Why are We Still 'Malay, Chinese, Indian & Others' instead of 'Malaysian'?

To start, let me say that this will be a long read as I'll go through an interesting journey of politics in Malaysia from the past until the present, and hence, my short introduction: 

This is why we are still so racially divided till today. 

The introduction of the concept of 1 Malaysia in 16^th of September 2010 seven years ago marked an important moment in Malaysia, as it aims to build on the concept of inclusiveness which reinforce the national identity through various policies and measurements of all Malaysians regardless of race and ethnicity. 

We cannot discuss this issue in concrete without the brief introduction of a few theories: Systems Theory is an important concept in this discussion, whereby it applies the Easton’s Key Concept to describe how a policy is made, and how the outcome of the particular policy can impact the policy-maker. It started off by an input of demand from the community, which in turn supporting the politicians that are able to fulfill their demand, which then brought into the established political system for further decisions and actions. In this system called the Black-Box, policies are made and how the policies impact the community would in turn affect the support of the politicians that come out with the policy as a feedback mechanism in the system. 

Two more key theories that should be mentioned in this discussion of inclusiveness are the policies made on the horizontal inequalities (HI) and the policies on vertical inequalities (VI) in the society. VI policies are made on the idea of addressing social inequalities from universal perspective, regardless of race and ethnicity. However, HI policies counter VI policies with the argument that inter-ethnic conflicts and issues, social and economic differences should be solved by targeting the particular ethnic group that is in need of help. In other words, HI policies aim to solve race based issues through the usage of race-based policies, as they view that a pure vertical view of inequality provides no social perspective on the existing society organization. 

Henceforth, it is acknowledged that VI policies in Malaysia are not able to bring about inclusiveness in a multi-ethnic and Malaysians with difference identities due to how things work in the reality in the Black-Box. 

The concept of 1 Malaysia was a concept that was introduced after Prime Minister Najib stepped into the office post-GE 2008, which saw Barisan National losing two-thirds of majority, by only winning 38.1% of Chinese votes compared to 56.4% and losing a significant amount of Indian voters of only 8.3% of Indian votes in 2008 compared to 72.4% in GE 2004. As a result, Tun Abdullah Badawi, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, received all the blame for the lost and was replaced by Najib as the new Prime Minister of Malaysia. With the important concept of inclusiveness in mind, various policies and plans were introduced to reinforce the concept, from Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (BR1M) as a form of monetary support to different class of people in the society such as single individuals and low income family, Klinik Rakyat 1 Malaysia (KR1M) that provides their services to everyone for just RM1, and Perumahan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (PR1MA) that aims to provide affordable housing to the lower and middle class (B40 and M40) people in the country. On 22^nd of April 2009, Najib also announced the immediate dismantling of a rule that required companies in 27 service sub-sectors to set aside 30% of their company for Malay investors.(Sani, 2009)

The concept of 1 Malaysia led to the New Economic Model (NEM) from 2011 to 2020, which ultimately the key to lead Malaysia towards the achievement of Vision 2020. The first part of NEM called for a more liberalized economy and reduced government intervention when it was first launched in March 2010, of which it was considered a highly bold initiative by the government from its years of race based affirmative action practices since the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971. With the experienced and renowned advisory team with people such as Professor Tan Eu Chye and Professor Norma Mansor from University of Malaya in the board of NEM planning, NEM was claimed by the government as a plan that aimed to grow the economy by making private sector as the engine of growth to drive Malaysia towards a developed nation by 2020. 

NEM Part 1 was frank and bold. Not only had the policy admitted the economy of Malaysia was heavily intervened by the government and the dominant of Government Linked Companies (GLCs), leading to heavy and poor governance practices and underperformance issues within the economy, NEM had also stated the need for the economy to be liberalized in order to move forward and drive the growth of the nation. Moreover, Prime Minister Najib was the first Prime Minister to openly acknowledge the relationship between Malaysia’s economic structural problems with the NEP’s affirmative action policy since the 1970s on the one hand and the government’s Malay agenda on the other. (Jan, 2011)

