When is a right, a right?

The two principles of the NEP were:-

1. 
   
   The eradication of poverty irrespective of race
2. 
   
   The restructuring of society by readjusting the wealth distribution machinery.

The overriding objective of the whole NEP was national unity.

I remember reading circa 1974, Time or Newsweek quoted Tun Razak as saying the special purpose of the NEP was to provide Malays the fishing rod so that they can fish every day. It was supposed to replace the customary practice of giving fish directly to the recipient.

That means, right from the very beginning, the essence of the NEP was to eschew the notion that the Malay man is a passive, mechanical recipient of life's bounty. He acquires a tool to be productive and master his environment and in so doing, redeems himself. Its never the intention of the NEP when it started in 1970, to countenance the idea of an absolute right over material comforts and so forth. It has always been a qualified right in the sense of that right having to be earned and fought for by exerting efforts, using the material in between the ears and action or working.

You acquire a right by qualifying for it- fighting for it, earning for it through conscious efforts. You don't acquire a right because its guaranteed in the form of writing on some parchment somewhere.

These principles were forgotten and instead there was tremendous obsession of securing and achieving the so called 30% target. This became the sole criteria by which to judge the success of the NEP. It also became the only measure by which the extent and effectiveness of the NEP is to be judged. If we don't get 30% in every economic endeavor, we haven't succeeded in establishing our Malayness. It was also a self imposed limitation that could suggest that Malay ownership is to be limited to 30%. What if one day, the Malay population is 70%. Would a 30% ownership by 70% of the population be a tenable proposition? What if Malay resourcefulness far exceed this limitation- are we then to impose a limit on Malay calls?

30% target becomes the be all and end all of the NEP. Its success is to be measured only on this qualification. That, says many proponents is guaranteed by the constitution and the reasoning is, that which is guaranteed is a right.

Here is the basic flaw. We have thus acquired a right by virtue of something written on a piece of paper. It acts in rem or against the whole world. But in reality, such a right acquires a quasi permanent status; it remains in force as long as the constitution is enforced. The constitution can, in theory be changed as when the required number of voting rights are secured by the party wanting changes on the constitution succeeds in doing so. Since these rights remain potentially changeable, the rights are not ever permanent.

Hence, that which we know and call rights, because they are protected by provisions in a parchment, are not eternal in the sense that in theory they can be changed.

How do we get a right then? When we have absolute ownership is the answer. We have title over a piece of land because our ownership is enforceable against the whole world. We have absolute right. How did we get the title over the land in the first place? We acquire a right to do whatever we pleased over the physical land. We may have bought it or was given by the government. Even if we are given, we gave consideration in the form something in return to acquire ownership. We paid the premium, we may have paid the survey fees, processing etc. we complete the acquisition of the land, when we apply it productively.

This is the basic quality of owning a right- we gave something to acquire absolute ownership.

Which brings us to something very vexing- the subject of Malay rights. In particular, in my area of specialization, the Malay economic right.

What are the Malay economic rights then? We have certain things guaranteed by the constitution. Conferment of priorities over others in getting employment for example, of being appointed to certain offices, of being given licenses, or permission to do certain economic activities.

Can these be termed as rights? In the preceding paragraphs, the centerpiece of our argument is that a right acquires a quality of permanence if its fought for and earned. That you have absolute ownership over that which you have fought and earned.

What many of us have been taught to believe to a large extent, is that a right is something we are naturally entitled to, without us making exertions-mental and physical to acquire it. This has been taught to us for generations which is simply wrong when read into the original purpose of the NEP.

It was never the purpose of the NEP that we are entitled to something on the basis of who we are- such as, for example because we are Malay. We are entitled to something after having qualified for it through efforts- mental and physical exertions. Using a rod to fish as opposed to being given a fish because of who we are. In other words our entitlement is always predicated on the basis of what we contribute to get it.

In my opinion, this should be the mindset of a self respecting Malay- i.e. moving away from our fixation of an idea that we acquire a right as a matter of natural consequence to a belief that a right is acquired if its earned and fought for.