Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

Monday 27 July 2009

The Doctrine of the Freed Malay

The government has announced the removal of the 30% rule on equity allocation. Earlier, it has also done away with the FICC and the rules associated with foreigners setting up businesses in Malaysia. This administration has started dismantling certain edifices of the NEP. Clearly, this new approach indicates a changing perception on managing this country's economy.

There is a term for this stand that refuses to accept things as they are. It is directly opposite to that of conservative thinking. Conservatism in the original sense means a stand taken to insist things to remain as they are. It stands for the business as usual approach. In political terms it means reliance on the state or government to perform the functions which are better accomplished by the free individual.

The opposite of this stand, which is being adopted by this current administration, is libertarianism. It represents an unwillingness to see things as they believe that things can be done and get better through the free individual. It relies on the voluntary cooperation of individuals each pursuing their own interest.

Let me be more direct. The NEP is a legislative instrument designed to achieve a number of economic objectives which should be carried out by free men. We accepted it as necessary because of certain debilitating factors in society especially so in Malay society, which occurred as a result of a number of reasons. The NEP therefore became a means to concentrate economic and political powers at one place. Such concentration was fraught with dangers but we accepted the arrangement as necessary as it was only meant to be temporary.

This is the political arrangement favoured by the Malay conservatives who regard themselves as loyal to the Malay cause. The term Malay conservatism is associated with an unquestioning readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve a set of objectives. In the name of welfare and equality for instance, these people favour policies of state intervention and paternalism against the pursuit of the idea of freedom. Those who oppose their views are easily castigated as traitors.

I have written in support of the removal of the rule on 30% equity participation. I have said it is the most undemocratic aspect of the NEP and the most abused. The rule has benefited only the elite, the selected few excluding the ordinary Malay. The common folks don't know anything about this rule. Because of that, I welcome its removal. As to the other aspects which were designed for capacity building turning the Malays into wealth generating agents, I am in full support.

I have expressed my opinion about this matter and have given my reasons for believing so. I expect disagreement over this opinion to be refuted by reasoned argument. There was one particular comment by an anonignoramus (a combination between an anonymous and ignoramus) who stated that by arguing the line which I have taken, I am a traitor and a liberal.

A liberal traitor? That's a new one.

The principal person initiating the removals of these unfair vestiges of the NEP is the PM himself. The outbursts from the Malay anarchist such as the anonignoramus would therefore place the PM squarely in the category of traitor and liberal. That would be an interesting classification.

Obviously this anonignoramus hasn't read my articles on this issue. I have said cleanly that this particular aspect I cannot apply myself to believe- but as to the other aspects of the NEP which build capacity and empower the majority Malays, I am in full agreement.

Let us be clear about this so as not to debate endlessly on a position not taken.


A failed Welfare state.

I am sure many of you have heard the phrase- we want a fair society not a welfair society. I am not attributing the quote to anybody because, that in itself can be a contentious starting point. Welfare is for the infirmed, the old, the sick and the debilitated. These people deserved to be on permanent welfare schemes. It is the right thing to do.

Temporary assistance is for those who suffer temporary misfortunes. The wife whose husband who is also the breadwinner has died, wives left by husbands, young and able widows, those who are laid off. These people also deserve temporary assistance. Even orphans received temporary welfare. When they grow older, go to school and become adults, they fend for themselves.

I come back again to the ascriptive or status centric and achieved societies classification. As a reminder, a progressive society is associated with achieved norms. Such a society is characterised by a values system that place prominence on what a person can do, social and function mobility and specific role of individuals. A status cantered or acriptive normed society places a high premium on who you are, social exclusivity and undefined role of the individual.

Let's apply the status centric classification on the 30%equity rule. Who were the ones lucky enough to get the privilege of being allocated shares in listed companies? They would be those who the titled elite, senior civil servants, well connected people, the puteras of the left behind bumis, and so on. In other words you got to be given the allocation because of who you are, to which section of society you belonged and so forth. This would be a perfect example of the practice of ascriptive norms.

I have one term of the Malay who cherishes this arrangement- the Feudal overlord.

Malay political conservatism is therefore is state absolutism in disguise. It holds the state as the absolute arbitrator in the affairs of free Malay people. Accordingly, any questioning and challenges to the state are regarded as a direct challenge to the Malays. This mindset provides the perfect excuse for the political operators to leverage on crass racism.

