Ethnicity, economy, and affirmative action in Malaysia

Abstract

Historical, constitutional, and political contexts A convergence of factors have compelled and facilitated the breadth and intensity of Malaysia’s affirmative action. Malaysia is one of a few countries where a majority and politically dominant ethnic group, the Bumiputera,1 was socially excluded and economically disadvantaged in the aftermath of colonial rule. Bumiputera under-representation in tertiary education institutions and upper occupational positions, and in ownership and control over economic activity, was starker in Malaysia than in most nations that implement forms of affirmative action. Socio-political demands for preferential policies inevitably arose out of such conditions. At the same time, Malaysia’s abundant natural endowments and relatively robust record of economic growth, development spending, and rapid industrialization have availed resources and opportunities to be redistributed. Additionally, the perpetuation of a one-party political system since independence in 1957, and exertion of Malay dominance within the ruling race-based Alliance (1957-1974) and Barisan Nasional (or National Front) (1974-) coalitions, coupled with the expansion of executive power from the 1980s, permitted racial preference to be instituted in more explicit and extensive forms than would be realizable in most countries. The United Malays’ National Organization (UMNO) is acknowledged as the hegemonic party in the Barisan Nasional, which comprises about a dozen, mostly ethnically-based, parties.2 Post-independence Malaya was characterized by a social structure, fittingly termed an ethnic division of labour, in which groups were predominantly and persistently confined to certain occupations and industries (Khoo 2005). Through British colonial rule and migration processes, foreign interests came to dominate the ownership of resources and capital, while Malays, Chinese, and Indians byand-large lived and worked in separate geographic and economic spheres (Andaya and Andaya 2001). Ethnic social stratification was reinforced by disparities in educational and job opportunities, and in access to capital.3 Educational institutions were fragmented, again, by race and socio-political factors, and not integrated into a broader system for facilitating social interaction and coordinating school content.4 The Malay masses were overwhelmingly excluded from these developments, except for the privileged or talented few who enjoyed access to elite schools,scholarships, and civil service appointments. Indians on plantations were excluded on the grounds that plantations were private property; hence, the educational and health needs of its workers fell outside the state’s jurisdiction. The historical timeline of affirmative action, and the basis for its continuity, are anchored in the 1957 Federal Constitution.5 Individual equality and prohibition of discrimination is set out in Article 8, “[e]xcept as expressly authorized by this Constitution”. Article 153 grants such authorization, making provision for the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (the national king) to “exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak [i.e. the Bumiputera] and the legitimate interests of other communities”, through reserving places in public sector employment, scholarships, training programmes, and licences. These legal grounds for race preference have been the subject of intense debate, particularly with reference to the specific wording of the Bumiputera’s “special position” – as distinct from Bumiputera “special rights” – and the delimitation of the scope of programmes to public sector jobs, scholarships, training and licencing. The focus on semantics and scope in the discourse over special rights omits the elements of discretion and qualification in the Constitution’s provisions for affirmative action. Article 153 does not confer an absolute mandate and obligation to apply reservations and quotas, but establishes those possibilities “in such manner as may be necessary”. Thus, the constitutional case for affirmative action is qualified by adjudged necessity, and this is arguably a more constructive focal point for deliberating the continuity of racial preference. Of course, given the convergence of vast disparities and available resources, and the consolidation of race-based politics over time, socio-political pressures for racially delineated redistributive policies have prevailed over the principles and limits to affirmative action as set out in the Constitution. The momentous event in the expansion and intensification of affirmative action was the racial upheaval and bloodshed of 13 May, 1969, and the subsequent overhaul of Malaysia’s development regime under the New Economic Policy (NEP). Affirmative action and the NEP will be discussed in the following section. However, a few points are worth noting at this juncture. First, affirmative action is embedded in Malaysia’s institutional framework. Constitutional provisions for racial preference must be situated in historical context and examined on an ongoing basis, corresponding with changing conditions. Second, affirmative action was expanded and intensified in the aftermath of racial strife, and under conditions of national emergency. Crisis provided a rallying point and galvanized resources, but also triggered the consolidation of pro-Malay political power and executive dominance, and increasingly centralized the policy regime.