林德宜：逐步废除新经济政策

我的WhatsApp群组中，一个热门话题是，如何建立一个更具活力和团结的国家。对群组里，来自各族群，公共和私人领域顶端专业阶层的友人而言，要达致这使命的关键和最棘手的障碍，或许就是新经济政策及基于其的种族方案、策略和政策的延续。

在我的WhatsApp群组对话里──每天有数百则讯息──这里没有成规或规则手册来规定群聊。因此，关于新经济政策的讨论，是非常坦率和无约束的。经常会有敏锐观察，深刻见解和有用建议，但政治上视为不正确的。

无论如何，这些讨论或分析，都是短暂的，漫不经心或瞬间的。同样在，也有人认为不适合讨论有关课题，因为有关言论过于坦率或对多元族群社会凝聚力和关系是负面或有害的。

通过这些对话，实际上，提供了我们如何摆脱来自新经济政策带来的僵局和困境的前进之路。在此与读者分享，希望其他利益相关者可以抛弃他们的束缚、恐惧并贡献出如何拆除或解构，破坏国家向心力和团结的力量。

违反宪法造成分化

这方案是，确认马来族群在那一些社会或经济领域的表现，与其他族群同等甚至更优越。在这些领域，可以非种族，基于功绩或其他与种族无关的标准，替代成为主要或唯一的政策决定因素。只有在公开透明的需求数据下，基于种族的合理分配，依然可以继续推行。对新经济政策下可轻易获取的优惠进行检讨，至少是出于以下三个原因：

1.继续执行新经济政策是违反《宪法》第153条，该条文阐明在维护马来人的特殊地位同时，也应保障其他族群的合法权益

2.将新经济政策的执行，扩展和扩张到几乎所有社会经济和生活层面，偏离原本的政策精神，并导致不公正和不合理的对待。这违反了宪法第153条文的本意和精神，也不符合宪法第8条（1）条文下，所阐明的权利平等基本概念，即禁止歧视个人或族群，除非有合理的理由。

3.延长新经济政策会导致社会平庸化，也会造成社会分化，并且对经济具有负面影响。

那么应废除那一些新经济政策下的种族政策和让有关领域自由化。这是清单：

•公共和私人领域的房屋折扣和固打；
•公立大学的职员职位；学生录取配额和其他种族偏差措施；
•国家教育制度下的预算拨款；特殊教育机构；奖学金；玛拉种族偏差政策；
•公务员录取；高层职位和晋升
•执照；招标和合同
•政府官联公司和其他特殊功能的政府机构；

这里所提的也需要进一步获得相关利益者的建议补充，例如制造商、中小企业、房地产商和其他面对著族群偏差措施执行下，首当其冲的企业。

如何应对反对之声

取消新经济政策下的优惠，肯定会面对著在该政策下受惠的马来精英、政客和决策层公务员的反对。无疑，他们的子孙将继续独享种族偏差政策带来的好处。

除了一般的马来党派外，我们也看到一些非马来学者，出于某些个人的理由，以马来主权来合理化种族偏差的政策。

对这种以种族为中心或机会主义的反对，不应屈服和妥协。反之，我们应冷静、理性地以新经济政策对公民、企业、媒体和其他利益相关者的影响和反应来合理反对。这是在政策改革路上，我们所需要的坚毅和耐心，以打开决策者和官僚机构的封闭大门。否则，我们将真的被愤世嫉俗人所说的“永无止境的政策”（Never Ending Policy，此英文NEP缩写与新经济政策类似）所束缚。

除了以法律和道义论点来反对延续这项种族偏差政策外，更现实意义是，新经济政策是马来西亚复兴的主要绊脚石。越早以种族中立的，基于需求、绩效和地区（如沙巴和砂拉越优先）政策框架取而代之，这国家就可以更快地建立一个充满经济活力和团结的国度。

《逐步废除新经济政策》（Dismantling the NEP）原文：

A hot topic in the whatsapp groups that I am part of is how to build a more resilient and united nation. Perhaps the key and most vexing obstacle to this national mission identified by friends who come from the top echelon of professions in the public and private sector and represent a good cross section of our multiracial society is the New Economic Policy and its legacy in the continuation of race based approaches, strategies and policies.

