Of Towers and Towering Malays
Towering Malays. Welcome to one of the new slogans, under the current administration.
It was mentioned by no less than the Prime Minister, Pak Lah, himself, during an UMNO gathering. He felt that for the Malays and Malaysia to move forward - these "towering Malays" must emerge from the masses.
How did he define these "Towering Malays"? Well Pak Lah defined it as:
"Malays who should stand head and shoulders above his
peers, as icons of high intellect, with high values, a successful
career, good economic standing and well-respected culture and religion"
On the reason why, Pak Lah mentioned to reporters later:
We want to empower the Malays. We want individuals who are successful
and be excellent in education and the career he or she chooses. We want
individuals who are cultured, who have a high sense of integrity and
who are an asset and a pride to our people and the country".
Reading the trends of the PM's public announcements lately, it is quite obvious that the main focus of the Abdullah administration is the development of Malaysian human capital (as opposed to Dr. Mahathir's more manufacturing and infrastructure-driven agenda). And more so, in striving to achieve the Bumiputera equity, industry and professional sector participation targets of 30%, as set out under the New Economic Policy in 1972 and its spin-off, the National Development Policy, from the 90's onwards.
After all, expanding the economic pie, eradicating absolute and relative poverty, increasing access to higher education, maintaining racial economic balance between the races and enlarging a gainfully employed Malay middle-class, is the bedrock of political stability in Malaysia.
It's a formula that has worked (and performed particular well during the Mahathir era economic boom between 1988 -1996) - but one that is finding it increasingly difficult, to continue being effective in a globalized and competitive world - where tariffs are coming don and world-class products are crossing national borders at increasingly lower prices.
Maintaining equitable economic balance pre-supposes that economic growth will continue at a pace where distribution can be done equitably, for all races. It pre-supposes that we can partake a part of the global bounties available out there, where our local products are sold overseas and are of world-class quality and competitively priced.
These are the assumptions that have to continue, if Malaysia is to remain viable as a country. As the old saying goes - "It's the economy, stupid". And Pak Lah aims to bring out "towering Malays", so that the Malays may be empowered to adapt, to the to the challenging and changing environment.
It makes sense. But like previous slogans, that have come before it - there are many paradoxes that exist in our attempt to seek out the "towering Malays".
First, the definition. It emphasizes an individual with high intellect and education, strong moral values and integrity, financially successful and "cultured". He is assumed to be an asset and a source of pride to the country - so, there is an assumption of high-performance, that one can be proud of.
The problem with defining qualitative measures like these, is that they are relative. Who defines the persons that deserve to be a towering Malay?
A person may be all of the above, but a womanizer or was financially corrupt in climbing his way to the top, be it in the corporate or political sphere. Or he may be all of the above - but not financially successful. Or he may be all of the above - but would never appreciate his own culture or language - be considered "Westernized" or "liberal".
Or, he may be all of the above - and not necessarily be considered an intellectual, by any measure. Or divorced, leaving a trail of broken families and children that are permanently scarred. Or, he may be all of the above - but lacks the courage to back up his integrity and good intentions.
Do we not recognize them for their towering qualities, because they don't satisfy the definition? And how do we know, if they really did? Picking heroes and role models are never easy, because they're all humans and our degree of inspection is far too limited.
And whose standards, perspective and yardstick shall we use? The KL executive? The farmer in Kedah? The trader in Kelantan? The natives of Sabah and Sarawak?
Secondly, the environment to create these "towering Malays". Is the environment conducive?
The paradox about affirmative action like the NEP (aside from the eradicating poverty aspects) is that while it aims to strengthen the target community, it has the indirect effect of strengthening the excluded community, even more.
The Chinese community in Malaysia has strengthened, precisely because of the circumstances which ensured that their opportunities for Government scholarships, jobs and projects are limited.
Their linkages have strengthened due to the "siege mentality" derived from positive discrimination. Their foray into consumer, construction, property development, education, manufacturing, trading, logistics and professional sectors have been driven by the need to create their own opportunities and expand their markets.
And some, have also taken advantage of the "Ali Baba" behaviour of some Malays (mainly politically-related types) who have received contracts from the Government, only to sub-contract all, if not the bulk, of the work to the Chinese contractors. And the Malays get weaker, building wealth without building corresponding capabilities, despite the abundant opportunities awarded by the Government.
