How much of the Malaysian example should we follow?

Feb 13, 2010 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Many Guyanese are fond of referring to Malaysia as an example Guyana should follow. The latest installment of this came from F. Hamley Case in a Stabroek News article – “What does Malaysia have that Guyana does not” (SN 2.11. 10). Let us consider the Malaysia case.
No one will doubt that Malaysia has made enormous strides over the years. Right up to the 1960’s Malaysia was a country dependent on the export of primary products and a country also riveted by ethnic conflicts.
Today the Malaysian economy is one of the most dynamic in South East Asia and for that matter anywhere in the world.
Malaysia moved from a ‘rubber and tea economy’ to one driven by light manufacturing and electronics. The Malaysian shoe industry is so successful it has put Italian shoe manufacturers onto their toes. The semi conductor industry is also one of the most competitive in the world.
Per capita GNP has been on a consistent upward trend, and soon, Malaysia may officially qualify as a ‘developed country’.
All that is well and good, but remember ‘development’ is not simply about numbers.
Thus, despite the real gains in standard of living and signs of new wealth, (perhaps most tellingly expressed in the towering skyline in the country), there are real issues of human insecurity in this new economic wonderland. We should take cognizance of the most pressing issues in this regard.
Firstly, the ethno-racial problems that have dogged the country for so long and that produced nothing less than a race riot in 1969 are still very much alive.
The country is split along three major ethnic groups – the native Malays (Bumiputra) who make up about 65 per cent of the population; and the Chinese and Indians who make up the bulk of the non-Malay population.
The Chinese and Indians who came to Malaysia as immigrant workers in the 19th century are at the upper end of the social structure, with the Chinese at the apex.
The Malays, who historically have occupied the lower rungs, have made strides, but this upward social mobility has been fraught with what Charles Tilly has labeled ‘contentious politics’.
The problematic issue surrounds constitutional guarantees (constituted in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution) for Malays in all aspects of Malaysian life. Originally framed by the British, these rights were supposed to be temporary, but have nonetheless remained ‘on the books’.
The constitutional guarantees were deepened through the New Economic Policy which began under Prime Minister Mahathir in 1971.
Non-Malays have found the constitutional guarantees discriminatory and have called for their removal. But that is not the only issue. The ethnic cleavages run deep and Malaysian politics is deeply racialized.
In 2006 the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research found ‘deeply entrenched’ stereotyping in the country. The survey found that “…more than half the population does not trust each other.”
“The survey [also] found that 42 percent do not consider themselves Malaysian first, 46 percent say ethnicity is important in voting. 55 percent blame politicians for racial problems and 70 percent would help their own ethnic group first” (Kuppusamy, 2006).
The UNMO, the Malaysian Chinese Association, and the Malaysian Indian Congress are in constant conflicts.
Racialized politics dominate political campaigns and elections. The Chinese and Indians complain about ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ (Malay Dominance) and the Malays consistently accuse the Chinese and Indians of being insensitive (See Kua Kia Soong, 2009).
While Malaysia has leapfrogged in economic development, measured in terms of GNP per capita and other values, it has stalled in terms of economic equality.
The Gini coefficient for Malaysia places it at the very bottom of all South East Asian countries. In fact some Malaysian commentators have pointedly stated that the income disparities in Malaysia are more akin to what obtains in Latin America.
Many writers on Malaysia link income inequality to race. Thus according to John Leemk, a …”main cause [of income inequality] is probably how virtually all economic problems are cast in racial terms.
We are just unable to let go of race, so the non-Malays which (let’s face it) are relatively well off are not likely to care about the Malays which (again, let’s face it) are relatively poorer. And in case anyone forgot about East Malaysia, we have people starving to death there.”
There are other serious economic problems, many of them directly linked to the Malaysian Miracle. The most important of these pertain to foreign labour. Hamley Case in his article seems to be thrilled about foreign labour in Malaysia.
What he should know is that the Malaysian Miracle has in part been built on a hyper-flexible regime of labour. The Malaysians take in migrant labour (mostly from Indonesia and the Philippines) when needed, but then kick them out when they are of no further use.
Migrant workers are not allowed to join unions, and their working conditions (and more broadly their mode of existence) are remarkably similar to foreign hands in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, (the last two are part of the UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
I wonder if Mr. Case wants Guyana to repeat this. Incidentally, Guyana has 10,000 immigrants, a not too modest number for a population of 750,000.
Freedom of the press in Malaysia is under constant threat. The Malaysian constitution gives broad latitude to the government with regards to press freedom and the relevant legal instruments are often used to compel or induce silence. Unlike Guyana where practically anyone can write anything in the press or say anything on T.V., in Malaysia, racial pandering can lead to serious consequences.
The government has used its power to revoke broadcasting licences and various other stratagems are employed to elicit conformity. It is rather difficult, for instance, to criticize the constitutionally entrenched ‘Malay privileges.’
Malaysia has no doubt made great strides but some of the persistent problems consistent with economic, social, and political issues in the developing world still exist. More than that, the Malaysian case convincingly demonstrates that economic development alone is not sufficient for what Stuart Hall once called ‘a politics without guarantees.’
Hall had in mind that we must not be able to read one’s politics from their ethnicity.
Dr. Randy Persaud

---

---