Okay, forget meritocracy, but what about professionalism?
By Ooi Kee Beng, The Malaysian Insider
Malaysia’s former prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has been making a name for himself as a blogger after he retired in 2003.
Perhaps because the man’s main concern is to be confrontational, and in the blogosphere the competition on that score is relentless, many of his entries have tested the boundaries of rationality. Very often, these are full of contradictions and are not worth commenting on.
However, a recent one where Dr Mahathir claims that proponents of meritocracy are as racists as anyone else does require a reaction.
For starters, just because most of us have racist tendencies does not make racism all right, especially in public policy. That point need not be belaboured.
It is also undeniable that political slogans always conceal a political agenda, and not always in an opaque manner either.
This goes for “Malaysian Malaysia” as much as it does for “Ketuanan Melayu”; and for “Middle Malaysia” as much as it does for “One Malaysia”.
However, that is not the real issue.
Although Dr Mahathir recognises that meritocracy, imposed without consideration for social inequalities, will merely favour those who are already privileged economically or otherwise, he does not draw the obvious conclusion that we are talking about a condition we may provocatively call a class struggle.
This brings us back to 1970. During the days when the New Economic Policy (NEP) was being drafted, it was obvious that the issue was poverty. The official insight gained from the May 13 riots was that the Malay community was not getting any richer despite independence.
After three elections, there were no signs that their lot would improve dramatically, and if that situation was not remedied, the country could not possibly enjoy political stability and economic growth.
And so, the attempt was made to remodel Malaysian society.
Once class inequalities were lessened, inter-ethnic tension would follow suit, and so the NEP would succeed by making race passé as a political tool. The poor had to be helped, and the Malays had to be helped. That was the dilemma, which had to be solved within the ultimate project of turning Malaysia into a prosperous and stable country.
Thus, three criteria for success competed with each other.
First, the lot of the Malay community as a whole had to improve dramatically. Second, the income gap among Malaysians as a whole must diminish. Third, the national economy as a whole must experience impressive economic growth.
Since the political structure had always been race-based, it was easy for the system to continue along those lines, and the implementation of the NEP favoured racial interests over class concerns. This created a system of patronage which over time encouraged mediocrity over excellence, quota strictness over merit, and political concerns over judicial correctness.
What is sad is that after 40 years of the NEP, it is still the racial aspect, now evolved into Malay Supremacy, which continues to be taken by Dr Mahathir and others as the most effective political tool at their disposal.
Other crucial values are overshadowed. The income gap, also within the Malay community, remains enormous, leading to a host of social problems that the country can do without, such as a low level of education, criminality, corruption and, worst of all, a sustained weakness for racial politics.
The only gap that seems to have lessened impressively is the one between party and state.