The paradox of affirmative action is this: it can reduce poverty, but it cannot truly equalize - and much lesser still, bring one to a dominant position. It can create a middle class via access to education (which is correct) - but only adversity and challenges, can ensure that the middle class is competitive.
Adversity builds strength - you cannot chase an opponent that is exposed to adversity everyday, when you're not. And more often than not, the insulation provided to the target community of the affirmative action, makes them soft, lazy and unable to compete without the insulation.
Ironically, it is the insulation mechanism of receiving the Government largesse that is defeating the Malay community, in the long run. People who are spoonfed, have not learnt how to hunt.
The feudal nature of the patronage system, ensures that the system can only be as clean, as the individuals that participate in them. If you have corrupt leaders at any level), then the system will be corrupt. The rule is simple: comply, participate or get excluded. Enforced at all levels by individual greed, the system becomes endemically corrupt.
Needless to say - "towering Malays" cannot be created and prosper, in such an environment.
In a feudal culture, those who stand up to authority will be mowed down, sabotaged or destroyed. It is a place where power rules, and not values. And Malays with towering qualities of education and integrity, will find the system working against them - and their stand and criticisms misconstrued, as personal opposition to leaders and powers-that-be.
Having principles and standing up for it, in our system, will cost you - sometimes, quite a lot. Believe me. And sometimes, potential "towering Malays" leave the shores of this country, packing along their idealism while others who remain behind, "mature" and learn to accept the status quo. And with their silence, mediocrity breeds even further.
Perhaps, the greatest paradox that Pak Lah may discover, is that the "towering Malays" he hopes to unearth, will find the current nature of his party, the biggest stumbling block to realizing their own and the country's full potential.
It's a sad day indeed when what was meant to be a temporary crutch for the Malays, now holds the potential of becoming its guillotine, in the future.
My advice to Pak Lah? Lead by example, be the principal "towering Malay" and push for the necessary reforms, that are retarding our people. Retain what is good and works (like eradication of poverty) but eliminate the things which makes the Malays uncompetitive, in the economic world.
Loosen the political stranglehold via patronage and let the Malays compete in substance. See them grow via a "siege mentality" and extending their partnerships with both Malays and non-Malays, to conquer a global market.
Other "towering Malays" will emerge behind you and support you in your wake, Pak Lah, I promise. However, avoid doing this - and you will only be left with the towers from the Mahathir era.
It was mentioned by no less than the Prime Minister, Pak Lah, himself, during an UMNO gathering. He felt that for the Malays and Malaysia to move forward - these "towering Malays" must emerge from the masses.
How did he define these "Towering Malays"? Well Pak Lah defined it as:
"Malays who should stand head and shoulders above his
peers, as icons of high intellect, with high values, a successful
career, good economic standing and well-respected culture and religion"
On the reason why, Pak Lah mentioned to reporters later:
We want to empower the Malays. We want individuals who are successful
and be excellent in education and the career he or she chooses. We want
individuals who are cultured, who have a high sense of integrity and
who are an asset and a pride to our people and the country".
Reading the trends of the PM's public announcements lately, it is quite obvious that the main focus of the Abdullah administration is the development of Malaysian human capital (as opposed to Dr. Mahathir's more manufacturing and infrastructure-driven agenda). And more so, in striving to achieve the Bumiputera equity, industry and professional sector participation targets of 30%, as set out under the New Economic Policy in 1972 and its spin-off, the National Development Policy, from the 90's onwards.
After all, expanding the economic pie, eradicating absolute and relative poverty, increasing access to higher education, maintaining racial economic balance between the races and enlarging a gainfully employed Malay middle-class, is the bedrock of political stability in Malaysia.
It's a formula that has worked (and performed particular well during the Mahathir era economic boom between 1988 -1996) - but one that is finding it increasingly difficult, to continue being effective in a globalized and competitive world - where tariffs are coming don and world-class products are crossing national borders at increasingly lower prices.
Maintaining equitable economic balance pre-supposes that economic growth will continue at a pace where distribution can be done equitably, for all races. It pre-supposes that we can partake a part of the global bounties available out there, where our local products are sold overseas and are of world-class quality and competitively priced.