However, both 1 Malaysia concept and NEM that were considered to be holding the value of inclusiveness of all Malaysians regardless of race and ethnicity were backfired upon their introduction. Upon the introduction of the concept of 1 Malaysia, the then Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin refuted the concept by stating that he was putting his ethnicity first, quoting “I am Malay first” as his priority compared to 1 Malaysia concept advocated by Najib(Chapman, 2010). Moreover, Tun Mahathir, the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia had openly expressed his distaste over the concept by stating that the concept was not well-defined and could be misinterpreted by different parties. Not only that, he also accused Najib’s act for doing away with affirmative action for the Bumiputera and ignoring their rights in order to be seen as supportive to the Chinese and Indians community (The Malay Mail, 2015). In a poll held by the Independent Merdeka Center, 46% of non-Malays interviewed viewed that the 1 Malaysia concept introduced by Najib was only a political tactic to attract the support of the non-Bumiputera community, and 39% of them viewed that Najib was not sincere in uniting all races in Malaysia. (Zalkapli, 2010)

NEM Part 1 also received backlash from the right wing Malay politicians and parties upon its launch such as Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa (Perkasa), quoting a lack of Malay agenda in the policy. With the pressure from the Malay nationalists, pro-Malay agendas were reintroduced in the concluding part of NEM. The boldness of NEM had been watered down due to the pressure from right-wing Malay politicians and parties. As an example, Part 1 of NEM suggested the creation of an Equal Opportunities Commission “to ensure fairness and address undue discrimination when occasional abuses by dominant groups are encountered”. However, the tone changed significantly in the concluding part of NEM, suggesting "targeted special programs for certain groups outside of the B40 should continue”. Rather than looking for ways to bring an end to ethnic-based affirmative action, the Concluding Part brought it back. The Equal Opportunities Commission was not mentioned anymore. (Jan, 2011)

In other words, the effort to constructing a sense of inclusiveness among Malaysians through various concepts and policies with pure vertical view in problem solving process have been faced with challenges and hurdles, and it is very interesting to study the factors or reasons behind these challenges to implement a VI policies for all people in need in Malaysia regardless of race and ethnicity. 

Timeline of Significant Policies in Malaysia's Development

First of all, Malaysia has been implementing race-based affirmative action since the introduction of NEP in 1971. While NEP as an ethnic based social restructuring agenda had managed to produce a vibrant Bumiputera middle class with its focus on education in the early 10 years in its implementation, the latter years of NEP had been focusing on wealth distribution, on which Tun Mahathir, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia wishes to produce rich Malays through selective patronage, producing Malay conglomerates such as Tajuddin Ramli with Celcom and Malaysia Airlines (MAS) through the Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Community (BCIC). The aim of these effort is to have Malays controlling 30% of the equity of all publicly quoted companies. When the NEP came to an end in 1990, Mahathir continued the affirmative action indefinitely with the latter policies such as the NDP. This race-based affirmative actions have created a serious sense of inequality in Malaysia among the minorities, as well as between the Malays themselves. The selection based on certain quotas to Bumiputeras in the bureaucracy and education have caused a sense of unfairness among ethnic minorities. Besides that, businessmen have lack of confidence in the government, pictured through the inadequate funding of research and development as well as for poor domestic investments was because of their fear of enterprises being appropriated through affirmative action as they grew(Gomez, The 11MP: What Happened to 'Market-Friendly Affirmative Action'?, 2015). Poverty among the majority was not taken care of as well, resulting in a large intra-ethnic disparity among the Malays themselves. Hence, Malays are not having a common ground on to keep race-based affirmative action and whether they are actually benefitting through government programs, with survey showing that 45% of Malays believe that government assistance programs only benefits the rich and politically connected sub-group of people (Zalkapli, 2010). The practice of race-based affirmative action had also seen to cause a severe backlash from the non-Bumiputeras when the 1 Malaysia concept was introduced by Najib, with many suggested that the concept was a political agenda to win the support of the Chinese and Indian community and Najib was not sincere in uniting all Malaysians. 

Besides that, Malaysia’s political environment does not allow our leaders to overlook the opinions and the voice of the major race-based parties and politicians, as they have the power to overthrow the leader. This can be shown from the pressure faced by the then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi during the latter years of his regime, such as a declaration of loss of confidence in him by the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) in 2008 and the urge for Badawi to step down by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and other Umno leaders (The Sun Daily, 2008). This is clearly reflected in the backlash of race-based right-wing politicians and Malay nationalists when Najib introduced the first part of NEM in 2010, with Malay rights group Perkasa hitting out on NEM for its “lack of Malay agenda and ambiguity of NEM” (The Star Online, 2010). As the president of the largest ethnic based political party UMNO, these voices within the community had restricted Najib in its implementation of VI based policies, as he will need to maintain the support of his party towards his leadership to maintain his hold on power. As a result, the boldness of NEM was watered down in its conclusion part despite the boldness in Part 1 was what that was really needed by the country to push the country forwards to achieve Vision 2020 and high growth by aiding the people in need regardless of race and ethnicity. In short, the sub-group of conglomerates within the controlling party have been deeply reliance and rooted with the aid and benefits of race-based affirmative action, and any implementation of policies that would potentially reduce their welfare would cause a severe backlash of them towards their leaders, henceforth limiting the leaders in executing VI based policies albeit those are the real needs of the Malaysian community.

