Top Quotes: “The Malay Dilemma Revisited: Race Dynamics in Modern Malaysia” — M. Bakri Musa
“In 2004, an inter-ministerial task force began to address the problem of income inequality. In 2006–07, an entire basket of programs to assist the working poor was implemented. The most groundbreaking of these is Workfare. After studying the various forms of public assistance around the world, Singapore’s answer was similar to the system practiced in the American state of Wisconsin. The underlying principle is to reward the poor for working. Anyone over the age of 35 who works at least six months of the year and earns less than $1,500 a month, the government will match their pay by as much as 20 percent a year. Along with Workfare were initiatives that use existing institutions to provide a stronger safety net. The limits on subsidies to the poor to purchase HDB apartments were increased by 50 percent to $30,000. Bonuses were placed in the CPF accounts of the working poor and the elderly. Government subsidies for medical care were increased on a means test basis, and aid for education was expanded.
While this might not seem impressive by some standards, in Singapore it was dramatic. Sylvia Lim, a NCMP from the Workers’ Party, labeled the measures as “radical.” She said, “We have always lived under this system where you have to earn every cent that you get basically, and now the government recognizes that there are some people who just can’t earn enough.””
“What changed and galvanized Malays politically was the overreaching attempt by the British to establish a Malayan Union shortly after World War II. That would have made the country a permanent British dominion. Malays viewed this development as the ultimate surrender of their sovereignty. They had already lost their hold on the country’s economy, now they stood to lose political power as well. Malays risked being marginalized. They envisioned a fate worse than those of Australian Aborigines and American Native Indians.
The Union proposal nearly succeeded, with the sultans set to sign the historic document. Malay rakyats (citizens) however, were sufficiently incensed that they were able to mobilize and organize themselves out of their collective slumber in relatively short order. Led by capable and farsighted leaders Malays, with stunning effectiveness, stopped the constitutional process in its track. The Malayan Union proposal failed ignominiously. Malays had taken on, politically, the mighty British and won. Malays surprised even themselves!”
“Malaysia has more royal heads than any other nation. It has nine sultans, four non-royal governors who behave just as regally, and the Sultan of all Sultans, the Supreme Ruler for the whole country. The nation is unique in that the Supreme Ruler is elected by his brother sultans. Each sultan supports an elaborate system of extended royal families, nobility, and assorted hangers-on. There is indeed a surfeit of blue blood and their pretenders, with the civil list long and royal emoluments substantial.”
“The royals get, well, royal treatment, with generous civil allowances for themselves and their ever expanding extended families. Their royal pedigree opens up lucrative business opportunities and government contracts, possibilities not readily available to commoners. The luxurious perks lavished on them and their preoccupation with extravagant ceremonies and glamorous events make them essentially expensive constitutional ornaments.
It is no surprise then that ministers and department heads outdo themselves to mimic the sultans. These officials behave more like ceremonial heads rather than chief executives of their respective agencies. They delegate their work and defer important decisions to their subordinates while they become totally preoccupied with the grandeur of their office and ceremonial minutiae. They have come to believe that whatever they say will automatically be done, just like the sultan’s titah (royal command).”
“As late as 1960's, royal influence rarely extended much beyond the surrounding villages. In urban communities (except royal towns like Johor Baru and Pekan) and in villages away from palaces, royalties were irrelevant. But with the help of modern media and the government’s emphasis on matters royal, the sultans’ influences have extended throughout the nation. And with their greater exposure old feudal habits get resurrected.
In the past the sultans treated the villages and their inhabitants as royal possessions. It was common practice for a sultan on his regular rounds to pick the fairest maiden for his palace pleasure. For the involved families, such events were looked upon favorably, a chance for the infusion of royal genes into the family tree, much like a traditional Chinese family pleased when their daughter was seized for the Emperor’s concubine collection. Nor were village males spared. Malay peasants with minor transgressions had been forced into essential slavery in the palaces – orang hamba (lit. servants).
In feudal times such plunderings were tolerated because the loot, apart from the village maidens, consisted perhaps of a prized buffalo or two. But in modern Malaysia the consequences of such errant behaviors are considerably more destructive. When a sultan commandeered a Malaysia Airline’s 747, not only did it cost the company a bundle in lost revenue, but considerably much more in goodwill from outraged stranded passengers.”
“When China took over Hong Kong, only ethnic Chinese of that island were granted citizenship of China, but not non-Chinese. Nor were the British any more generous in granting its citizenship to non-Britons of that colony. In contrast, it granted automatic British passports to citizens of her other colonies – Malta and Falkland – simply because they were Anglo Saxons.”
“In 1950's and 60's, it was generally assumed that Malays had no concept of the value of savings. The greater the inducement (higher interest rates) the less responsive Malays were. It appeared to conventional economists that Malays did not react to the usual pecuniary incentives. It took the brilliance of an indigenous economist, Ungku Aziz, to appreciate that, on the contrary, Malays were indeed diligent savers.
Visit any kampong house and there standing in the hallway is a bamboo stem, tabong, with a small opening at the top for the homeowner to stuff his money. When the time of need comes, the bamboo is simply split open and out comes the savings. Malay villagers save for pilgrimage to Mecca (dear to all Muslims), their children, weddings, and old age. That they did not use conventional institutions like banks merely reflected their distrust for such bodies. To compound the issue, Malays equate interest with usury, which is prohibited in Islam.
