Racism in Malaysia

                        Racism in Malaysia

                                      Dr KS Dhillon

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…”
         (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)

What is racism?

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines racism as “the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races” [1].

Without doubt racism is a global reality. It is a global hierarchy of human superiority and inferiority which has been politically, culturally and economically produced and reproduced for centuries by certain sections of society. People belonging to the superior race enjoy access to, human rights, civil rights, women rights and/or labor rights as well as to material resources, and social recognition. Those belonging to the inferior race are considered subhuman or non-human and their humanity is questioned and negated. Those of the inferior race are denied their human and other rights, as well as material resources and social recognition [2].

Colonial histories in different parts of the world at different times have constructed racism along racial markers such as color, ethnicity, language, culture and/or religion. Since colonial times, color racism, the so called white supremacy, has been the dominant marker of racism in most parts of the world including the USA.

When the skin color is the same and cannot be used as a marker then the religious marker is often used to claim superiority. The British did this in Ireland where there was a racial conflict between Protestants and Catholics.

Even to present day there is Islamophobia in Europe and in the United States. In North America and Europe, muslim religious identity constitutes one of the most prominent markers of human superiority and inferiority. In these regions of the world islamophobia has led the white supremacist to label muslims with many unsavoury labels with reference to civility, violence, abuse of rights of children, women and gay/lesbians [2]. In these two regions of the world color racism and religious racism continues to be of great importance and entangles itself in complex ways.

In other parts of the world ethnic, linguistic, religious and or cultural identity is used to define racial dominance. Malaysia is a shining example of such racism.

Concept of race in Malaysia

In social sciences the concept of race to analyze and classify groups of people has no scientific foundation and analytical concept of race has been rejected [3]. The main concern of race studies has been the construction of race as a social reality and the survival of race as a concept.

In Malaysia, the term race is widely used as an accepted scientific concept to discuss ethnic relations.
Syed Husin Ali [4], a Malaysian anthropologist, argues that population groups such as Malays, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Indian and so on should be referred to as ethnic groups rather than racial groups. The reason being, all these so called racial groups in Malaysia belong to the same racial stock, namely Mongoloid.

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s classification of human race in the 18th century divided the various population groups into three races, namely the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid [5].
Others have used race for class relationship in Malaysia. Sundram [6] used the term race to discuss social stratification of the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia. He believed that race is a social construction and racial categorization has taken a particular configuration within Malaysian society
on an everyday level and it has become a reality.

The concept of race was introduced into Malaya by the British who popularized it among the people of British Malaya through the education system, mass media and law. They categorised the local population into three major races, namely the malays, ethnic chinese and ethnic indians. The indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak, and non malay indigenous people the orang asli were labeled as others.

The race concept inherited from the British was retained to give legitimacy to Malay dominated government to sustain and protect the malay power and privileges provided for by the Malaysian Federal Constitution.  Ethnic bargaining and accommodation among the three major ethnic groups resulted in the special privileges for the malays in the Malaysian federal constitution. The bargaining resulted in Non-Malays obtaining citizenship and protection of their culture and language while Malays were guaranteed their special position [7]. Article 153 of the Federal Constitution makes the  monarch responsible for safeguarding the special position of Malays and other indigenous groups [8]. Article 153 provides for the special treatment of Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak in federal public service, education, scholarships, training privileges, permits, licenses for trade and business [7].

Article 160 of Malaysian Constitution defines Malay as a person who professes Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and practices Malay customs. Malays and other indigenous people are known as bumiputras or the son of the soil. Their special position has been achieved through a series of policies know as bumiputera policies which were introduced after the May 13 riots in 1969 [8]. The New Economic Policies (NEP) was introduced to eradicate poverty from Malaysia to improve the economic standing of the bumiputera. In education and employment malays were given priority.

Racism in Malaysia

The Malaysian Federal Constitution has provisions which prohibit racial discrimination in the country, and this is spelt out in Article 8 (1, 2) and Article 12.

Article 8 (1 & 2) states that:
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of properly or the establishing on carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Article 12 (1) state that:
Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth.
Although the principles of equality in the protection of rights of every Malaysian exits, exceptions have been made by Article 153 on the Malaysian Constitution.