Hence, when the issue of the death on an aide to a DAP exco became an issue of public interest, this was quickly seized by the Malay feudal overlords as a challenge to the Malay people. When the ISA is being challenged it was met with an aggressive reaction by a group of Malays designating themselves as presumably, the only custodian of Malay heritage.

As a responsible political party,UMNO should distance itself from these brownshirts with black gloves.


Fi-sha 27 July 2009 at 11:35  

Good morning Datuk Sak

I admire your optimism - UMNO a responsible political party aye? To whom Datuk Sak, I wonder...

Azizi Khan 27 July 2009 at 12:27  

I absolutely agree with you. Malaysia does not need these affirmative policies. Its does not do anything to help the Malays and is downright racist.

What we need is to look at Malaysia as a whole and do things as Malaysians. No longer the fetish is to sort people according to Melayu, Cina and India.

But the awareness is greater than that. When you fill out a form next time - don't put your IC number. Don't put in your race.

(If you are afraid make up and IC number and plug in "Dan Lain Lain" )

That way you are becoming a somebody by becoming a nobody. You have to be aware that you are a Malaysian first. You were born in this country and every citizen is entitled the rights and privileges of being Malaysian.

My point is you cannot change a government by adhering to their rules. We the citizens of Malaysia, the tax payers of the country must make a conscious decision for this country to be fair for all.


Suci Dalam Debu 27 July 2009 at 12:57  


The formula for success is not a secret at all. It is known all over the world.

Gain knowledge, work hard, learn more, work harder, have integrity, work together etc.

Perhaps the utube clip below is a good lesson to the UMNO leaders specifically and Malays in general or anybody who doesn't work hard for that matter.

Having said that, there are hard working people but could not make headway because their leaders and system are rotten to the core.

It is good that you highlight temporary assistance to be given out to those who need it temporary.

Many Malays associate temporary assistance to be permanent and bonded to Ketuanan Melayu.

These UMNO petualang are the actual traitors to the Malays. Other Malaysian have pointed out what are the failings and short-comings of the NEP, yet, all these buggers want is to continue dipping their fingers in the diminishing kitty.

I am also saddened by the statement of TDM. He failed miserably in his 22 year rule to raise the awareness of the Malays.

He created a lot of spoilt Malays and let the ALI BABA culture blossomed.

Dato, the video above should be made compulsory to all Malaysians, Malays specifically.

Ree,  27 July 2009 at 13:55  

Dato Sak,

I think to say that the government has removed the 30% bumi allocation is not accurate.

The liberalization is only for listed companies carrying out corporate exercises, 30% is now changed to 12.5%.

The FIC Guidelines has also been repealed.

However, all these do not impact on the conditions that are/can be imposed by all the other Government ministries and agencies.

The 30% NEP objective remains.

A good start nevertherless.

Let's be honest,  27 July 2009 at 14:38  

contnuing from my comments in your previous posting....

The Chinese work hard and despite working hard they are not being appreciated and given some opportunities at least for middle and the lower class Chinese. Why are the Malays so scared? The political leaders must have the political courage and will to change the mind-set of the Malays. And they must act on it i.e walk the talk and not just rhetoric.In this globaliization era, the Malays must be educated, competitive and hardworking to succeed. We cannot be racial here. Our religion too forbids us to discriminate. Of the many non-Malays that I have spoken too, they have no problem with the govt helping the poor and deserving hardworking Malays but not the special good-for-nothing, lazy/brainless UMNO Malays. I am not a member of any political party. Just and ardent observer. I will not be a member of UMNO, unless as a member I am eligible to vote and choose my leader. Just imagine being a Malaysian citizen and not being allowed to vote to choose your wakil rakyat/leader! In this country the President of UMNO (and by extension, the Prime Minister) is chosen by 2500 UMNO members, many of whom are suckers and bribe takers and rent-seekers. Time has changed. People has become more educated. Information can now be obtained at the press of fingertips. The leaders must be cured from the "denial syndrome". Why not allow all UMNO members to vote and allow people who want to contest do so? And we should also allow these candidates to campaign. Then only we will know what they want to do and what are their ideals for the nation. Money politics will also be greatly curtailed as it is way too expensive to bribe 3 million members. When there is a will, there is always a way. But currently there is simply no political will to do it. Changing it will not make UMNO weaker but the leaders are reluctant to do so as they do not want to loose their positions of power (ministers, deputy ministers,ketua bahagians etc) to better people because they always think that they know the best. Talk about parti yang pentingkan grassroots? This is a big joke and another hypocrisy of the highest order! UMNO now is not like UMNO in the 70's or early 80's. UMNO now has degenerated to a point where medicines will not be able to cure the disease anymore. Only transplants may safe its life or better still let it die then really UMNO Baru will appear. And this time it will be a true UMNO Baru and not the one created by our ex-PM.

