Apartheid and Protectionism, Internal Issues?
Ah, another chapter in the neverending story of the Never Ending Policy (or as some still call it, the New Economic Policy). This time, the head of the European Commission's delegation to Malaysia, Thierry Rommel, has gotten in trouble for speaking some basic truths about economic policy.
Basically, if the BBC is telling the truth (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), Rommel labeled the faulty economic policies of the government which supposedly are meant to address the identification of race with socioeconomic function as nothing more than an excuse for "significant protectionism".
Rommel is basically speaking the truth. Once things have gotten to the point where firms refuse to do business with non-Bumiputra owned companies, it's really apartheid — and mind you, Rommel never touched on the racial aspect, just on the unfair protectionism of these policies which are no longer predicated on equality, but inequality.
Naturally, the establishment roared in anger. Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak accused Rommel of making comments which could be "construed as trying to interfere in the internal administration of the country" (a rather equivocal condemnation, if you ask me, since it implies there are other possible interpretations of Rommel's remarks).
One minister (who the BBC left unnamed, perhaps to protect the guilty) went as far as to call Rommel's statement "arrogant and extreme". I guess the truth hurts, doesn't it?
For the life of me, I cannot see what is wrong with what Rommel said. How are Malaysia's trade policies solely confined to "internal administration of the country"? These are a crucial part of our foreign policy!
The US-Malaysia FTA has already been delayed by our protectionist economic policies, and the same looks to be happening with the potential for talks of a European FTA.
That our racial economic policies are protectionist and discourage foreign investment has already been recognised by our government, which acted to dismantle such barriers in the Iskandar Development Region. Why should we criticise Rommel if we ourselves have admitted he is right?
Rommel was later summoned to the Foreign Ministry to explain himself, and he seems to have emerged unscathed. Those people at Wisma Putra probably know who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
There was no reason at all to jump over Rommel for his statement when we have already admitted that his contention is true. We have to face the reality of our unequal policies, and strive for true equality of opportunity.
(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: 953 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 (6 comments not shown): | |
|
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: 10 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: 953 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 |
|
rieman01
Member Posts: 1 IP Logged | Posted at 6:29:04 am Nov 8, 2009
read this one...it's getting serious....I'm doing some studies on apartheid. There are not many places you can go to this days. South Africa has abandon it. http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_it-s-apartheid-says-poet-who-fled-malaysia_1135947 |