The lack of time frame on race-based affirmative action has also caused serious identity issues among Malaysians, especially among the minorities. The effort to clear the gap between Bumiputeras and the minorities since the introduction of NEP had caused severe sense of inequality among ethnic minorities in Malaysia. This is especially true as the nature of race-based affirmative action such as NEP was continued even after its end in 1990 with the introduction with follow up policies such as the NDP. The indefinite implementation of HI policies by the leaders in power caused severe feeling of inequalities among the minorities, leading to event such as HINDRAF of the Indian community in 2007. 

Furthermore, there is a lack of transitional mechanism from race-based affirmative action to class-based and merit-based affirmative action throughout the policy-planning history of Malaysia. Policies were introduced to advocate inclusiveness among all Malaysians, yet it lacked in describing and proposing on how to transition the Malaysian community that is already living so long under race-based policies to policies that are based on class, needs and merits. As an example, a rural student would not be as equipped to enter the university as compared to an urban area student, hence led to the questioning on the fairness of merit-based selection among the Malaysian community. As Professor Lee Hwok Aun said in his own words: “The inability to completely depart from group representation demonstrates that racial representation does matter, especially in high positions in public institutions.” (Lee, 2012)

In conclusion, the construction of inclusiveness in a multiethnic Malaysia through VI policies have not been successful. Instead of forming a Malaysia with stronger national identity, the introduction of VI policies and concepts such as 1 Malaysia and NEM instead spurred up debates on ethnic identity within the society, leading to the failure of Malaysian leaders to let go of the long-practiced HI race-based affirmative action with the introduction of market-friendly affirmative action by Najib in his 10^th Malaysia Plan. This is mainly the politics played within the Black-Box, with the existence of race based political party, in this case UMNO that caused Malaysian leader unable to oversee the voice of the people within, although a proposed policy is what the society really needs to move the country forward and drive the growth of the nation. An affirmative action would need to have a specific time-span, shift in focus and a transparency in implementation and transition in order to ensure the best of all classes of people in Malaysia.

References

Chapman, K. (2010, April 01). Muhyiddin: I am a Malay first and Malaysian at heart. Retrieved from The Star Online: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2010/04/01/muhyiddin-i-am-a-malay-first-and-malaysian-at-heart/

Gomez, E. T. (2015, June 12). The 11MP: What Happened to 'Market-Friendly Affirmative Action'?Retrieved from Kinibiz Online: http://www.kinibiz.com/story/opinions/172748/the-11mp-what-happened-to-market-friendly-affirmative-action.html

Gomez, E. T. (2015). The 11th Malaysia Plan: Covertly Persisting with Market-friendly Affirmative Action? Taylor & Francis Online, 511 - 513.

Jan, W. S. (2011). Malaysia’s New Economic Model - Is the Malaysian government serious about economic liberalisation? Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, 50 - 53.

Lee, H. A. (2012, June 11). Malaysia After Regime Change. Retrieved from New Mandala: http://www.newmandala.org/malaysia-after-regime-change-lee-hwok-aun/

Sani, M. A. (2009). Malaysia in Transition: A Comparative Analysis of Asian Values, Islam Hadhari and 1malaysia. Journal of Polictics and Law, 7.

The Malay Mail. (2015, April 20). Dr M: 1Malaysia just like opposition’s ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ .Retrieved from Malaymail Online: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-1malaysia-just-like-oppositions-malaysian-malaysia

The Star Online. (2010, April 2). Perkasa: NEM lacks Malay agenda. Retrieved from The Star Online: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2010/04/02/perkasa-nem-lacks-malay-agenda/

The Sun Daily. (2008, June 19). SAPP declares loss of confidence in PM Abdullah. Retrieved from The Sun Daily: http://www.thesundaily.my/node/165322

Zalkapli, A. (2010, July 09). Poll shows divided Malays. Retrieved from Merdeka Center For Opinion Research: http://merdeka.org/media/210-090710.html