Let's be honest,  27 July 2009 at 14:41  


We are a blessed country. Rich in natural resources and fertile land. In the 60's and 70's we are on par if not better than Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea. But look where they are now. Miles ahead of us. And they do not even have the oil and gas that God blessed us with. Spore's per capita is about 5times our per capita. What went wrong? The answer is that we breeds and tolerate mediocrity and allow corruption and abuse of power for personal gains to become a way of life. It is our children and grandchildren that will suffer. Remember, we don't inherit this country from our parents but we owe it to our children. When we owe something, we must return it in at least the same condition, if not better. If not our children/grandchildren will suffer and will curse us because we chose not to change the situation.

The affirmative action introduced in 1970 thru NEP is a good policy. Its aim to restructure society and eradicate poverty irrespective of race is a very noble. But the implementation has been abused. It has been hijacked to enrich selected Umnoputras through the assistance of selected Chinese. After 40 years, there are still many poor Malays around, both in urban and rural areas. Also there are still poor Chinese and Indians. In fact the disparity between the rich and poor is highest among the Malays. The Chinese people are survivalist. Put them anywhere on this planet, they will survive without any tongkat. Many of the Chinese and Indians came to this country not by choice. They were brought by the British to work on rubber estates and tin mines. Beranak pinak disini and has contributed a lot to the progress of this nation. Can we blame them? The Chinese became wealthy because of hard work and also because the govt (meaning UMNO also meaning Melayu) help them mainly through kickbacks, rent seeking and corruption. This has enable their economic activities (legal or illegal) to thrive and survive.

God will not help us until we help ourself first.

Sorry, comments a bit lenghty...

Anonymous,  27 July 2009 at 17:16  


Betul Betul Betul.... But for real change to happen the Malays masses need to support this (and it is slowly happening thanks to PKR and internet)but be assured the feudal overlords will fight tooth and nail to make sure your message never reaches the masses. If you are truly passionate about this, how do 'enlightened' Malays such as yourself propose to reach them? Blogs alone tak cukup!

walla 27 July 2009 at 18:19  

A: "A traitor? Normally, traitors do things on the sly. Because they want an escape route should they be found out. But this blogger puts his name upfront, welcomes you to his home and says things as they are. So how can he be a traitor?"

B: "That's a question. And another thing, it's indeed wondrous that muslims can welcome their adversaries into their homes. Even more so if their adversaries come calling in need of shelter whereupon the host actually sets himself to protect them while they are in his precincts. That's something to admire, don't you agree, A?"

A: " Ah, we are getting somewhere there, B.

And i think it's not right to label someone a traitor just because he holds a different opinion. Everyone should have the right to hold his own opinion. What is important is to rationalize it to some insight that will offer new solutions out of common dilemmas without creating hate that suppresses enlightened rationalization.

This blogger has been calling a spade a spade from the very beginning. Likewise, to say he is being too liberal just because he doesn't share a particular set view is to say there can be no other views to a situation. How can that be correct? If looking at a situation in one way only results in a status quo of problems, then obviously it must be looked at in another way to find possible solutions, no?"

B: "Maybe some people really don't want solutions to be found because doing so would mean they will be proven wrong in which case it's all about personal pride, or they will be deprived of their own comfort zone of privileges, in which case it's all hypocrisy while mouthing common concern."

A: "The sad thing is that they think they are protecting everyone in their own community. If that be so, why the need for a new deal?"

B: "We have seen how the old deal has failed not only the malays but also Malaysia. The affirmative policies designed to help the deprived of one community are actually being used to favour a select group which will then try to maintain the status quo so that they will become richer while the poor can only get more desperate and poorer. Meanwhile they blame the plight of the poor in their community on the other races and communities, playing and preying on naked human frailties, and ignoring that there are also many poor in those communities. That not only is unjust and unfair, it is also detrimental to good relations and harmony while continuing a nefarious scheme that weakens and marginalizes further the first community, rankles and debilitates the other communities, weakens enterprise and motivation across board, impoverishes the nation and debtizes the future of all. There is not a single good thing that comes out of it except self-preservation of the few at the expense of all."