Article 153 (1) states that:
It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Reservations of quotas for public service positions, scholarships, educational or training privileges, business permits and licenses are also spelled out in this Article. Points (7) and (8) of Article 153 has provisions to ensure the protection of legitimate interests of other communities.

Article 153 (7):
Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or license accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or license or refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or license when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

The pro-bumiputera Malays claim that The Federation of Malaya Agreement signed on 21 January 1948 at King House by the Malay rulers, and by the British government representative Sir Edward Gent granted the malays leadership among the three races. This claim however, is apparently not accurate. Upon independence from the British all 3 races were supposed to be given equal rights. Dato' Onn Jaafar - then heading UMNO, agreed to abide by the above original terms of The Federation of Malaya Agreement. After 1951, UMNO, however, gradually  meandered a different course, enshrining the rights of Malays over all other races in law. Today, the Malays dominate in politics at both national and state levels, the civil service, military and security forces [9,10].

The malay dominated government ensures that Bumiputras of Malay origin are given preferential treatment when it comes to admission to public universities and colleges [11]. Many of the Chinese and Indians chose private universities to pursue their studies because of a lack of places for them in public institutions [12]. The private housing developers are forced to give discounts for new houses to the Malays. They also receive cheaper burial plots in most urban areas. All key government positions are held by the malays including the top posts of most sporting associations. Listed companies are expected to have a minimum of a 30% Malay Bumiputera.  Full funding for mosques and Islamic places of worship is provided by the government. Special trust funds which provide high interest rates are set up for the Bumiputera Malays. Special share allocations for new share applications are provided to the Bumiputera Malays. The Malay language has been made a compulsory examination paper to pass in national schools [13,14,15,16,17].

After the 1969 riots the National Economy Policy (NEP) was introduced with two major objectives: “to eradicate poverty irrespective of race” and “to restructure society to abolish the identification of race with economic function” [18]. Prior to 1969 the colonial capitalism had created an ethnic division of labour which emerged from uneven development and socioeconomic disparities. Crudely the three major ethnic groups were labelled as  the Malay farmers, the Chinese traders and the Indian estate labourers.

The NEP aimed to reduce poverty by reducing the incidence of poverty from 49 per cent of all households in 1970 to 16 per cent in 1990 and to restructure society, the NEP planned to raise the bumiputera share of corporate equity from 2.5 per cent in 1970 to 30 per cent in 1990. The NEP also planned to create a Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Community (BCIC).

Though the aim of the NEP was to eradicate poverty irrespective of race, in reality the poverty eradication programmes rarely reached the non-Malay poor, including the urban poor and the Chinese New Villagers [18].

The NEP allowed and justified the public sector taking on multiple new roles. The public sector emerged as the main provider of opportunities for the Malays. It enlarged the existing numbers of Malay entrepreneurs, graduates and professionals. The aspiring Malay entrepreneurs were given financial assistance, credit facilities, contracts, preferential share allocations, subsidies as well as training. New public universities and all-Malay residential schools and colleges were established. Tens of thousands of young malay students and mid-career officers were sent to universities abroad. The social engineering resulted in an increase numbers of Malay entrepreneurs and capitalists [19] and a sizeable Malay middle-class [20]. The bumiputera participation rate in all professions increased [21].

The public sector became a stringent regulator of both local and foreign businesses. The Industrial Coordination Act (ICA) was introduced in 1975 which enforced compliance with the NEP’s restructuring. A Foreign Investment Committee was set up to introduce bureaucratic procedures, which met the needs of the NEP. A 30% bumiputera (malay) equity participation and employment in companies was introduced and this was enforced through the ICA. The ICA gave the minister of trade and industry power over licensing, ownership structure and employment targets. Product distribution quotas, local content and product pricing were controlled by the ministry of trade and industry [22]. Strict bureaucratic regulations were introduced even at state and local government level which regulated non Malay businesses. NEP requirements were imposed by land offices, town and country planning departments, municipal councils and state economic development corporations for real estate development. NEP requirements were imposed on land-use conversions and on various planning guidelines.