In my whatsapp conversations - one of which runs to several hundred messages a day - there is no etiquette or rule book to guide the group chat. Hence the discussion on the NEP has been frank and uninhibited. Often sharp observations, insightful opinions and helpful suggestions which are politically incorrect are posted.

Unfortunately whatever analysis takes place is fleeting, cavalier or momentary. Also apparent in curtailing the NEP discussion is the concern with being too frank or texting what may be seen as negative or hurtful remarks that can weaken the multiracial groupˇs cohesion and relationships.

Drawing on these conversations, what is provided here is a way forward on how to break free from the NEP impasse and policy prison that Malaysians are trapped and caged in.

It is shared with readers in the hope that other stake players can cast aside their inhibitions and fears and contribute ideas on how to dismantle or deconstruct a policy which has been the main centripetal and disunifying force in the nation.

Plucking the Fruits of NEP Successes

The approach is to identify economic and social sectors in which the Malay community has achieved parity or superiority in relation to the position of the other ethnic communities. In these spheres, race-neutral, merit-based or other non-ethnic related criteria can be substituted to become the main or sole policy determinant factor. Ethnic based allocations of reasonable proportion can be continued but only after full disclosure of the need.

This targeting of the low hanging fruit of NEP successes is overdue for at least three reasons.

1. The continuation of the policies is a breach of Article 153 of the Constitution which calls for protection of the legitimate interests of other communities, notwithstanding the special position of the Malays

2. Extensions and expansion of the initial NEP policy into practically all aspects of socio-economic life constitute unjust and unjustifiable deviations of the original policy. It impinges on the substance and spirit of Article 153 and the basic concept of equality and equal protection of the law as contained in Article 8(1) of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination against a person or class of persons, unless there is a rational basis for such discrimination

3. Prolongation of the policy breeds mediocrity, is socially divisive and has regressive economic impact. So what are the possible areas for the liberalization and dismantling of NEP race related provisions. Here is a list 

•Public and private sector housing discounts and quotas
•Public universities staffing positions; student admission quotas and other ethnic preference measures
•National educational system as reflected in budgetary allocations; special educational institutions; scholarship awards; MARA ethnic preference policies
•Civil service intake; senior positions and promotions
•Licences; tenders and contracts
•GLCs and other special purpose government agencies

What is provided here needs to be supplemented with suggestions from stakeholders such as manufacturers, SMEs, housing developers, and other business groups who have borne the brunt of the burden in implementing ethnic preference requirements and conditions for doing business.

Dealing with Opposition to Dismantling the NEP

Obviously objection to dismantling NEP benefits can be expected from Malay politicians and policy makers from the civil service and other elite Malays who have been the principal beneficiaries. It is an undeniable fact that their children and grandchildren will continue to monopolize the gains arising from ethnic preference.

Besides the usual Malay groups we have also seen support for ethnic preference policies from a few non-Malay academics who justify the status quo in ketuanan Melayu policies for reasons relating to their personal advancement.

The response to such ethnocentric or opportunistic opposition should not be collaboration, resignation or impotence. It should be the provision of rational feedback on impacts and outcomes from citizens, businesses, the media and other stakeholders. 

What is needed for policy change and reform calls for perseverance and stamina in knocking open the closed doors of policy makers and the bureaucracy. Otherwise we will be really stuck with what the cynics have termed a ¨Never Ending Policy〃.

Quite apart from the legal and moral arguments against continuation of ethnic preference, the reality is that the NEP is the main stumbling block to a revitalized Malaysia. The sooner it is replaced by a race-neutral, needs-based, merit-based and region-based (Sabah and Sarawak prioritization) policy framework, the quicker the nation can build a resilient and united nation and a dynamic economy.