B: "It's not actually a few, A. It has actually grown to become many. Just the other night i was waiting with a friend at the KL Sentral LCC terminal. It was two in the morning. There we saw behind the complex a group of malay youngsters just sitting there with their souped-up cars, whiling away their time; minutes later, an mb380 zoomed past; then a cayenne, then a subaru, then a beemer. In each, a youngster and his girlfriend. It's two in the morning and they should be home resting for the next day's school or work. They should not waste their youth but should devote it to put things in their heads or in their wallets for a future that will be more challenging by the day. That's another aspect of the thirty percent for you, A."

walla 27 July 2009 at 18:19  

A: "Sigh...They just want the easy way out. Don't they or their parents realize there is no free lunch in life?

Take, for example, the chinese couple selling bihun. I remember seeing how they had struggled at the beginning. They would have had to get up at four in the morning to prepare the food. Then wait until seven for the office workers to come. The other day i asked them how they're doing. And their reply is maybe representative of how asians really make it in life even if they had started with little. They said it has been twenty years of selling bihun. Except for a week in a year, they never had a day off. They don't make much from each packet sold but that also means they get appreciative return customers. They proudly said they have sent their children through university on their meagre savings. And those children have in turn given them grandchildren. They're still selling the same stuff but their lot has expanded and they could afford to buy it up when they had only started by renting.

B, this is only one example from one generation. Truth be told, for each example of a plodding success, there are ten examples of tragic failures. Some never made it in life. Save for a fading name on some tombstone, they die unknown. Those who had taken annuities would leave the sum to their next generation. Using those sums, the next generation would either get better education or start a small business. Thrift remains the virtue, and ambition to be financially self-independent the motive force. With each mistake made, and assuredly there would be plenty in the course of life, they steer themselves back by their own presence of mind to do things right for their future generations. In other words, B, they sacrifice themselves for their next generations and even if they be illiterate, they hold onto their resilience to provide some unspoken fortitude to stay the course in the face of adversity. And they do their best not to blame anyone for their situation.”

B: "These are virtues not subscribed by just them, A. It's in all of us. Just that some have decided it is alright to take short-cuts to wealth because they think they can get away with it and because it seems to be benignly encouraged by a one-eye-closed government administration that is monopolized by one political party whose remit is to champion the cause and interest of one community over and above the others. How can that possibly have lasted so long, given that a government is to govern for all?"

A: "So the reality of globalization, financial distress and political upheaval has shaken that status quo, B. That's why a new deal must be plastered otherwise all will sink together."

B: "What do you think should go into such a new deal, A?"

A: "I think the first thing should be a shift in emphasis. It should now only be 'to enable the unable' while leaving free market forces to motivate the best to create the most efficient pull engines of growth.

In other words, all who have been deprived and marginalized should be enabled to make their own progress. This means all doors should be open to all to achieve according to their abilities. The key objective should be to make sure the particular enterprise gets to continue growing so that it can enable even more."

B: "Does that mean the racial aspect must get diluted?"

A: "Look, B. We have seen what happens to all the enterprises where people who don't know how to run them or have other personal priorities get their hands on assets and rights. They not only compound the problem with bad practices but also end up causing huge financial losses, opening up leakages and siphonages, throwing away real opportunities and wrecking havoc on organizational health. Each failure only reinforces the urgency to cream off more elsewhere, and by dint of passive acceptance, gives tacit license to others to use the same method. Needless to say, the entire edifice comes crumbling down and bad practices seep into the woodwork until they cannot be removed."

walla 27 July 2009 at 18:20  

B: "But are you also saying there should not be affirmative emplacements? Because if you say that, then a whole lot of professionals may not get emplaced."

A: "No, i'm not saying that because doing so will only move the basic problem from one place to another without solving it in a common platform. There is a distinction here. The malay professionals should be given placements but in accordance to their present levels of competency. Then they should be helped inhouse and outhouse to develop their competencies until they can earn more either by promotion or performance based on actual deliverables. It has been no different in human resources development in other countries. Take Japan, for instance. Its economic and industrial prowess came because of three factors. One, their people are individually proud of excellent work; they take pride in doing well and giving their best without counting in advance what they should be getting; in other words, they are target-focused above all else. In fact, the youtube clip above carries the same Islamic message of excellence and professionalism. If the japs can do it without the faith, what more muslims of the faith which professes the same.

Second, because all think in terms of the good of their employing firms first, they subsume their fears and proclivities to some unspoken common good. That means they are voluntarily taught inhouse by their own peers and seniors, many a time through unofficial and person-to-person coaching. Now this can happen in our multiracial country only and only if there is harmony and goodwill. Maybe that's what 1Malaysia is all about. All helping all. Which means the zero-sum games played before have to go. Then the ball gets into the courts of the others who can help so that they will have to show they are going to do so in the interest of all."