The public sector also became a major investor so that malay ownership of corporate equity could be increased. State resources were used to expand malay ownership of assets via “restructuring” exercises. Public sector started setting up its own companies as well as buying local and foreign companies. This foray into corporate sector allowed the public sector to control large portions of the Malaysian economy in areas such as plantations, mining, banking and finance, property and real estate [23].

With the introduction of NEP the public sector became the trustee of malay economic interests. State-owned agencies such as Bank Bumiputera, Urban Development Authority, Perbadanan Nasional (National Corporation), Permodalan Nasional Berhad (National Equity Corporation), Amanah Saham Nasional (National Unit Trust Scheme) and the state economic development corporations, held equity “in trust” for the bumiputera (malays) [24,25]. 

After 1970, many new public enterprises proliferated and their numbers grew rapidly to perform their new and expanded roles to fulfil the requirements of the NEP [25]. Federal Off-Budget Agencies and companies formed by state economic development corporations came into existence and grew significantly in all sectors of the economy. Their financial allocations steadily rose after 1971. Though the aim of these increase in allocations at federal and state levels was for development, with the aim of eradicating poverty among all ethnic groups, the direction in which public sectors concerns took became  increasingly ethnicized [18].

The expansion of the public sector under the NEP’s restructuring objective served two purposes. The first was to increase employment of the malays in the civil service via a massive civil service recruitment drive. The proportion of malay Division 1 officers in the civil service in 1968 was 37.4% and in 1987 the proportion became 65%. In year 2000 the number of civil servants were 979,464 and in 2013 the sized was 1.42 million. The proportion of malays in the civil service before implementation of the NEP in 1969-70 was 64.5% and in 2009 it was 76.2%. In 1969-70 the proportion of chinese and indians was 18.8% and 15.7%, respectively, and in 2009 it was in 6.0% and 4.3% [27]. Probably the numbers of non malay civil servants is much less now in 2018.

The second objective of the NEP was elimination of identification of race with economic function and malay domination of the civil service clearly contradicts this 2nd objective of the NEP.
The Malay special rights were to be applied only to recruitment, and not to promotion in civil service. In practice, however, malays have been getting promoted because of their race. The highest policy-making positions are  filled by Malays without regard to objective performance standards and these promotion are carried out at rapid rate [28].

As early as 1975, ethnic discrimination in tertiary education which favoured the malays was obvious at all levels of tertiary education in local public universities. Affirmative action favouring malays involved student enrolment in public institutions of tertiary education, disbursement of scholarships, as well as the recruitment of academic staff. Many qualified non-Malay students were denied admission to local public institutions [29].

The Bumiputera ownership of share capital of public listed companies rose from 2.4 per cent in 1970 to 20.6 per cent in 1995.

Quotas and targets were set and were modified as and when necessary in all areas of economic and social life to provide preferences and discrimination favouring the bumiputeras. Price subsidies and discounts were given by the public sector to overcome the bumiputera’s lack of competitiveness.
The NEP had set a 20-year target to achieve a 30% share of corporate assets for bumiputeras. This was interpreted as a minimum of 30 per cent bumiputera participation, in employment in private companies, in allocation of new shares in public listed companies; in sale or transfer of corporate or other assets in selected sectors; in award of government contracts and projects; in admission of students in tertiary education, in awarding of scholarships and financial assistance; and in the development and sale of urban housing and commercial space [18].

With the interpretation of a minimum of 30% bumiputera participation, the bumiputera quotas frequently exceeded 30 percent of whatever was believed to fall within the ambit of restructuring and redistribution. This restructuring and redistribution exercise led to malay versus non-Malay polarity and public-private dichotomy. The public services, public enterprises and statutory bodies became increasingly Malay domains while the private sector remained as a Chinese domain [30].

The borders between Malay social enterprise and Malay private business became blurred as NEP’s multidimensional state economic interventions took the form of statist capitalism. There was a continuous support by the state for malays to accumulate private wealth. Joint ventures between the malays and non-malay partners (socalled “Ali Baba” arrangements) became common.

