Reformists must come to the fore
Khairy Jamaluddin
The five-year Malaysia Plans have tended to get things right as far as the big picture is concerned. A cursory glance at the recent five-year development plans show an acute sense of awareness on the part of the Government of the general direction in which the economy must move. It was no different with the 10th Malaysian Plan (10MP), Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak’s first since becoming Prime Minister.
The broad thrusts and priorities of the 10MP are sound – spurring private sector economic activity towards a high-income economy, government transformation, inclusive development, fighting for talent and rewarding innovation, among other big ideas. No one can argue with these priorities. Even in Parliament, members from both sides of the divide agree that these are sensible strategic initiatives to extricate the country from the doldrums of the mediocre middle that we currently find ourselves in.
Of course, the disagreement will now be on the details and implementation. Is privatising vast parcels of prime land the best way to spur private investment? Which subsidies do we rationalise first? Do we need to change the poverty line to better understand increased cost of living and more effectively target those in need of assistance? These are some questions to which there will be many different views.
But one of the most important aspects of the 10MP that needs to be explained fully is that which touches on affirmative action. In very simple terms there are three schools of thought about programmes that are associated with the original manifestation of affirmative action in Malaysia – the New Economic Policy (NEP).
One view that I will refer to as the orthodox school will defend affirmative action as sacrosanct, something only a traitor would dare question, and generally promote proposals that call for the same affirmative action programmes to be multiplied and intensified. There has, of late, been a surge of interest and popularity towards this school of thought as its proponents have been vocal in resurrecting some unfounded insecurities among the Malay community.
The second school of thought is made up of those who are still intellectually and philosophically committed to restructuring the economy so that it’s not divided along ethnic lines, but want to reform affirmative action programmes so they are more effective and reduce leakages and wastage. I think the Prime Minister belongs to this group based on the adjustments to affirmative action laid out in the 10MP.
The final school of thought favours “creative destruction” or outright demolition. Many in the opposition belong to this group. They feel that anything associated with the NEP cannot be reformed and the entire house needs to be torn down and replaced with something that does not eliminate the identification of economic function based on ethnicity or explicitly target economic participation based on ethnicity.
