R Sharif
3:15pm Thu Jan 30th, 2003

The debate o­n the desirability and usefulness of affirmative action as practised in Malaysia brings back to mind a phrase that I encountered in an economics course many years ago: ceteris paribus - a Latin phrase that means "with all other things (or factors) remaining the same," as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary.

The greatest flaw in affirmative action efforts like the New Economic Policy and the National Development Policy was the assumption, inherent in those policies, that they would allow the Malay Malaysians to catch up with the Chinese Malaysians in business and commerce, ceteris paribus.

While the concept is useful for the illustration of economic theories and principles in undergraduate-level economics, we know that things do not stay the same, stand still, or remain static, not for long anyway.

Any economist worth his salt would have pointed out that the Chinese Malaysians would not "pull into the pit stops" to wait for the Malay Malaysians several laps behind - and they have not (why should they?).

Despite the advantages that have been given to Malay Malaysians through these affirmative action policies, Chinese Malaysians have adapted, accommodated, and they have found a way to survive, to preserve and protect their interests and livelihood, and to remain in the lead.

For every step forward that a Malay Malaysian businessman has made, his Chinese Malaysian counterparts has taken two or even three, and with their greater experience, access to capital, and motivation fueled by past successes, they are in position to easily do so, much more so than the Malay Malaysians.

So is meritocracy the solution?

In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (1998, Little, Brown & Company (UK)), British historian David Landes lays out the characteristics of "the society theoretically best suited to pursue material progress and general enrichment".

Among the conditions of this ideal society was that it would "choose people for jobs by competence and relative merit; promoted and demoted o­n the basis of performance," with, among other corollaries, "no discrimination o­n the basis of irrelevant criteria - race, sex, religion, etc".

This, he argues, is "the machine at 100% efficiency, designed without regard to the vagaries of history and fate and the passions of human nature."

Thus, "no society o­n earth has ever matched this ideal," although he believes that a few have come closer than the rest.

Some Malaysians who propose the implementation of meritocracy would argue that while our country is a long way off from having that ideal society, the great effort in bridging the gap would be all worth it in the end, and that the sooner we start the quicker we will get there.

Such arguments disregard "the vagaries of history and fate and the passions of human nature."

A peruse of our short history would show that economic inequalities were more pronounced at the time of independence than it is today, and that in the years up to just before the introduction of the NEP, our country was, to a certain degree, more "meritocratic", with the
government adopting a more laissez-faire economic approach.

But ethnic tensions also grew, largely due to this very approach, as argued by Barbara and Leonard Andaya in A Short History of Malaysia (2001, Palgrave Publisher Ltd):

"It was increasingly clear that Chinese entrepreneurs had flourished under the government’s laissez-faire policies, and that the income disparity between Malays and Chinese had worsened. Rural areas, where most Malays still lived, remained poor, village youths were leaving for the cities, governments appeared unresponsive, class privilege seemed entrenched, Islam was not honoured, Malays lacked access to higher education, and the position of Malay culture and language was contested."

The climax of these ethnic antagonisms, these "passions of human nature," that the Andayas say were festering for decades, was the infamous May 13 incident. We are nearly 34 years removed from that day, but we remain equally distant from fully resolving the items in that long list of grievances, and do not seem to get any closer.

Chinese Malaysian entrepreneurs continue to flourish, much more so than Malay Malaysian o­nes, despite the NEP and NDP; the income disparity between Malay Malaysians and Chinese Malaysians has neither worsened, nor improved significantly; many Malay Malaysians still live in rural areas, but many have also moved to cities, where there are urban poor, and youths continue to flock to there; government still appears unresponsive to many people; Islam is more honoured, but which brand of Islam; Malay Malaysians have better access to education, but the Chinese Malaysians have become better qualified; and the position of the Malay language, at least, remains a contentious issue.

Malaysians have to ask themselves if the introduction of meritocracy would solve these and other equally important issues, or make them worse, bearing in mind that despite the NEP and NDP, the playing field is far from level.

They will also have to consider whether the country is prepared to implement full-blown meritocracy from Day o­ne, for if it does decide to go down that path, it would have to be nothing but meritocracy of that sort.

(It can be argued that the gradual introduction of meritocracy - say, in annual stages - is "unmeritocratic" in itself: why should my son have to fight harder, due to the decrease in the intake quota for bumiputera, for a place in a local university next year, compared with my neighbour’s son, who is going to university this year? Where is the merit in that?)

(With the reality of the non-level playing field, it can also be argued that the introduction of meritocracy, would, in effect, be a type of 'reverse' affirmative action for the non-bumiputera, with the Chinese Malaysians benefiting the most.)

More importantly, Malaysians must ask themselves how long they are willing to put up with the pain that would surely be felt before they taste the promised sweetness.

This is a highly pertinent question, as the task of introducing full meritocracy would fall o­n an elected government, and it will need sustained electoral support to stay the course.

But the availability of this support can be questioned.

Bumiputera, the people that are going to be stripped of the privileges they enjoy under current policies, make up nearly two thirds of the population, with the numbers in the Malay community growing faster than any other ethnic group.

Unless this trend is somehow reversed, the "life expectancy" of any meritocracy initiative will depend entirely o­n the tolerance level and the pain threshold of this community.

How much pain can they stand?

Regardless of its eventual benefits, Malaysia’s attempt at meritocracy might well fall to that other much-invoked ideal, democracy, and bring the country back to square o­ne.

That brings to mind another old phrase: the more something changes, the more it stays the same, ceteris paribus, of course.