Expansion of malay private enterprise continued with appointment of malays to company directorships and the politically well connected malays  could obtain government contracts. State capitalism allowed too much power to be put in the hands of a few leaders which in turn led to the corrosion of democratic culture and institutions.

UMNO being the party of the Malays, it made the NEP as its national agenda, which allowed it to enter into business on a large scale and in the process built itself a corporate empire [31]. The technocrats and administrators of this rapidly enlarged Malay-dominated bureaucracy ended up controling vast economic resources in the name of Malay trusteeship via the state-owned enterprises [32].

Lack of business experience and capability among the public bureaucrates  prevented many public enterprises from meeting the criteria of efficiency and profitability. This weaknesses in public sector governance led to large-scale deficits and losses. The public sector deficit rose from RM400 million to RM15.2 billion between 1970 and 1982. In 1982, the statutory bodies, public enterprises and the state governments, collectively owed the federal government as much as RM8.743 billion [32].

Some state managers became entrepreneurs themselves by acquiring the very enterprises they were managing earlier. The malay entrepreneurs complained of unfair state competition and pushed the states to transfer the assets to them directly. UMNO’s entry into business to generate funds for the party saw the establishment of Fleet Holding. In the 1980s and 1990s, Umno’s assets were mostly held through privately held Hatibudi Sdn Bhd and Fleet Group Sdn Bhd. Tan Sri Halim Saad, a businessman and one of Umno’s well-known proxies controlled Hatibudi Sdn Bhd. Hatibudi held substantial stakes in United Engineers (M) Bhd (UEM) and Hume Industries (M) Bhd as well as a 60% stake in Seri Pacific Corp. UEM, which was awarded contracts to build two mega infrastructure projects namely the North-South Expressway and the Malaysia-Singapore Second Link, became one of the biggest conglomerates in Southeast Asia.

Through the Fleet Group, Umno held substantial stakes in several Bursa Malaysia-listed companies, including the New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd, Time Engineering Bhd, Bank of Commerce Bhd, Commerce International Merchant Bankers Bhd (both banks later subsumed into CIMB Group) and Faber Group Bhd. UMNO thus built up an economic empire that penetrated most economic sectors in the name of protecting the rights of the malays and fulfilling the aims of the NEP [19,31]. UMNO managers themselves became big capitatlist themselves by securing enormous lucrative state projects, contracts and assets [19]. Gradually intramalay competition  became more obvious within the party bureaucracy and class axis.  Standard expectations of public sector governance such as transparency, accountability and impartial oversight gradually became diminished due to lack of executive discretion, intervention by the party, corporate rent-seeking, cronyism as well as outright corruption [18].

Conclusion

Racism and racial discrimination has become entrenched in Malaysia. There is not and there will not be a full stop to this issue of racism in Malaysia in the future. It is present in every aspect of our lives. It is seen in business, education and even sports. The politics of hate and instigation of racial tension is a norm in our everyday life. Politicians in Malaysia spew racial hatred on a regular basis to garner support from their majority races.

Malicious and racially provocative statements that are meant to offend a certain ethnic group are a norm on social media nowadays.

No policies and practices to address the issue of racism and racial discrimination exist in Malaysia. There is no engagement by the government with civil society organisations, academicians, media and other sectors of Malaysian society to address this phenomenon. A collective effort by multi-stakeholders is desperately needed to combat the rising incidences of religious and racial discrimination in Malaysia.