These are the assumptions that have to continue, if Malaysia is to remain viable as a country. As the old saying goes - "It's the economy, stupid". And Pak Lah aims to bring out "towering Malays", so that the Malays may be empowered to adapt, to the to the challenging and changing environment.
It makes sense. But like previous slogans, that have come before it - there are many paradoxes that exist in our attempt to seek out the "towering Malays".
First, the definition. It emphasizes an individual with high intellect and education, strong moral values and integrity, financially successful and "cultured". He is assumed to be an asset and a source of pride to the country - so, there is an assumption of high-performance, that one can be proud of.
The problem with defining qualitative measures like these, is that they are relative. Who defines the persons that deserve to be a towering Malay?
A person may be all of the above, but a womanizer or was financially corrupt in climbing his way to the top, be it in the corporate or political sphere. Or he may be all of the above - but not financially successful. Or he may be all of the above - but would never appreciate his own culture or language - be considered "Westernized" or "liberal".
Or, he may be all of the above - and not necessarily be considered an intellectual, by any measure. Or divorced, leaving a trail of broken families and children that are permanently scarred. Or, he may be all of the above - but lacks the courage to back up his integrity and good intentions.
Do we not recognize them for their towering qualities, because they don't satisfy the definition? And how do we know, if they really did? Picking heroes and role models are never easy, because they're all humans and our degree of inspection is far too limited.
And whose standards, perspective and yardstick shall we use? The KL executive? The farmer in Kedah? The trader in Kelantan? The natives of Sabah and Sarawak?
Secondly, the environment to create these "towering Malays". Is the environment conducive?
The paradox about affirmative action like the NEP (aside from the eradicating poverty aspects) is that while it aims to strengthen the target community, it has the indirect effect of strengthening the excluded community, even more.
The Chinese community in Malaysia has strengthened, precisely because of the circumstances which ensured that their opportunities for Government scholarships, jobs and projects are limited.
Their linkages have strengthened due to the "siege mentality" derived from positive discrimination. Their foray into consumer, construction, property development, education, manufacturing, trading, logistics and professional sectors have been driven by the need to create their own opportunities and expand their markets.
And some, have also taken advantage of the "Ali Baba" behaviour of some Malays (mainly politically-related types) who have received contracts from the Government, only to sub-contract all, if not the bulk, of the work to the Chinese contractors. And the Malays get weaker, building wealth without building corresponding capabilities, despite the abundant opportunities awarded by the Government.
The paradox of affirmative action is this: it can reduce poverty, but it cannot truly equalize - and much lesser still, bring one to a dominant position. It can create a middle class via access to education (which is correct) - but only adversity and challenges, can ensure that the middle class is competitive.
Adversity builds strength - you cannot chase an opponent that is exposed to adversity everyday, when you're not. And more often than not, the insulation provided to the target community of the affirmative action, makes them soft, lazy and unable to compete without the insulation.
Ironically, it is the insulation mechanism of receiving the Government largesse that is defeating the Malay community, in the long run. People who are spoonfed, have not learnt how to hunt.
The feudal nature of the patronage system, ensures that the system can only be as clean, as the individuals that participate in them. If you have corrupt leaders at any level), then the system will be corrupt. The rule is simple: comply, participate or get excluded. Enforced at all levels by individual greed, the system becomes endemically corrupt.
Needless to say - "towering Malays" cannot be created and prosper, in such an environment.
In a feudal culture, those who stand up to authority will be mowed down, sabotaged or destroyed. It is a place where power rules, and not values. And Malays with towering qualities of education and integrity, will find the system working against them - and their stand and criticisms misconstrued, as personal opposition to leaders and powers-that-be.
Having principles and standing up for it, in our system, will cost you - sometimes, quite a lot. Believe me. And sometimes, potential "towering Malays" leave the shores of this country, packing along their idealism while others who remain behind, "mature" and learn to accept the status quo. And with their silence, mediocrity breeds even further.
Perhaps, the greatest paradox that Pak Lah may discover, is that the "towering Malays" he hopes to unearth, will find the current nature of his party, the biggest stumbling block to realizing their own and the country's full potential.
