Please prove us wrong then

 

SUCCESS in the future, almost always, depends on the ability to acknowledge the mistakes of the past, learning from them and not repeating them. 

 

But this seems a difficult thing to do in the case of the various socio-economic bumiputera empowerment programmes that have been introduced since the launch of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970.

 

Have we not learned from the mistakes of the past then?

 

A fair assessment will show that the NEP and its various reincarnations – the National Development Plan (1991-2000), the National Vision Policy (2001-2010) and the current New Economic Model (NEM) – have yielded many successes.

 

The NEP’s main objectives – and that of the preceding policies – were to eradicate poverty irrespective of race and correct imbalances in society though affirmative action and the restructuring of employment patterns.

 

As bumiputeras comprise the majority of the poor, the affirmative actions have a heavy bumiputera agenda. These include providing  more opportunities in vocational and tertiary education, and special vehicles to create a viable bumiputera commercial and industrial community (BCIC), and restructuring of ownership in the corporate sector.

 

Overall, these national policies have managed to nearly wipe out hardcore poverty and reduced the poverty level to 2%-3%. (However, this is based on an official poverty income level of about RM800 per household per month. Many argue that if the level were to be raised to between RM1,000 and RM1,500, the percentage of the poor will increase dramatically).

 

The policies have created a larger pool of bumiputera professionals – doctors, engineers, accountants, managers, economists, academicians, IT experts, scientists – and increased the middle-class population. 

 

Bumiputera equity in the corporate sector has increased from a dismal 2% to over 23% but the efforts have so far failed to increase the size of the BCIC, including small and medium-scale enterprises, and grow the pool of talented, able and resilient members.

 

So what does the community want now? Certainly, it is not just about poverty eradication and income alleviation. Depending on which groups they represent and their priorities, these could include wanting the 30% corporate equity to be achieved by 2020. 

 

Others argue a lot more needs to be done on a fast-track basis as the bumiputeras’ corporate stake is only between 12% and 14%, and not 23% as stated by the government.

 

Some want a bank for bumiputeras to be reintroduced, more university places, job opportunities, notably at managerial level, and tighter control of the supply chain so that the SMEs can have more businesses to sustain their commercial viability. 

 

They also want a bigger share of government businesses and contracts and for government-linked companies (GLCs) to have a specific key performance index on the bumiputera agenda.

 

Another demand is higher ownership of property assets, notably residential and commercial.

 

Can many of these measures be implemented within the existing bumiputera agenda’s ecosystem, notably in the context of the NEM and the government and economic transformation programmes?

 

No, according to many bumiputera pressure groups and the ultras in Umno, who have become increasingly more vocal after the last general election (GE), when Umno performed better even though its Barisan Nasional coalition registered its worst ever showing. They want the bumiputera agenda to be pushed further as part of the reward for keeping Umno in power.

 

And reward it is. 

 

On Sept 14, when launching the new initiatives, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had this to say: “Based on the support of the Malays in GE13, the government has decided to take a quantum leap to implement concrete and thorough strategies and approaches. We call this bumiputera economic empowerment and it is to safeguard the community now and forever.”

 

The agenda focuses on five main thrusts:

 

• Empowering bumiputera human capital; 

 

• Strengthening bumiputera equity in the corporate sector;

 

• Strengthening bumiputera non-financial asset ownership;

 

• Improving bumiputera entrepreneurship and businesses; and 

 

• Strengthening the services delivery ecosystem.

 

To increase bumiputera equity in the corporate sector, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB) will launch Amanah Saham Bumiputera 2, which if fully subscribed, would pool RM10 billion from the community. 

 

Equity Nasional Bhd will play a greater role in helping bumiputera companies list on Bursa Malaysia. These measures will be implemented and monitored by the Bumiputera Economic Council chaired by the prime minister. The BEC replaces the Bumiputera Agenda Action Council.

 

If one looks at the overall thrusts, they have been present within the present eco-system for many years. Why are they not effective then? How will they be more effective now?

 

That is what we need to find out so that the rakyat – Malays, Chinese and Indians – know what the weaknesses are and why they have not been rectified over the years?

 

Instead of just asking for more, the bumiputera pressure groups should be holding a special Bumiputera Economic Congress to analyse the failures and weaknesses of the past. Is it at the implementation stage? Why did we fail to create a more resilient BCIC? Have agencies like Mara and Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Bhd failed in this respect? What is their success rate?

 

Was it wrong to sell NEP vehicles like Pernas and UDA – which originally had an important socio-economic bumiputera agenda role to play – to individuals? Why did Bank Bumiputera Bhd fail? How have all the previous bumiputera entrepeneur funds performed?

 

What is the contribution of the successful bumiputera billionaires and multi-millionaires who are beneficiaries of the NEP to the BCIC’s cause? How many entrepreneurs have been groomed by the likes of Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, Tan Sri Rozali Ismail, Datuk Mokhzani Mahathir and Tan Sri Shahril Shamsuddin? 

 

Equally, have the GLCs, especially those controlled by PNB, been effective in helping to create a more resilient BCIC?

 

How about the abuse part of it? Are there still many contracts given to those who are less capable but have close political links? How many of these contracts were later sub-contracted to Chinese businessmen and not to able bumiputera companies? Are there still many sleeping partners in the Ali-Baba (Malay-Chinese) joint ventures? Have the Malay car dealers stopped selling their approved permits to the Chinese car dealers? 

 

Shouldn’t those who abuse the system be penalised and never again be given business opportunities?

 

The rakyat want answers to many of these questions from the government so that they can try to understand why some of these measures need to be continued. If we don’t want to rectify them, how can we make that quantum leap and not risk making the same mistakes?

 

The government should also not play the equity chasing game if there are not enough resilient BCIC members. It is most unproductive if contracts are dished out and equity transferred to those who are less capable, in seeking to meet the 30% target.