B: "But do you think that will happen?"

A: "Do you have anything better, B? Look you can't sell the notion of national integration for unity when the integration is to a particular community and rationalized to some set of contractual obligations none could identify with today. So what i am saying is recognize instead the power and promise of diversity, and use that heterogeneity to hybridize a new and more exciting level of cooperation that first recognizes the primacy of the enterprise without which all the pull-up supports won't last anyway."

B: "You mentioned three factors. What's the third?"

A: "A forward-looking government that energizes international integration and competitiveness, rather than some parochial sentimentality. And that includes new service levels and foresight. Geographically consistent probusiness policies, perfect efficiencies in service deliveries, thoughtfulness and integrity in all, fairness and justice upheld without fail, and so on…”

B: "So back to where we were. You were saying the new deal should enable the unable. Does that mean the government should continue to give preferential treatment and goods to just the malays or is it to be back to a more pragmatic and growth-inducing approach?"

A: "I am saying you should give the fishing rod only to those who have shown they want to fish not just for themselves but for others.

And in the interest of real harmony, by others i mean all communities. Start that in one community and get the others to follow by example. Then we crack the calluses that are blinding and binding back the full power of 1Malaysia."

B: "The government has mentioned Ekuitinas. Maybe that's one vehicle. But, indeed, if we get the message from the Friedman video, it's easy to make the mistake of offering a solution like preferential welfarism which only shifts the root of the problem to another, namely bureaucratic power that asserts itself through gatekeepers who are alloyed to certain causes unsustainable in today's real world."

walla 27 July 2009 at 18:20  

A: "All should see there is no choice from now on apart from cooperation between all against a common adversary which is the irrelevance of Malaysians to the real world that will define the future of all our young, B."

B: "What other things can you put into the new deal?"

A: "Motivation. The malays, in fact whoever is in plight, should learn how to self-motivate, not fall into splittist traps set up by some to shift unsupportable blame onto other communities in order to stroke closure of one community by fomenting hate against others. That's against the better part of any religion or faith, by the way, let alone good upbringing. Especially if one comes from parents from two different roots, if one may be allowed to say."

B: "You show no mercy, A."

A: "Look, B. The old affirmative policies are impractical from the very start because in reality you know it's not about race. It's about ratio."

B: "How so?"

A: "Let's say target equals wealth divided by number of people. If the number of people is increasing all the time, then wealth must increase at the same rate to achieve the same target. In the case of the NEP, for instance, the target can only be achieved by one of two ways. One, to zero-sum off the others based on 'more for me by less for you'. In other words, take what should be given to others and give to your own. Two, to shoot the economy up so that the pie is enlarged for all.

Now, what they all missed is that in reality, the second depends on the first. If people across board don't cooperate but treat one another as adversaries, then obviously there will not be critical mass to grow the economic pie together. Every community will then be fending for itself in which case the pie cannot grow evenly which means the wealth cannot be earned evenly which means the target groups will be getting less as time goes on. Whether we are talking about actual funds through projects, emplacement in jobs, issuance of licenses or permits or such a highly value-volatile instrument as share equity is immaterial. It's all about that ratio. And to belabor the point, the bigger the denominator, that is number of people to help up, the harder to achieve the same objective for a constant wealth level. In fact, the wider the preferential subsidy, the smaller the numerator, or wealth available for distribution. Now this entire problem is twisted further by elitist treatment within one subgroup of one community. Of course the fracture will widen across the entire nation.”

B: "If that be so, i can now understand why you've added self-motivation into the proposed new deal. You're saying the poor and weak should invest more in less so as to increase their chances of success?"

A: “ I’m afraid that’s how I see the bottom-line. More invested in less will enable the less to achieve more. If someone can propose another way out of this, I sure would like to hear of it.”

B: “Are there other elements you can think of for a new deal?”
A: “Yes, but I would like to see what others can come up with before going further. Somehow I believe the common strategy would be to do everything possible to grow the economy and let the market decide the final structure. Then reward and motivation will fall in line with ability and performance. Those who can do less will need to work their resumes more. This will take time and effort. That’s how everyone else progresses so why should here be any different or special? Why continue to support get-rich quick schemes?”

Anonymous,  28 July 2009 at 00:38  

is it racism to hv affirmative action to provide opportunities for a certain group of people?Do u think that USA practises racialism for their affirmative program?

