Talking to a ten-year old

The NEP is not just about stocks and shares and listings on the stock exchange. The NEP is about the aspirations of a two-prong attack: reducing the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reducing the disparity between the different races. Hence, while the Bumiputera ownership of stocks and shares or listed companies may have met a shortfall, what about the rest of us, which the NEP is also about? Are we still short in those areas as well, as we may be in corporate wealth?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Never mind whether I write a short article (The Chinese and Indians screwed up) or a longer article (Conjecture, imagination and suspicion), the average Malaysian still does not understand what I am trying to say. This only goes to show the low comprehension level of most Malaysians. And these are the same people we are depending on to make the right decision in the coming general election.

God help Malaysia when we need to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum and the monkeys in charge of the zoo.

Now, allow me to speak to you as I would to a ten-year old. The events of 1982 and 1992 that I talked about in the two previous articles regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP) were specific to the Malay Chamber of Commerce, which I was not only a member of but I also sat in the Central Committee.

Hence the discussion focused on issues of concern to the Malay Chamber -- and that would be the Bumiputera share of the corporate wealth of Malaysia. It does not involve other issues such as land, housing, education, jobs, etc. The Malay Chamber represents the Malay business community and the job of the Chamber (just like in any Chamber of Commerce anywhere else in the world) is to focus on the needs and aspirations of its members.

Hence it speaks on behalf of only the members of the Chamber. It would not, for example, be speaking on behalf of the taxi drivers, trishaw pullers, lorry owners, petty traders, teachers, bank employees, civil servants, ex-servicemen, ex-policemen, etc., who all have their own associations to represent their interests.

It is like, say, the Association of Chinese Barbers. This association does not represent all Chinese or all barbers. It represents only its members. So to say that the association should not speak on behalf of all Chinese or on behalf of all barbers (the Malay and Indian barbers included) is silly. And in that same spirit to say that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce does not represent all the Chinese in Malaysia is equally silly. Of course it does not. If you are not a member of that Chamber then it does not and cannot represent your interest or your views.

Now, what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad tried to do in 1982 was to act as matchmaker between the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce so that both Chambers can work closely to resolve issues of concern to the Malay businessmen and women. If the business community can work together to resolve their issues, then the government can ease off and not get involved with what were clearly ‘business issues’. And if the relationship works and there is close cooperation between both business communities, then the government can leave the businessmen and women alone and not force policies down their throats.

When it did not work, ten years later in 1992, the government organised a Bumiputera Economic Congress where everyone can get involved. This was not to be a Congress where the Malays make demands and hold the government to ransom. It was to be a Congress where everyone can come to a mutual agreement on what to do. This is not about what the Malays want. It is about what the Malays, Chinese, Indians and others jointly want. It was to seek a consensus of all the races and not listen to the demands of just the Malay business community, and only those who are members of the Malay Chamber on top of that.

The Malay argument was that after so many years of the NEP the Malay share of the corporate wealth increased from just 1% to 4% while that of the Chinese increased from 30% to 60%. The Chinese, however, argued that, in terms of percentage, the Chinese corporate wealth only doubled while that of the Malays increased four times. Hence the Malays saw four times the growth that the Chinese saw.

In terms of growth the Chinese are, of course, correct. The Malay wealth increased four times while that of the Chinese only doubled. In absolute figures, though, the Chinese are far ahead of the Malays at 60% compared to only 4% for the Malays.

Then there was another issue that the Chinese raised. Are you looking at Malay wealth based on par value at the time the shares were issued or at market capitalisation? At par value, say RM1.00 per share, the figure would be lower compared to market capitalisation, say, RM10.00 per share. Hence, are we comparing apples to apples?

The second point was: are you looking at Malay wealth based on what they currently still hold or based on what they were originally given, which had already been sold and at a huge profit on top of that. In other words, is your calculation based on current shareholdings or based on what has passed through the hands of the Malays? What the Malays currently hold in terms of stocks and shares may be only 10% or less of what they originally received. And the 90% or more, which the Malays have since sold, would have been sold at a profit, which is not reflected in the calculation of the corporate wealth of the Malays.

Hence, in short, what formula do we use to decide how wealthy the Malays are? And unless we can agree on that formula, and hence arrive at the correct bottom-line, how do we even begin to resolve the problem when we do not even know what the problem is.

(Now do you see why short articles do not work? There are many issues to an argument that need to be raised).

Now, remember that we are still talking about just the corporate wealth or corporate share of the Malays in comparison to the other races. But not all of us have stocks and shares or own companies listed on the stock exchange. Hence this debate, argument, disagreement, or whatever, does not involve all of us. What if you are amakan gaji (salaried employee), student, farmer, smallholder, fisherman, trishaw puller, food stall operator, etc? Whether it is 4%, 19%, 30% or 60% is of no concern to you. This is merely the concern of the Malay, Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce, and in particular to the members of those Chambers.

The NEP is not just about stocks and shares and listings on the stock exchange. The NEP is about the aspirations of a two-prong attack: reducing the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reducing the disparity between the different races. Hence, while the Bumiputera ownership of stocks and shares or listed companies may have met a shortfall, what about the rest of us, which the NEP is also about? Are we still short in those areas as well, as we may be in corporate wealth?

Yes, those are social issues that the social scientists need to address and which the Chambers of Commerce does not talk about. Do more Malays receive an education now than before? Do more Malays get to go to university now than before? Are more Malays employed now than before? Are more Malays living above the poverty level now than before? Do more Malays own homes now than before? Do more Malays own cars now than before? Do more Malays live in the urban areas now than before? Are there more Malay professionals now than before? And so on and so forth.

So there is more to the NEP than just stocks, shares and listed companies. But the story I told you in the previous two articles concerns the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce and even then specific to events in 1982 and 1992. But it appears like many of you just do not understand this. And this is why many of you posted comments that had nothing to do with the issue.

First understand what is being written and then comment. And the issue was regarding the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce and the events of 1982 and 1992 and what Dr Mahathir tried but did not work out mainly because the Malays and Chinese could not agree on the formula to apply and hence what the solution should therefore be.

And instead of trying to find the middle ground -- as in any ‘peace process’ there would always be a middle ground -- the Chinese chose to remain silent and not participate and allowed the government to do what it wanted.

That, in a nutshell, is the message I am delivering. However, those wearing blinkers would be hard-pressed to see this message.