On Feb 5, 2005, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called for Umno to be the agent of towering Malays, which he defined as a personality with good values, high calibre, capability and talent equipped with learning, knowledge and wisdom to motivate not only the Malays but also the other races.

When Malaysians waited with bated breath for the towering Malay to appear in the recent Umno general assembly last month, they did not have in mind a towering Malay brandishing a keris (traditional Malay dagger) and thrusting it in a war-like manner into the air to champion Malay rights against imaginary enemies.

Neither did they expect the towering Malay to be one who relied on outdated, backward divisive and failed policies that do not promote the national economic interest.

Nor did they forsee another towering Malay to shed tears of sorrow at being so misunderstood and the injustice of being criticised for distributing government largesse to the few instead of the many.

Or the towering Malay pandering to emotion by opposing the building of new Chinese primary schools in congested urban areas when this should be based on educational needs.

And yet we do not see the same courage to stand up and protest against the Indonesian government for failing to exercise their responsibility to seek international assistance to put out the fires that caused this terrible haze, endangering the health of 25 million Malaysians.

Fundamental flaw

Malaysians still do not know who the towering Malays in Umno are. But I am not here to write about the towering Malay but to point out that the fundamental flaw with the premier's concept of a towering Malay is its utter incompatibility with the vision of moulding a 'Bangsa Malaysia' (Malaysian race). Is the towering Malay not a Malaysian? Why should we not describe him or her as a towering Malaysian first rather than a towering Malay?

Focusing on the towering Malay instead of a towering Malaysian is socially exclusive and nationally divisive. Just as the slogan of demi agama bangsa dan negara (for the religion, race and country) is seen by non-Malays as for only one race and one religion instead of being inclusively multi-religious, for a multiracial Malaysia.

As the magazine Aliran stated, the attributes and values that Abdullah spoke of and cherished are universal and shared by all Malaysians: high intellect, a high value system, successful careers, good economic standing, and well-respected culture and religion.

I do not intend to identify who the towering Malaysians are but to focus on the conditions necessary towards producing towering Malaysians, instead of towering Malays, towering Chinese, towering Indians, towering Kadazans and towering Ibans.

Towering institutions too

Only with towering institutions can towering Malaysian personalities emerge. There must be a towering Parliament, towering judiciary, towering universities and education system, towering police force and the Anti-Corruption Agency, towering civil service, towering free press and a towering enforcement system that acts without fear or favour against corruption.

We must institutionalise the eight basic tenets of democracy - rule of law, equal opportunity, wealth creation with equitable distribution, ethical, good governance, accountability and transparency where:

Parliament is supreme and democracy the dominant culture to empower the people. Oppressive laws violating human rights must be abolished. There is no reason why local government elections can not be revived to return the third vote taken away from the people 40 years ago when communist countries such as China and Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia have commenced local elections.

The judiciary must be not only be independent but be seen as independent to dispense justice. An international survey by Political Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) in 2002 praised Singapore as having the best legal and police system with a rating of 1.7, followed by Hong Kong (2.9), Japan (3.67) and South Korea (4.83), followed by Malaysia which failed to reach the pass mark at 6.29.

The recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on the Police Force must not be a forgotten historical document but be immediately implemented to make the police and enforcement system effective and efficient. The ACA must be made independent and accountable only to Parliament with powers to investigate and prosecute both within and without Umno if the prime minister's legacy of controlling corruption and establishing integrity amongst public officials is to succeed.

A truly meritocractic system to maximise investments in human capital and harness our resource potential, which is identified as the engines for wealth creation. University education standards cannot be compromised and there must be a common examination system for university entrance unlike the present STPM and matriculation exams. Gross injustices where top students cannot get scholarships or medical places in universities must end. The deterioration in our universities can be seen by the following:

  • The Asiaweek Best Universities 2000 in the region, Universiti Malaya was ranked a low 47th out of 77 universities, with Universiti Putra Malaysia at 52 and Universiti Sains Malaysia at 57.

  • The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) global ranking of the world's best 200 universities in November 2004, saw Universiti Malaya ranked No 89 (17 places behind University of Singapore although both universities share a common origin with the establishment of King Edward VII Medical School in 1905) and Universiti Sains Malaysia ranked 111.

  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University 2004 World's Best 500 universities saw not a single Malaysian university listed.

  • An online ranking of 1,000 universities by the Madrid-based Internet Lab (Observatorio de Ciencia y Tecnologia en Internet) also saw no Malaysian university on the list.

Freedom of information

Without freedom of information and a free press, we can not create a knowledge-based society. Unless this freedom is granted, Malaysians would be denied the freedom of choice to make the most informed decision on their elected representatives, allocative efficiency and economic competitiveness. As Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen said, rights are meaningless if there is no full capability to exercise them.

The proposal to revive the New Economic Policy (NEP) as part of a Malay agenda is a step backward, divisive, breeds corruption and malpractice as well as contrary to the national economic interest of the country. Malaysians, both non-Malays and poor Malays, will not be convinced that the NEP has fulfilled its function of wealth creation and equitable wealth distribution.

The NEP must recognise its failure to unite Malaysians. The NEP's stated goal of eradication of poverty and economic restructuring so as to eliminate the identification of ethnicity with economic function. However its discriminatory quotas in housing, ownership of public company stock, government contracts, university places and government scholarships, has not only failed to achieve these twin objectives but deeply divided Malaysians between bumiputeras and non-bumiputeras.