References

1. The Cambridge English Dicitionary at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/racism.
2. Grosfoguel R. What is Racism? Journal of World-System Research. 2016; Vol. 22 (1) : 9-15.
3. Farish A.Noor. What your teacher didn’t tell you; the Annexe Lectures (Vol.1). Petaling Jaya: Matahari Books, 2009.
4. Syed Husin Ali. Ethnic relations in malaysia: Harmony & Conflict, Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2009.
5. Barkan E. The retreat of scientific racism: Changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
6. Sundram, Jeyaratnam M. A.. “Race, class and uneven development in Malaysia”. MA thesis. Department of Sociology at Michigan State University, 1983.
7. Shad Saleem Faruqi. 2005. “Affirmative action policies and the constitution”. In The 'Bumiputera policy': dynamics and dilemmas Kajian Malaysia Journal of Malaysian Studies special issue, edited by Richard Mason and Ariffin Omar, 21( 1 & 2), 2005.
8. Mason R and Omar A. “The Bumiputera policy:Dynamics and dilemmas”. In The Bumiputera policy: Dynamics and dilemmas Kajian Malaysia Journal of Malaysian Studies special issue, edited by Richard Mason and Ariffin Omar, 21( 1 & 2), 2005.
9. Hong-Hai Lim (2007). "Ethnic Representation in the Malaysian Bureaucracy: The Development and Effects of Malay Domination". International Journal of Public Administration. 30 (12-14: Comparative Asian Public Administration): 1503–1524. doi:10.1080/01900690701229731.
10. Muthiah Alagappa (1 September 2002). Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia. Stanford University Press. p. 259. ISBN 978-0804742276.
11. Jennifer Pak (2 September 2013). "Is Malaysia university entry a level playing field?". BBC.
12. "Malaysia's system of racial preferences should be scrapped". The Economist. 18 May 2017.
13. Dimitrina Petrova (22 November 2012). "Affirmative Action versus Equality in Malaysia". Oxford Human Rights Hub.
14. Boo Su-Lyn (11 April 2014). "Even in death, no escape from rising prices". The Malay Mail. http://iphira.tripod.com/smih/spm.htm
15.  "Race-based affirmative action is failing poor Malaysians". The Economist. 18 May 2017.
16. "The Malay Language and its role in nation building"- Summary of Saturday Night Lecture 14th September 2013". UTM. 24 September 2013.
17. Khoo Boo Teik. Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance in the Public Sector Malaysian Experiences. Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper Number 20 December 2005. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
18. Searle, Peter. 1999. The Riddle of Malaysian Capitalism: Rent-Seekers or Real Capitalists? Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales.
19. Abdul Rahman Embong. 1995. State-Led Modernization and the New Middle Class in Malaysia. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.
20. Jomo, K.S. 1999. “A Malaysian middle class?” In K.S. Jomo (ed.), Rethinking Malaysia: Malaysian Studies I. Malaysian Social Science Association, Kuala Lumpur.
21. Jesudason, James V. 1989. Ethnicity and the Economy: The State, Chinese Business and Multinationals in Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Singapore.
22. Heng Pek Koon and Sieh Lee Mei Ling. 2000. “The Chinese business community in Peninsular Malaysia, 1957–1999.” In Lee Kam Hing and Tan Chee Beng (eds.), The Chinese in Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.
23. Searle, Peter. 1999. The Riddle of Malaysian Capitalism: Rent-Seekers or Real Capitalists? Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales.
24. Gomez, Terence Edmund and K.S. Jomo. 1997. Malaysia’s Political Economy: Politics, Patronage and Profits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Lim Hong Hai. 2003. The Representativeness of the Bureaucracy in Malaysia: The Problems of Public Administration in a Plural Society. Paper presented at the International Conference on Reform in Public Administration and Social Services in Asia, Macao Polytechnic Institute, Macao, China, 8–9 November 2003.
26. Lim, H. H. (2013). The public service ethnic restructuring under the New Economic Policy: The new challenge of correcting selectivity and excess. In .T. Gomez & J. Saravanamuttu (Eds.), The New
27. Economic Policy in Malaysia: Affirmative action, ethnic inequalities and social justice. Singapore: NUS Press.
28. Means. 1972. “‘Special rights’ as a strategy for development.” Comparative Politics, Vol. V, October, pp. 46–48.
29. Lee, Molly N.N. 2004. Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia. School of Educational Studies, Monograph Series No. 4/2004. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
30. Jomo KS. 1990. Growth and Structural Change in the Malaysian Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
31. Gomez TE. 1990. Politics in Business: UMNO’s Corporate Investments. Forum, Kuala Lumpur.
32. Mehmet, Ozay. 1986. Development in Malaysia. Poverty, Wealth and Trusteeship. Croom Helm, London.