To overcome traditional Malay reluctance with banks, Ungku Aziz proposed an independent trust fund. He shrewdly called it Tabong Haji, thus taking full advantage of the association of the words “Tabong” with savings, frugality, and prudence; and “Haji” to add an Islamic cachet to the whole endeavor. To enhance its attractiveness, Tabong Haji was explicitly prohibited from investing in companies involved in activities at variance with Islamic values. (Such “social agenda” mutual funds are very much in vogue in America today.) Unlike traditional bank lending, the fund would swap equity participation in these new enterprises, much like modern venture capitalists. Malays could now save with an institution of their own, confident that their money would not be used to fund some casinos or other un-Islamic investments.
Tabong Haji was an instant success. The cachet of Islam (and Mecca) again, sells. Ungku Aziz rightly convinced fellow Muslims that the earnings and returns are not interests but benefits (faedah) or dividends-thus very Islamic. Today Tabong Haji is one of the largest mutual funds in Southeast Asia, with over 3.4 million depositors. Its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur is an imposing architectural landmark. A tribute to the productive imagination of one man.
The brilliant man that he is, Ungku Aziz’s many contributions are legendary. As a scholar, he advanced greatly the body of knowledge on Malaysian economics. His one innovation that touched me immensely was his Kursus Ekonomi Radio (lit. Economic Courses via Radio). In the 1950's long before the concept of distant learning, he conducted a very popular weekly radio course on economics. I marveled at his ease in explaining modern concepts of that discipline, especially considering that his audiences were primarily village dwellers.”
“Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Ayatollahs decided to have an instant Islamic generation and encouraged their citizens to breed. The marriage age was lowered to an absurd 9 years and family planning banned. Iranians responded enthusiastically, procreating prolifically such that by the late 1980's they had the highest growth rate in the world, nearing 4% annually. The massive slaughtering of its citizens in the war with Iraq did not damper the pattern. Now, unable to feed, house, and educate the masses, the mullahs belatedly reverse course. Today every Iranian must pass a course in family planning before being given a marriage certificate. Contraception and sterilization, heavily subsidized, are readily available. Most importantly, the mullahs have spread the word in their sermons and preaching that family planning is no longer the scheming of Western devils but a decidedly sensible policy.”
“Another step at weaning would be to draw a cut off point beyond which Malays would no longer benefit from these privileges. Those with a certain amount of assets or income, for example, would be treated like other Malaysians with no special considerations in the award of scholarships or contracts. To make the plan acceptable politically, I would suggest setting a very high threshold to begin with, like cutting off only millionaires ánd billionaires. Later, over time gradually lower the limit.”
“To encourage more efficiency among Malay contractors the government should put them on notice that their special status and duration for preferential treatment is limited. For example, after five years or after the first dozen projects they will have to compete like everyone else.”
“Bumiputra entrepreneurs get highly subsidized rents to start their businesses regardless how successful they are. I am truly astounded that Malay doctors and professionals still get discounted rents from government agencies like MARA and Urban Development Authority (UDA). This is plainly wrong and patently unfair. Special privileges should extend only to enabling them to become doctors and engineers. But surely once they achieved such status they should be able to compete on their own. Why should a Malay doctor pay less rent than his Indian colleague next door? Not only is it a waste of public resources, it is just not right.
If MARA or UDA wants to help novice businessmen it could structure the rent in such a way that it is related to gross revenue. Thus, in the first few years the tenant pays low rent, but later when his business grows he would end up paying more and the landlord can recoup some of the earlier losses. Again, with such mechanism in place, these budding businessmen are immediately introduced to the concept of risks and rewards.
On another front, housing developers are required to give discounts to Bumiputras. This makes sense for low-cost housing because one, it helps poor Bumiputras who would not otherwise afford them and two, it makes these projects more integrated thus preventing them from degenerating into racial ghettoes. But I fail to see the benefits or rational for giving discounts on luxury condominiums and upscale housing. If those Malays cannot afford the market price they should choose cheaper dwellings. It is that simple. And if they can afford to live in sumptuous suites and palatial bungalows then they no longer need subsidies or discounts.
A novel and more productive idea would be to impose a surcharge on all developers and use that money to improve Malay schools.”
“Ironically, while Malaysian-Chinese resent Malay cultural, language, and political hegemony in Malaysia, they have no difficulty “knowing their place” and accepting the cultural and language dominance of the West. There was no question of them even contemplating asking for publicly-supported Chinese schools or cultural centers in Australia or Canada. Nor do they demand that Chinese New Year be a public holiday.”
“DURING the 1960's Malaysia and Singapore were at par in their social and economic development. Their schools, civil service, businesses, and other institutions were comparable. The caliber of Singapore’s leading schools like Raffles Institution was similar to Malaysias Victoria Institution and Malay College. The per capita income of Singapore was only minimally higher than Malaysias, and wholly attributable to the former’s urban status. Kuala Lumpur and Singapore had their share of urban, slums and squalor. The Singapore river was severely polluted, more so than the Klang River that flows through Kuala Lumpur, and the Singapore dollar was at par with the ringgit.”
“Their gas tanks must be full before driving to Malaysia, lest their drivers would be tempted to spend their money buying cheaper Malaysian petrol.”
“The costly Savings and Loans scandal of the 1980's was nothing more than the end result of political corruption. Thus the spectacle of the arrogance of one Charles Keating, a banker, testifying in Congress that he had indeed contributed lavishly to various politicians — the infamous “Keating five” especially — specifically to gain their favors. He lamented that he could not afford more!”