It's a sad day indeed when what was meant to be a temporary crutch for the Malays, now holds the potential of becoming its guillotine, in the future.
My advice to Pak Lah? Lead by example, be the principal "towering Malay" and push for the necessary reforms, that are retarding our people. Retain what is good and works (like eradication of poverty) but eliminate the things which makes the Malays uncompetitive, in the economic world.
Loosen the political stranglehold via patronage and let the Malays compete in substance. See them grow via a "siege mentality" and extending their partnerships with both Malays and non-Malays, to conquer a global market.
Other "towering Malays" will emerge behind you and support you in your wake, Pak Lah, I promise. However, avoid doing this - and you will only be left with the towers from the Mahathir era.
posted by Stingrayz | 10:03 PM
6 Comments:
Good post albeit a tad idealistic. Pak Lah can only lead as long as there are people who are willing to follow his lead. How many people - Malays or Chinese - are willing to fight for the good of the nation over their own good? The system of patronage and affirmative action plans will likely outlast Pak Lah himself if he chooses to try to start dismantling it.
If Pak Lah wants to fight the system, does he have enough troops on his side?
Well said Stingray.
Pak Lah seems like a man who walks the talk and I think we should give Malaysians more credit. Not all of us are unwilling to fight for the good of the nation over our selves. Not all of us can be swayed by position, power, and wealth.
There is a generation of Malaysians, like Stingray and his friends, who strive for prosperity and not merely wealth. These are people who, when Pak Lah decides to go full blast into reforming the system and changing our country one Malaysian at a time, will stand by his side, not because of any political affiliations, but for love of country and most of all, because it's the right thing to do.
Interesting points. Perhaps Pak Lah was more concerned with creating the ideal of the Towering Malay for people to strive to as opposed to creating a role for the people to fulfil. In any case, I have to agree with lastjan - leaders can only lead as long as there are those who will follow. The problem with the crutch is that it is seen as a right, and rights are not easily given up. The average Malay still does not see the debilitating effects of these so-called advantages. And while the learned do, they are still in the minority. And, like it or not, most of the learned preach to the converted. They speak to those who are already able to see the problems themselves, and most are unable to communicate these ideas to the masses. We had such a discussion once, and someone pointed out that all the learned are doing are talking, and talking amongst themselves at that. It remains a valid point, even today. The man with his kerbau or the woman in the paddy fields will not care about what is good or bad for the nation. They are rightly more concerned with putting food on the table and providing for their family. And while reforms are necessary to bring our economy up to par, politics will get in the way. It is unlikely that those who clamour for change will remain in power to implement that change. Education is paramount - only the ability to think, and rationally at that, will bring about a shift in attitudes.
MzMin
Hey folks!
Thanks for jumping in and responding to the topic. :)
LastJan:
I don't think getting the troops is the problem - there are many who fear the direction (or more aptly, the lack of direction) in which this country is heading.
And not being involved (directly) within the political system, they feel helpless to do anything about it.
I think the main stumbling block is whether UMNO would admit that they've made some mistakes and a big U-turn in policy is necessary to make sure, that those excesses don't sink us, as a country.
Change the information, press freedom and media landscape, give fewer one-sided stories from Government media and inform the people of the urgency of the situation and the need for some painful changes. That's what they need to do. It's necessary.
Najah:
I don't doubt that Pak Lah means what he says. It's whether he has the strength and courage to walk what he means, that matters.
The jury's still out on that one. And if he doesn't move soon, the Opposition is going to have a field day in 5 years.
Zsarina:
Agreed. But he must have the courage to risk losing his seat, in order to save the party.
MzMin:
You're right, to a certain extent. But it's not the poor in the villages (or the urban areas) that we should be taking away the rights from - it's the middle-class and above.
Preferably those who are graduates, professional or within the business/entrepreneurship class or senior civil service class.
Crutches should only remain, with people who cannot walk - the poor, be it relative or absolute.
It can be done gradually and I think the positive effects will be seen fairly soon, in the medium term, as they buck up. It will produce the sort of Malays you can be truly proud of.
It is the middle-class (and above)educated and professional class that we're trying to convert - first.
And these are the same people that are destroying the Malays and UMNO, with their concession seeking mentality - and believe me they're not doing it for the sake of the rural or urban poor Malays, anywhere.