Is it racism when it is stated that "Mandarin speaking" is preferred for a job vacancy?

Is it racism when 100% of your distributors,logistics,supply chains belongs to one particular race?

I am for the NEP but without the easy money syndrome and opportunities only to the connected/elites of the past.

I wish for meritocracy,
competitiveness amongst the Bumis within the NEP framework.And I wish for regulated and properly planned programmes with milestones and exit strategies mapped out.

Is this message clear enough?Is somebody out there listening?

Anonymous,  28 July 2009 at 11:26  

Anon28 July 2009 00:38,

‘Is it racism when 100% of your distributors,logistics,supply chains belongs to one particular race?’

This is an often-used excuse for the failure of the Malay M’sian’s business model, in view of the competitions from others.

How stereotyping can this be! Another BTN myth?

Let me clarify;

1) Most, if not all, those who subscribed to this thinking, r also strong believers, who instinctively think that the Chinese M’sians r money-eyed!

Profit above everything else.

Now this thinking doesn’t clip with the fact that Chinese M’sians only work within their ethnic group.

If one is profit orientated, then whoever gives the best deal will get the business along the chain, irrespective of one's race. After all, the business is very competitive & every sen counts to the bottom line. No?

2) Is/was there no Malay M’sian monopoly along the business chain?

Think again! Pernas used to monopolised all China-import business, which is still majority run by the Chinese M'sians. Everyone, must paid a cut to Pernas, in order to import lowly Chinese herbs to some other Chinese machinery! So who control the supply chain?

Even now the situation is the same with Bernas, who control the rice trade.

What about the AP for import cars? In fact, for those who r in the know, Naza will not be what it is now, without the down-stream hard-working Chinese M’sian car resellers.

That's also the reason why the well-connected Malay M'sians only want to be rent-seekers. Selling is too hard to do & competition is too keen & cut throat!

The question that should be asked is why there r NO reputable/reliable Malay M’sian suppliers along the business chain after all those 'NEP' helps.

Infos provided above have consistently pointed to the fact that Chinese M’sian’s monopoly on business chain is a myth.

Now is Chinese M’sian businessman racist, & only want to deal with their own? Naza’s resellers disprove that.

There is also the case of Ramli’s burger supply chain. Ramli has done quite a lot for the Malay kids, by providing them with supply of burgers with credit. Even though the returns from these burger stalls r not justifiable in any business sense, due to the large defaults. Besides Ramli, who has made good similarly among those burger stall kids?

The blame game should stop, just like the zero-sum game!

If one is good, one is good, irrespective of the ongoing adversaries! These adversaries r everywhere & r colour-blind too!

The basic survival instincts in a competitive world r perseverance, meritocracy & think out of the box. There is NO short-cut. Period.

Can u honestly think that u can measure up to that? Just bear in mind that even with that u r NOT guaranteed to be successful, at most u'll just scrap through through lives like all those SMI operated by the Dlls.


Anonymous,  28 July 2009 at 23:49  

differentiate between genuine bumi businessmen n the rent seekers...
the pernas edar/AP formula is not tenable as it did not develop a competitive supply ended primarily as commission agents.

What is necessary is to develop genuine Bumis with the prerequisite skills/attitude within a competitive environment and incubated through a 5 year program i.e no instant wealth thru APs,monopolies,brokerage etc..No issue about depriving the non Bumis but complementing existing capacities and competencies...

For instance..if a beginner is given a RM 20 million stationery supply contract..without specific knowledge and experience in that field..his option is to sell the contract and earn a nice fat commission BUT if he is given an initial 2 million..with increasing orders subsequently based on performance for a period of five years..he will be in a position to invest n grow accordingly.

No more easy money but opportunities to learn and grow a business for those with the experience,aptitude and entrepreneurial spirit.

Is that unreasonable too?

Red Alfa 31 July 2009 at 15:42  

I really liked the unwritten agenda of UMNO's early supporters, Tanah Melayu shall be the place the Melayu shall proudly call home - the unburnished ketuanan Melayu concept? But the later supporters' ensuing policies and actions instead which have discriminated, oppressed and institutionalized racism, feudalism, corruption, nepotism and cronyism have made the face of the Tuan Melayu quite the total ugliness that I would not wish for my children's or for their children's. Today's UMNO and its passionate supporters are too far gone to have a Muka Melayu - a universal human face. They would probably had laughed at Michael Jackson's but they will never ever see as to why some of us would be cringing at their laughing.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP