Have “we” been looking at the problem the wrong way?

It is amazing how one study can create such drama, strong emotions, accusations, reactions, debates … the list goes on! Of course I am referring to the “controversial” study by Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute’s (Asli) Centre for Public Policy studies, which found that bumiputra corporate equity ownership could be as high as 45%, instead of the government’s figure of 18.9%.

While a political figure flew off the handle and called the study “irresponsible”, “rubbish”, “useless” and “has an ulterior motive”, and subsequently, the president of the institute retracted the report stating that the calculations and assumptions used were faulty (some parties were of the opinion that the retraction was due to pressure), and then the head of Centre for Public Policy Studies resigned because of "... the need to defend the position and integrity of independent and non-partisan scholarship", the entire point has been missed! It is not about percentages and race! If I remember my Pengajian Am correctly, both Buku Hijau (The Green Book) and the New Economic Policy (NEP) have two core objectives i.e. to eradicate poverty regardless of race and restructure society so as to eliminate race identification with economic function.

I agree wholeheartedly with Zainon Ahmad’s sentiments in his recent column “What They Say” in The Sun dated Tuesday October 10, 2006. The title of the article, “What have ratios got to do with need?” The following excerpt from the article makes a lot of sense.

“Zain: Actually I do not understand this obsession with whether the 30% equity has been achieved or not. Ok, so it is 18 something per cent or 45%. So what. Meaningless. Take the Indian ownership for example. They are supposed to be owning 3%.”

“Mohan: Two Indians may be owning it all!”

“Zain: Exactly. So it is the income disparity that needs to be looked at – and across racial lines …”

Very well said. What has race got to do with being poor? Instead of using race as a yardstick, the criteria should be the definition of poverty and all Malaysians who fall within that definition should be given assistance.

The criteria and the implementation of the policy should also be looked into i.e. is the assistance given to the “wrong” group of people? For example, is the assistance given to really poor Malays as opposed to average/ rich ones? I remember meeting a number of Malay students who were on government loans or scholarships, but yet have cars and drive to the university. (This was more than 10 years ago.) The questions that begged to be asked then were:
1) Isn’t assistance supposed to be given to the poor?
2) What is the definition of poor? (Obviously not those who can afford to drive to the university.)

It is interesting to note that when the NEP ended in 1990, official figures showed that Malay corporate equity ownership was only between 19% and 20%. But the NEP was then extended under a new name, the National Development Policy (NDP). Now, sixteen years later, the government numbers showed not an increase but a slight drop to 18.9% of Malay corporate equity ownership. Despite the billions spent, there seemed to be no improvements. Therefore, if this is the true percentage claimed by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), shouldn't the more urgent action be to enquire why the results were so dismal after 16 years (instead of arguing over the methodology)? The parties concerned should be asking the following questions instead.
1) To whom did the money go to? Did it go to the right people i.e. the poor?
2) Was the money lost in transmission i.e. did the middle man swallow part of the money?
3) What was the money used for? Were they effective spending?
And so on and so forth ...

It is only when all these have been reviewed that the shortfalls of the policies can be corrected/ amended. What’s the point of continuing decade after decade, policy name change after policy name change if vast improvements cannot be observed? After all, even for social funding, the social return on investment (ROI) should be measured. Otherwise, it is a total waste of taxpayers’ money.

Finally, a wise man once said, “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time.” Are there policies and programmes in place to “teach” these people to “fish”? If not, then the giving of “fish” would be tantamount to breeding laziness and expectations that the government/country owes them a living.

It’s like the unemployment policy in Australia where one can collect “dole” from the government if unemployed. According to a friend of mine, this is where the policy breeds laziness among the young adults as they continue to live at home and rely on their parents’ goodwill for food and lodging, while they collect enough “dole” to enjoy life. There was no need for them to look for a job.

Therefore, have “we” not been looking at the problem the wrong way all this while? First, understand the root cause of the problem and acknowledge that it exists (and not jump the gun on something else), then review the current policies, actions and loopholes, and then plug in all the loopholes and resolve the problem, while putting in place check and balances to ensure that all actions drive towards the core objectives.

Sounds rational and logical right?! But then, I am no politician. : )