They're milking the Government and nation dry, and selling the concessions today, to drive that BMW tomorrow - literally.
And some in the senior civil service -hardly show any urgency in their posh multi-million RM Putrajaya offices.
Sometimes, crucial policy decisions which in Singapore would take a team of 30 of their brightest, a period of 2 years, is done by a team of 3 average senior civil servants, (going home consistently at 5) a period of 6 months.
Same serious issue, but with lack of emphasis, proper planning, resources and urgency, on our side.
Yes, you're right, Min, the education must continue, to the unconverted.
And preaching to the unconverted will require a freer media environment, where we can teach the Malay middle class, that the the Government is incapable of holding up the crutches for long, in a globalized world - not without destroying the Malays (or Malaysia)in 20-30 years.
It has to be debated out by the Malay media and masses and the patronage slowly phased out, starting from the top level - break the monopolies from some of the GLCs.
If the new generation of professional GLC managers are worth their salt, they'll survive the competition - and perhaps, even learn to expand their markets agressively, regionally.
The big question is: Will UMNO ever admit that it will not (realistically) be able to protect the Malays anymore (and to secure the 30% NEP Malay equity targets), risking a vote-losing proposition?
It would take a courageous leader to risk himself and the party, to save the country.
And we shall have to wait and see whether Pak Lah (or anyone that comes after him) has the courage for it.
While the reformation to the rights may not take away from the lower economic class, you must remember that they may not see it that way. Like it or not, the lower economic classes do not have access to education as the middle and upper classes do. This means that they are more susceptible to propoganda, rumours, and brain-washing. We discussed the issue of freedom of press in Malaysia at an LSE power potluck once, and we realised that if the people are not properly the ability to think rationally and openly, freedom of press could be a dangerous thing. While I do not agree that the press should be policed as aggresively as it is currently, there is some sense to these protectionist measures. There are plenty of those who take whatever they read as fact instead of opinion, and in the wrong hands, freedom of press could be a weapon of phenomenal proportions against these people.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist. I just think that a sudden shock to this archaic system and society may not be the best thing
Just my 2 cents :)
MzMin
I see your point, Min.
I'm not suggesting that it has to be a sudden shock and tomorrow, press freedom becomes the norm ala developed countries.
What I'm saying, is that the Government should be more honest about the current situation and present our limited options for the future. Change has to come and it has to be informed to the people, gradually.
Some things should still remain beyond press freedom in Malaysia - for instance, people who instigate racial animosity and hatred.
But I think the poor people can only be more informed if they can read and judge for themselves, the merits of the argument on both sides in the media.
They may not be as (formally) educated as the middle and upper classes, but if we don't give them a chance to think for themselves, they will not.
If it doesn't happen via the formal media and they lose their faith in the mainstream media, this is where the inclination to believe in rumours and propaganda begins.
When we treat people like children and insist they can only be given one version of the truth (which is usually one-sided), they will naturally seek out alternative explanations - which may, or may not be correct.
(And this is usually exploited by racial or religious bigots, to instill fear and mislead people)
Only debate in the mainstream media will allow people to think rationally and give them both sides of the story, with accountability.
And if it's wrong, they can always sue the newspapers or the individuals making the remark.
And sometimes, the truth can be experienced at their level too - there's no point telling them how prosperous the country is, if they can feel the poverty and hypocrisy of certain economic measures (usually, via bad implementation of Government policy measures) at their doorstep.
The poor are cynical over politics in this country, as they know that those in the higher economic classes that represent them as their elected representatives, do not really have their interest at heart.
I think the poor would welcome it if the resources of Government were more focused on the deserving getting assistance, as opposed to the wealthier classes with vested interests and their rent-seeking behaviour.
We have to teach society to evolve to a more issues-based politics, as opposed to one that rests firmly on the racial and religious divide (be it inter or intra).
And this form of informal education, can only happen through the media. The formal education system is too bureaucratic, weak and rigid to institutionalise the mindset changes, within time.
On another note - am glad that the Power Potluck is still going on in the LSE. :)
I was involved in the first few years of it (even though I came from the university across the street at The Strand ;)) with its proactive founder, Gabriel Ng of Malaysia Club, LSE.
Post a Comment
<< Home