, Chinese, Tamils, Malays, and Punjabis and the Chinese can accept it. This is because English is a creol and even Singapore and India make English the official lingua franca.
Which is why I personally advocate making English our second official language or at least, you know, actually forcing our secondary school graduates to pass the SPM English paper (not that our exams actually test anything effectively).

I don't really see what is wrong with communalism. Division creates diversity that is what the founders of America have said. I prefer a heterogeneous nation over a homogeneous one.
Ah, there is your failure. You view culture as a zero-sum thing, but it is most certainly not. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn (born in Brazil, studied in France, worked in America, now leads a traditionally insulative Japanese company) has a motto: Culture is additive, not negative. When two or more cultures come together, what naturally ensues is not a clash to see which will subsume the other or the erecting of a wall to avoid any of them subsuming the other(s), but a mixing until the resulting culture is a culture (not cultures) but nevertheless, not exactly any of the cultures that produced it. It is an amalgam that is far more valuable than the sum of its constituents.

Communalism is predicated on the concept that culture is zero-sum. So is the belief of the British National Party that Britain belongs to the Whites, and that White culture should assume the place of honour in Britain. Communalism divides people into arbitrary groups decided by the basis of birth. It may preserve each individual culture, but in the long run, it holds back the development of a unifying culture worth more than the sum of the cultures that made it.

Furthermore, communalism generates friction between the groups it arbitrarily creates, making it an untenable philosophy. Communalism operates on the presumption that each culture has very different interests, hence the creation of different racial-based parties such as UMNO, MCA and MIC. This is patently false. All people innately share similar needs and wants - we will all perish if we do not eat. As a result, there is room for people of different cultures to work together.

Communalism prevents the development of a spectrum of wide beliefs - I can agree with some Malays that vernacular schools harm the country, but I can never join UMNO, where I have a better chance of expressing my views (in this instance) and having them put into action. This can often lead to clearly inappropriate results. For instance, let's say 49% of all Chinese, Malays and Indians agree with A and 51% don't. The three elected leaders of MCA, UMNO and MIC will therefore disagree with A. Therefore, the opinions of 49% of the population go unheard. It is presumed race and political ideology correspond exactly in a 1-to-1 manner. However, they clearly don't, as anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell you.

Iraq is split into a Kurdish north and an Arab south. Yes, it is a divided nation but does that matter?
Iraq itself is an artifical construction, arbitrarily drawn up by Britain. It should never have been created.

No one American can agree on a racial or a religious issue yet they have managed to build a great nation.
But note the lack of publicly-funded communal vernacular schools. Note the irrelevance (and in some territories, illegality) of race-based parties. Note that the people of America call themselves Americans first, not Whites or Blacks or Californians or New Yorkers or Christians or Atheists. You ask any American his ultimate defining characteristic, and the huge odds are is that it will be his American-ness. We Malaysians, because of communalism, have no such pride in calling ourselves Malaysian. We call ourselves Malay, Chinese and Indian. (Or, as in the case of some, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu.) We are not united as a nation. That is what communalism does to a country.

It's a blatant misrepresentation to cite America as an example of communalism. Either you and I have different definitions of the word, or you have misunderstood what the United States is founded on. It is built on power to the individual and his community, not the individual and his race. You are welcome anywhere in the United States - not just in certain designated "Asian quarters" - whatever your race is. And that is why America has become a superpower - its acceptance (not mere tolerance) of people, and its assimilation of them into its culture. These assimilated people don't lose their culture - instead, they contribute it to American culture. Assimilation does not alter your culture - it alters the culture you are assimilated into.

User61:
Your views sound oddly similar to one "budakcina" from Malaysia Today. I hope you aren't the same person.

I think vernacular schools are detrimental to our country because they encourage insulation and communalism, not because of the language or whatever. The problem is that our national schools are essentially Malay vernacular schools, not national schools.
User61
Member
Posts: 17
IP Logged
Posted at 4:07:47 am Nov 20, 2005
I've never went to the Malaysia-Today site until a few minutes ago.
tanstaafl
Member
Posts: 9
IP Logged
Posted at 2:16:50 pm Mar 16, 2007
In your comparison of developing countries, I note that you mentioned "history" as a possible big contributor to the current state of a country.

I believe its equally important to consider the extent to which the former colonialist or superpowers or both continued to influence the politics and leadership of those countries.

Whilst evidence is spotty, it would seem clear that outside intervention in South American and African countries since their independence has had huge detrimental effects on countries there. Asia has perhaps been more fortunate due to its distance and the significant cultural dissimilarity with the former colonialists powers.
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 948
IP Logged
Posted at 11:48:32 pm Mar 16, 2007
It's true outside intervention probably plays a role, but if you want to go by a foreign presence post-independence, it wasn't so long ago that the Brits and Aussies had troops stationed in Malaysia and Singapore. ;) I think the strongest factor is history - those colonised by benevolent people interested in maintaining a civil society (e.g. the British) have almost invariably been better off than those colonised by people only interested in exploiting the country's resources.
whodhellknew
Member
Posts: 17
IP Logged
Posted at 11:22:07 pm Apr 14, 2007
With relation to language, why not go with the American Way - no official language, but a language of government.

In any case there are similarities between Malaysia and SA, but if you look close enough, you'll always find similarties between any two countries in the world. Magazine columnists would have much less to write about otherwise.

The proportions based on ethnicity in SA is much more skewed than Malaysia: over 80% are blacks. Of course we could go on deeper and dissect the black population into separate groups as well. Due to history, not many blacks are fond of the Zulus, so there would be friction there. But years of collective oppression has agglutinated the community into one nearly coherent group.

The biggest difference between our two countries are however, our general commercial culture. SA had a Western influenced capitalist culture that has helped it raise high tech industries and rather highly competitive ones such as the arms industry. Malaysia has no such thing.

But there is one striking similarity, between the two: the resilience of rural culture and life, ranging from the continued prevalence of shamanic beliefs (paralleled here by bomohs) and the general wealth gap between the two worlds.

cheers


Latest:
Unity That Matters: Reclaiming Our Non-Racial Past
Popular:
Why Anwar's Arrest Matters for Liberty and Justice

Most Recently Read

  1. A New Selangor State Government
  2. Singapore Does Everything Better
  3. Abdullah Badawi Gets Married (Again)
  4. Why Anwar's Arrest Matters for Liberty and Justice
  5. How Do You Define Democracy?
  6. Conflating Head of Government and Head of State
  7. BERSIH Rally: A Waste of Our Taxes
  8. Pak Lah: To Resign or Not Resign
  9. Institutions, Not People, Make the Country
  10. The DAP and its weaknesses
Google
Latest active forum topics
Quoth the webserver...
I am in the pay of the United States government. If I vote against the administration I am voting against my commander-in-chief. If I vote for the administration in office I am being bought.
— George S. Patton
Poll
Sorry, only registered users may vote. Please register or login.

There are currently no polls running.