Eradication of poverty has succeeded only in absolute terms. Relative poverty persists and is particularly evident in urban areas. How NEP has failed can be shown by the latest United Nations Human Development (UNHDP) Report 2004 that showed Malaysia having the worst income disparity between the rich and poor in Southeast Asia. The UNHDP Report 2004 showed the richest 10 percent in Malaysia controls 38.4 percent of our economic income as compared to our poorest 10 percent controlling only 1.7 percent.

The reason why ordinary Malays do not benefit is that the distribution of this bumiputera equity is not fair or equitable due to corruption and inefficiencies as it is concentrated only amongst the few. The NEP has been exploited to breed corruption, malpractice and cronyism. This is revealed by the issuance of millions of ringgit of shares to son-in-laws and sons of ministers and deputy ministers. How many ordinary Malays own shares or Approved Permits (AP)?

The recent AP controversy exposed by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad where 12,600 permits were given to 82 companies but 54,600 given to only 20 'selected' companies is another example of malpractice and abuse of power. By asking for the full 30 percent ownership equity, only the few rich Malays benefit from such cronyism and government patronage.

We should not forget that this bumiputera equity ownership is basically Malay dominated and neglects bumiputeras from Sabah, Sarawak and the Orang Asli. Stressing on a Malay agenda ignores the reality that bumiputeras from Sabah, Sarawak and Orang Asli are marginalised and do not have any equity ownership.

Another beneficiary of the NEP is former Sabah chief minister Osu Sukam who instead of using his wealth fruitfully, found it fit to gamble RM160 million in a London casino and incurring losses of RM31 million. Malaysians are fed up of such accumulation of wealth by questionable means.

Allocative efficiency requires competition and merit rather than ownership in ensuring wealth creation and a fair distribution of wealth.

Look East

Another example of such distortion is reflected by the high number of Indian professionals in proportion to their population but hides the large number of Indian poor. Indians hold only 1.5 percent of equity ownership or RM 3.2 billion. By stressing on race, the government also ignored the plight of the non-bumiputera lower class and poor, in particular the Indians who were completely marginalised. Such neglect breeds resentment as shown by the violence and high incidence of crime involving the poor Indians.

There is no substitute for excellence and meritocracy. If we continue to deny deserving students of their university places because of the colour of their skin, then not only will innocent young Malaysians be victimised but the country's international standards and economy will lose out. The government should learn that as far as allocative efficiency is concerned, competition and merit rather than ownership is the crucial issue in ensuring wealth creation and a fair distribution of wealth.

South Korea is a very good example of making the correct choice on allocative efficiency. In 1966, its annual per capita GNP was less than US$150 as compared to Malaysia's US$350. By 2003, GNP per capita in Korea had far exceeded Malaysia at US$12,033 as compared to Malaysia's US$3,880 according to the World Bank. From a situation where Malaysia was twice as more prosperous than Korea in 1966, Korea is now thrice more prosperous than Malaysia. Malaysia would do well not to make the same mistakes by resorting to the NEP and set us even further back.

So long as Malays can sell their shares to realise short-term profits, Malay equity ownership would never reach 30 percent even if the NEP was extended for another 100 years. If the Malays had held on and not sold the shares, the Malay equity would have reached 30 percent by its stated period of 1990. An estimated 40 percent of the Malay preferential shares given were sold for profit gains.

Documented verification is provided by an academic working paper titled, Privatisation of Ports: A Malaysian Case Study by associate professor Malcolm Tull and Dr James Revely of Murdoch University in January 2001,

" By 1995 the privatised companies accounted for 22.1 percent of the total market capitalisation of the KLSE. Many shareholders took advantage of the opportunity to realise short-term capital gains and sold their shares. The sale of shares in Klang Container Terminal and other privatised companies has, however, led to a dilution of bumiputera equity: between 1983 and 1990 it declined from 65 percent to 38 percent of total paid-up capital on the KLSE."

This Australian study showed that almost 41 percent of the shares in privatised companies held by the rich Malays were sold. Applying this rough ratio would mean that the 19.3 percent of Malay shares in 1990 only represented 60 percent of the shares given by the government. In other words, Malays had sold 12.9 percent equity stake. If Malays had held on to every share given, they would have a total 32.2 percent equity stake, far exceeding the 30 percent target in 1990.

Instead of stressing on a divisive Malay-only agenda, we call for a Malaysian agenda that benefits and unites all regardless of race and religion to build a harmonius society and seek social justice for all Malaysians whether poor bumiputeras, poor Malays, poor Chinese, poor Kadazans, poor Ibans and poor Orang Asli.

The time has come to build a nation on the bedrock of needs, merit, hard work, moral and ethical values and not appeal to keris-wielding, extremist and destructive emotions. Let me quote Mahathir's words when introducing the Third Outline Perspective Plan 2001-2010:

"High on our priority list is forging a united nation consisting of a progressive and dynamic Bangsa Malaysia that lives in harmony and imbued with strong moral and ethical values. Diligence, discipline, credibility, pride in one's work and achievements, as well as the relentless pursuit towards continuous self-improvement and output are important values and attitudes for all Malaysians to develop. It is also important for the Malaysian society to show political maturity by avoiding extremism or parochialism. We must never cease to remember that the vital ingredient for sustainable growth is a harmonious society."

Let me therefore close with the hope for this conference the immortal words of St Francis of Assisi, "Where there is discord may we bring harmony, where there is error may we bring truth, where there is doubt may we bring faith, and where there is despair may we bring hope."

LIM GUAN ENG, a former Internal Security Act detainee, is DAP secretary-general. The above is a speech he delivered at the 'Anak Malaysia' convention on the theme 'Definitions, issues and key challenges of Bangsa Malaysia - The making of Towering Malaysians?" organised by Gerakan.