Malay Dailies Criticize Maybank U-Turn

Amidst talk of boycott and angry Malaysiakini letters, Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia carried news of statements by various Bumiputera factions claiming that Maybank’s proposed ruling on empanelment which required a law firm to have three partners, one of whom must be a Bumiputera with at least a 50% equity stake in the firm, should have been enforced.

In the Berita Harian, it was reported that Gagasan Badan Ekonomi Melayu (Gabem) felt the rulings would have ensured the preservation of Bumiputera interests as well as allow them to compete in a fairer environment.

The chairman of Gabem, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, said that the organization wants Malaysia to not only be economically developed, but also for the people to live in unity. As such, he continued, what Maybank did was patriotic and positive towards the efforts of placing Malaysia as a developed and unified country.

He continued on with a statement which summed up the entire diatribe of the continuation of affirmative action in Malaysia: “We cannot build Malaysia’s future with the approach of ‘whoever’s quick and efficient, will get it.’ We must realize that the Malays or this nation’s Bumiputera represents 62% of the population, but only controls 18% of the corporate sector.” (emphasis added)

This statement blatantly confesses that meritocracy has no place in Malaysia, and that efficiency in the corporate sector should be second only to skin colour. The chairman obviously cares about the share of economic equity among the races, which is much to be applauded for, but claiming that meritocracy and race equity cannot exist together is offensive to the senses as it implies that Malays cannot compete in a purely meritocratic environment.

Berita Harian also carried an editorial saying that Maybank’s rulings should not even have been an issue. The tone of the editorial contained a tinge of arrogance: “We know that government-linked companies give business opportunities to Bumiputera companies and, at times, non-Bumiputera companies too because of the possibility that certain specialists are needed in certain fields. Yet, when a non-Bumiputera company obtains some sort of business, we don’t hear complaints to the point of amounting to a controversy.”

As Malaysians, we are all used to hearing such commentary. It is as if the non-Bumiputera companies should be thankful for any sort of business at all. Of course, the editorial’s opinion is not without qualification: “If Maybank’s action is considered racial discrimination, what about the actions of some companies advertising for jobs which prioritize only applicants who are fluent in Mandarin to attend interviews.”

One could assume that perhaps the office environment of these companies require a command of Mandarin, or that Mandarin is essential in the efficacy of the specific business. Admittedly, these are contrived reasons, but on the other hand the advertisements are not exactly calling for Chinese-only applicants. Furthermore, the non-Bumiputeras are not up in arms over companies or firms which advertise only for applicants who are fluent in Malay. It appears to be a genuine error of the editorial to equate language with race (which is a topic for another day). If, however, we should concede that the advertisements mean that only Chinese prospects need apply, then yes we should cry out over the discrimination by non-Bumiputeras and should by all means ensure that discrimination against Bumiputeras does not occur, just as the Bar Council has done in Maybank’s case.

The buck does not stop there unfortunately. Utusan Malaysia then carried statements by various UMNO illuminati asking for Maybank’s rulings to stay. Most of them proclaimed the need to extend equity-sharing policies to establishments such as Maybank, which should be lauded for its efforts. Some even said that Maybank was carrying out its corporate social responsibility by enforcing pro-Bumiputera policies. There were also numerous statements by other organizations, including Persatuan Melayu Pulau Pinang, Dewan Perniagaan Islam Malaysia, Majlis Bekas Wakil Rakyat Malaysia, Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia, Pertubuhan Generasi Profesional Pewaris Bangsa, Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO Perak, as well as a smatter of Bumiputera lawyers. The reports have been gathered together in one convenient page at the Bar Council website for the public’s perusal.

This whole issue is, at face value, a very basic conflict over the implementation of affirmative action within an area which has not yet been tainted, at least not formally. The arguments we hear, on both sides, are essentially the very same arguments we hear, albeit on a smaller scale, whenever we speak of the NEP, of the Bumiputera status, of the social divide, of the Constitution, of racial identity, of economic inequalities.

Listen in to this issue very clearly, for when you amplify it, you can hear the very core of that which troubles Malaysia.

• All quotes from Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian originally in Malay. Translation and subsequent apologies for inevitable errors by yours truly. Readers are encouraged to read the Malay articles for greater clarity.