According to Prof. Lee Hwok Aun (of Malaysia Studies Programme at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore), the PM’s speech departed from the 12MP document in Focus Area 6. Three discrepancies stand out. The first warrants clarification, the second and third demand answers.
The speech magnifies a divisive and misleading statistical note. The Bumiputera agenda, PM asserts, must continue because “the median income gap between Bumiputeras and Chinese is widening, quadrupling in 2019 compared with the gap in 1989.” The line is taken from the 12MP, but it is preceded by more important matters that the speech omits.
The Eleventh and Twelfth Plans have improved in specifying where pro-Bumiputera and other group-targeted programmes operate – albeit with major omissions, such as matriculation colleges and higher education, public procurement and public sector and government-linked company (GLC) employment.
The 12MP’s discussion of “key issues” faced by the Bumiputeras begins with the general problems of poverty, inequality and unemployment, followed by a list of specific problems.
A case is made of Chinese-Bumiputera household income inequality in a manner that potentially sows discord – and paints a grossly misleading picture by suggesting that inequality between the two groups is widening.
In 1989, the median Chinese household income was RM1,180 while median Bumiputera household income was RM680. The difference was RM500. In 2019, the corresponding figures were RM7,400 for Chinese households and RM5,400 for Bumiputera households. The difference was RM2,000.
The 12MP points out that this absolute difference has increased four times, which is technically correct, but this selective angle skews the perspective on the ethnic groups’ household income progress. Bumiputera household income has actually grown significantly faster: increasing by 700% between 1989 and 2019, compared to 530% for Chinese households. Proportionately, the gap has narrowed. In 1989, median Bumiputera household income was 58% that of Chinese households. By 2019, the proportion had risen to 73%.
It is also inaccurate to only report the statistics at the national level, without taking into account urban and rural differences. Rural incomes are lower; the national Bumiputera median household income is deflated with the inclusion of rural households. The non-Bumiputera population is much more urbanised; the more valid household income comparison should be between urban Bumiputeras and urban non-Bumiputeras.
In 2019, the Bumiputera to Chinese median household income ratio was 81% – a narrower gap than the 73% obtained when urban and rural populations are mixed.
The Bumiputera to Indian income ratios tell a further story. Urban Bumiputera median household income was 102% of urban Indian households (2% higher). What this means is that half of urban Bumiputera households earned less than RM6,209; while half of urban Indian households earned less than RM6,097. As usual, Indians are left behind.
The Bumiputera community has benefited from economic growth and extensive preferential policies. These statistics should in fact be grounds for enhancing the system by making it more inclusive.
The announcement of an “equity safety net framework” has provoked alarm and concern. This measure, on top of many other equity ownership programmes, supposedly ensures that “disposal of Bumiputera shares or companies [will] only be offered and sold to Bumiputera consortiums, companies or other Bumiputera individuals”.
This is a drastic step, and many would add, a problematic and perilous one. As details are absent, the basic why, what and how, is imperative for answers.
The PM’s address to Parliament also highlighted something that is not even in the 12MP. The Dana Kemakmuran Bumiputera, appearing foremost on a list of programmes for Bumiputera SMEs, is nowhere to be found except in his speech.
How will Dana Kemakmuran Bumiputera be scrutinised, debated, and monitored when it does not exist in the Plan?
PM Ismail Sabri had little time to influence the 12MP but he needs to have answers for statements that seem to be outside of the Plan. In addition, it seems the Plan is not something the political masters intend to follow-up or implement. So why Plan?
Reference:
Eyebrow-raising discrepancies between 12MP and PM’s speech, Lee Hwok Aun, Letter to the Editor, FreeMalaysiaToday, Oct 2, 2021 (https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment