Another Property Glut in Malaysia? (Part 1)

According to a recent NST report, Malaysia may be heading for another property glut, this time with almost 100,000 residential units — comprising completed, under construction and yet to be built homes — having no buyers in the first three months of 2025. 

Based on data from the National Property Information Centre (Napic), which records development approvals granted by local authorities, homes in the "affordable" bracket, priced between RM200,001 and RM300,000, account for the largest overhang, trailed closely by those in the RM300,001–RM400,000 range.

 

On an optimistic note, the bulk of these homes are still under construction or have yet to be built, which gives developers time to secure buyers.

 

However, if left to grow unchecked, this may result in abandoned units.

 

According to Napic, in the first quarter of this year, 12,498 new residential units were launched nationwide, with 1,351 units or 11 per cent sold within the first three months — figures that appear pleasing at first glance.

 

Properties priced between RM400,0001 and RM500,000 accounted for the largest share at 3,348 units (26.8 per cent), followed by those between RM200,001 and RM300,000 at 2,233 units (17.9 per cent), and RM300,001 and RM400,000 at 2,002 units (16.0 per cent).

 

Almost 40 per cent (4,853 units) of the units launched were two- and three-storey terraced houses, followed by condominiums/apartments at 27.2 per cent (3,396 units) and single-storey terraced houses at 22.5 per cent (2,815 units).Johor recorded the highest number of launches with 3,194 units, followed by Selangor (2,129), Negri Sembilan (1,838) and Perak (1,812).

Overhang units are defined as "completed properties" that have been awarded a certificate of completion and compliance by the local authorities, but remained unsold for more than nine months.

 

According to Napic data, there were 23,515 such units nationwide in the first quarter of 2025. What should trigger concern is the "affordable" homes priced between RM200,001 and RM300,000 accounting for the largest share at 4,861 units, or 20.7 per cent. This is compounded by the 4,201 units (17.9 per cent) in the RM300,001 to RM400,000 segment and 3,024 units (12.9 per cent) in the RM500,001 to RM600,000 range.

 

Condominiums and apartments dominated the overhang status with 13,386 units, accounting for 56.9 per cent, while two- and three-storey terraced houses recorded 3,560 units, or 15.1 per cent.

 

Perak stood out for having the highest number of unsold completed homes in the RM200,001 to RM300,000 range with 1,254 units. This was followed by Kuala Lumpur with 880 units, Pahang (647) and Penang (624). In Melaka, the market is dire — the bulk of overhung homes was in an even lower price range, where 181 units between RM100,001 and RM200,000 were left unsold. 

 

The Napic data showed that the median house price in the first quarter was RM359,000, but the Statistics Department found that the national median household income was just RM6,338 a month.

Going by Bank Negara Malaysia's median multiple measure — which considers a home to be affordable if it costs no more than three times the median annual income — the affordability ratio for most Malaysian households would stand at 4.72, which is well above the threshold.

 

A household needs to earn about RM9,972 a month to afford a home with a median price of RM359,000. However, based on the statistics, the median price of houses that most Malaysian households could technically afford is RM228,168 only. The gap is especially significant in Sarawak, where households earned a median of just RM4,978 a month, but the median price of houses there was RM395,000, which is higher than the national price.

 

In Johor, which had the largest number of new launches, households earning a median of RM6,879 a month had to contend with a median house price of RM450,000. Even more perplexing is the RM500,000 and above price tag for 2,015 newly launched units, putting them far out of reach for typical income earners.

 

Penang had the most overhang of high-end units, with 646 priced above RM1 million remaining unsold. The state's second-highest unsold category was surprisingly in the RM200,001 to RM300,000 range.

 

Sabah showed a similar pattern, recording 559 unsold units in the RM500,001 to RM600,000 bracket and 446 units priced above RM1 million. In Selangor, the overhang was also concentrated in high-end homes, with no takers for 375 units costing between RM500,001 and RM600,000 and 327 units above RM1 million.

 

What can we do? Three options:

(i)              Do nothing.

(ii)            Re-align approvals for future development; or

(iii)          Create a nationwide “property bank” to purchase and re-sell properties.

For (iii) to work, substantial funding is required from public and private sectors. Will that happen? Not in the immediate future!

 

References:

Nearly 100,000 homes remain unsold in the first three months of 2025, Aliza Shah, Iylia Marsya Iskandar, New Straits Times, 1 September 2025

 

The sticky stats of overhang properties, Pankaj C. Kumar, The Star, 20 September 2025

KLIA: International Hub or Two Airports?

Malaysia’s main international gateway has been slipping in service quality. KLIA is now showing cracks in planning, maintenance and passenger management. 

Both terminals seem overcrowded, KLIA 2 more than KLIA 1. While strong passenger traffic reflects healthy demand, growth without matching upgrades only magnifies weaknesses. Arrival halls, especially immigration counters for foreign visitors, are bogged down by long queues.

 

Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org

Within Terminal 1, the aerotrain — connecting the main terminal to its satellite building — has become another issue. Its closure for nearly two weeks in August highlighted how fragile KLIA’s operations have become. For an airport that brands itself as a global hub, even short disruptions erode passenger confidence. Despite the introduction of self-check-in terminals, many of the bag drop counters in the departure halls struggle with long queues. 

The real failure lies in KLIA’s design. There is no seamless way to transfer between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. The aerotrain does not serve inter-terminals. One must take a bus, Grab or the ERL? Passengers connecting between domestic and international flights must exit through immigration, reclaim their baggage, and then check-in again at the other terminal. This is not just inconvenient; it is a fundamental design flaw that undermines KLIA’s role as a hub airport.

No international gateway forces its transit passengers through this ordeal. Airports in Singapore, Dubai and Doha have long mastered integrated transfers, ensuring speed, reliability and comfort. 

Terminal 2 is under equally heavy strain. Its design feels more like a shopping mall than an airport, with long stretches of retail space and only narrow corridors reserved for passengers.

Once checked in, travellers face an unnecessarily long trek to reach their departure gates — often through winding paths designed to maximise retail exposure rather than passenger convenience. The same ordeal awaits on arrival, where passengers are forced into another long walk before reaching immigration and baggage claim. This “mall-first, passenger-second” approach reflects misplaced priorities. While retail revenue may be important for airport operators, the primary function of an airport is to move people efficiently and comfortably.

 

At Terminal 2, commercial gain seems to have taken precedence over passenger experience, leaving travellers exhausted and dissatisfied. The e-hailing system here is especially poor. At Level 1, passengers waiting for rides are crammed into a poorly designed holding area with inadequate boarding facilities. What makes this worse is the airport operator’s decision to impose a RM2 fee on every e-hailing vehicle entering the pickup zone. 

With thousands of cars passing through daily, the revenue collected is significant — yet no improvements have been made to ease passenger congestion or enhance facilities. 

The recent power outage at Terminal 2 has reinforced doubts about the airport’s maintenance standards. World-class airports invest heavily in reliability and backup systems; KLIA, instead, has been plagued by recurring breakdowns — from aerotrain closures to power failures. KLIA is Malaysia’s front door to the world, yet it is underperforming on nearly every front that matters — efficient transfers, passenger comfort and operational reliability. The absence of inter-terminal connectivity alone is enough to disqualify it from being considered a true hub airport. 

If KLIA cannot provide basic connectivity between its two terminals without exiting immigration or baggage claim, it is no hub airport! We are not in the league with Singapore, Dubai or Doha and we seem happy as things are! 

Reference:

KLIA’s fatal flaw: an international hub without transfers, Rosli Khan, FMT, 8 Sept 2025

Are We Back to the 1930s?

 

With European economies promising to up their defence expenditure to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP), are we repeating the 1930s? The inter-war years were dominated by Western (including Japan) powers, with the rest of the world under colonial yoke. 

The First World War between the European powers did not settle old scores, with Germany bitter about war reparations, which caused hyperinflation that devastated German society. After the Roaring 1920s, which ended with the Great Crash of 1929, the 1930s were years of global slowdown. By 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt was elected on the promise of his New Deal to revive the American economy. 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

In Japan and Germany, right-wing factions rose on the back of militarism. In 1934, Adolf Hitler came to power with Nazi nationalism to revive and revenge German humiliation in the First World War and loss of territory. German military spending went from 1% to 2% of GDP in 1933 to 13% by 1936 and nearly 100% of GDP by 1945. Japan went from 3% to 4% of GDP to 9% to 10% by 1937 to 1938, when the Sino-Japanese War broke out. 

The United States was slow to react, with an average spending of 1% to 2% of GDP between 1930 and 1938 but rapidly ramped up to as much as 40% of GDP by 1945. The United States has always taken care of European security after World War Two, mostly through the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but the Trump Administration has decided that Europe should bear the burden of its own security, particularly to raise defence expenditure to 5% of GDP. Europe must also take care of the Ukraine mess, whilst America concentrates on its rising rival, China. 

After the humiliating 2025 Munich Security Conference, in which the Trump Administration basically told the Europeans that they are on their own, new German Chancellor Merz announced a doubling of military expenditure. This was a signal that Europe is now beginning to re-arm. 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated global military expenditure rose by 6.8% in 2023, to surpass US$2.4 trillion, equivalent to 2.3% of world GDP.

On average, military spending was 6.9% of fiscal budgets, which increased across all five geographical regions, with the most in Africa (by 22% in 2023), while it was lowest in the Americas (2.2%). 

Nevertheless, the United States remains the largest military spender in the world, with US$916bil larger than the combined spending of the nine other top spending countries, and 3.1 times as large as China, the number two spender. 

Thirty-nine of the 43 countries in Europe increased military spending with an average of 16% surge, of which Ukraine spending increased 51%, whilst Russia increased 24%. How will European re-armament impact on growth? 

The peace-loving layman’s view is that military expenditure is a waste of money. But the influential German think-tank, Kiel Institute for the World Economy report on “Guns and Growth: The Economic Consequences of Defence Buildups” argues that Europe-wide GDP may grow by 0.9% to 1.5% if defence spending increases from 2% to 3.5% of GDP. It further argued that the long-run productivity gains from military spending may be substantial, with examples of public research and development for military applications giving spillovers to the private sector, such as the symbiotic relationship between Silicon Valley tech companies and US defence spending. A Goldman Sachs report estimates that additional spending on European defence will have an escalating multiplier of 0.5 over two years. That means every €100 spent on defence would boost GDP by around €50. 

What are the trade-offs between a war economy (which would ultimately lead to wanton human and natural destruction) and an economy dedicated towards peace and co-development? 

This week, the United Nations (UN) issued a report called “The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future”, which highlighted that global military spending has surged to an all-time high of US$2.7 trillion in 2024. Meanwhile, less than 20% of the UN Sustainable Development Goals are on track to be achieved by 2030, with the annual financing gap at US$4 trillion. The UN argues that heightened military expenditure does not necessarily lead to greater peace or stability, but instead exacerbates geopolitical tensions, fuels arms races and increases risks of conflict, particularly when coupled with weak governance, rising inequality and systemic mistrust. 

It just increases our propensity to violence. Look at America, with more than 300 million guns there is more violence there than those that have strict controls on arms purchases. It is somewhat the same for nations – especially for those with dictators (or would be dictators) to start a war. The only people who love wars are the arms manufacturers and those in the reconstruction industry. We as a specie have not learned how to dialogue and settle disputes peacefully. We prefer to repeat history and cause Ukraine, Gaza, Syria and all the rest of it! 

Reference:

Back to 1930s war economy, Tan Sri Andrew Sheng, The Star, 20 Sept 2025

Are Foreign Students Displacing Locals?

 

Kedah Education exco Prof Dr Naim Hilman Abdullah, revealed that five leading public universities in Malaysia have a foreign student enrolment of 21.3%—a figure that far exceeds the intake of Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian students combined. 

Malaysian Chinese students constitute only 13.5%, while Malaysia Indian students make up an even smaller percentage in these universities, namely Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). 

Prof Naim Hilman, a former vice-chancellor of Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), further revealed that out of a total enrolment of 611,698 students across 20 public universities, 53,322 (8.72%) are foreign students. The intake of foreign students into public universities is unfair to local students.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

Every year, many high-achieving Malaysian students are denied places in public universities or are unable to secure the courses of their choice. Some are left with no option but to enrol in private universities, burdened with hefty tuition fees. The so-called “alternative intake system”, which imposes tuition fees up to ten times higher than the subsidised UPU admissions route, offers little relief. While accepting foreign students is not wrong in principle, the current intake—more than 5,000 annually—is excessive and detrimental to locals. Something is gravely wrong with Malaysia’s higher education system. 

The racially skewed admissions system in public universities disadvantages Chinese and Indian students. While affirmative action can be acceptable, it must be fairly applied to all communities. To call the current racial system “merit-based” is not only misleading but also an insult to the intelligence of loyal Malaysian citizens. 

The displacement of local students by foreigners is best illustrated by the Malay proverb: “Kera di hutan disusui, tetapi anak di rumah kelaparan”(The monkey in the jungle is nursed while the child at home starves).  

The alternative for public universities to recruit foreign students is to expand their courses and faculty time creatively that reduces the “either or” scenario. Many public universities want foreigners not only for their fees but to improve their global rankings. All is well and good but not at the detriment of citizens of Malaysia who pay taxes! 

Reference:

Are foreign students displacing locals in public universities? Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy, Focus Malaysia, 16 September 2025

Budget 2026: Government’s Macro Prognosis?

 

Budget 2026 will be upon us soon. It may be an opportune time to have a preview of expectations as far as the government’s revenue, expenditure and financials are concerned. (Pankaj C. Kumar presented his insights recently and this is an inspired article). 

The forecast must also consider the need for discipline to ensure the government’s budget deficit targets are on course to dip below 3% by 2030 or earlier. For 2025, the government tabled a RM421bil budget, comprising RM335bil operating expenditure (Opex) and the balance RM86bil in the form of development expenditure. 

In terms of source of income, the government projected total revenue of RM339.7bil, of which 76.2% was derived from taxes (both direct and indirect) and the balance comprised non-tax revenue. The government is also projected to run a budget deficit of RM80bil, translating to a budget deficit of 3.8% for 2025. 

As of the first half of financial year 2025 (1H25), based on data provided by Bank Negara Malaysia, the government’s revenue and Opex stood at RM147.6bil and RM155.3bil, respectively, while total development expenditure amounted to RM33.3bil, resulting in an overall deficit of RM40.5bil. Compared with 1H24, overall revenue is higher by 6.1% year-on-year (y-o-y), while Opex and development expenditure are down by 1.1% and 1.9% y-o-y, respectively. 

The budget deficit in 1H25 improved compared with RM51.6bil for the same period last year, translating to an RM11.1bil or 21.5% reduction. 

Under the 13th Malaysia Plan, the government expenditure targets are expected to grow at an annualised rate of about 4% per annum over the next five years. It is likely that under Budget 2026, the government will project revenue of RM354bil while expenditure is forecast to hit RM346bil. With total development expenditure expected to be held steady at RM86bil, Budget 2026 will likely see an allocation of RM440bil, excluding any contingencies. 

As for RM86bil in total development expenditure, a quarter will likely be allocated to the education and healthcare sectors, amounting to RM13bil and RM8bil, respectively. But are we getting the returns? In Budget 2025, these two sectors saw a total allocation (Opex and development expenditure) of RM127.6bil, of which RM82.3bil was for the Education Ministry and Higher Education Ministry, while another RM45.3bil was allocated to the Health Ministry. However, only RM17.3bil of the total amount was related to development expenditure, while the balance was for Opex, which mainly comprised emoluments and supplies. 

The government should focus on raising the development expenditure for the education sector, as the expected allocation of RM13bil will only be just 0.6% of nominal gross domestic product (GDP). The same goes for healthcare, as even an RM8bil development expenditure allocation in Budget 2026 translates to only 0.4% of nominal GDP. 

We have been under-spending on both education and healthcare as the expected total allocation for the two at RM86bil and RM50bil in Budget 2026 will only be approximately 4.0% and 2.3% of the 2026 nominal GDP, respectively. Of course, these figures exclude private sector expenditure, which raises the two sectors’ ratios to GDP to 7.5% and 3.5%, respectively. 

The government is seen as committed to improving budget deficit targets, having lowered it to 4.1% last year and the expected 3.8% this year. It is estimated that the deficit target will likely be set at 3.5% under Budget 2026, as seen above. 

Although Malaysia has shown progress in reducing budget deficit levels over the past two years and into 2026, the fact that we continue to run these deficits means we have no choice but to expand the federal government’s statutory debt and total debt, as shown in the table. There has to be better accountability on expenditures, or we will have “leakages” that only the rich will get to enjoy! 

The projected 16.1% debt service charge-(DSC) to-expenditure ratio under Budget 2025 is likely to scale higher to 16.4% based on an estimated total DSC of RM58bil in 2026.

This suggests the government’s DSC will move further away from the self-imposed limit of 15% and remain the second-highest expenditure item after emoluments. Surely the 15% limit now seems unachievable. Hence, there must be greater effort to reduce our DSC, which can only occur if we are able to reduce the growth of debt and, at the same time, achieve a higher pace of increase in the government’s revenue. 

GDP growth estimate is at 4.0% to 4.8% for this year. This may be optimistic, given the tariff scenario. Budget 2026 may suggest growth of 4.5% to 5.5%, too challenging under current circumstances. The rise in the cost of doing business, as well as expected higher prices for goods and services, will also see slower growth in domestic consumption. 

In terms of inflation targets, with the lowered target this year to 1.5% to 2.3% and with year-to-date headline inflation at just 1.4% and core inflation at 1.9%. It is likely that the headline inflation forecast will be set at between 1.5% to 2.5%. The removal of blanket subsidies and the impact of higher sales and service tax on goods and services will have an impact! 

The unity government must present a pragmatic, forward-looking and disciplined budget for the window will likely close by next year when Budget 2027 is presented. 

Reference:

Budget 2026 – spending it right, Pankaj C. Kumar, The Star, 13 September 2025

Isn’t Proton Rebadged Chinese Car?

 

The fundamental architecture, design, styling, and key EV components (e-motor, battery cells, BMS) are all developed by Chery. The Proton S70 (based on the Chery Arrizo 8) and the Proton e.mas (based on the Chery EQ7) are undeniably Chinese cars at their core. This is a known business model called "badge engineering" or rebadging. It's a faster and cheaper way for Proton to fill gaps in its lineup (especially in the critical EV segment) without investing billions in all-new R&D from scratch. 

Proton's position is that they are moving beyond simple rebadging to a deeper level of local integration and development. The cars are CKD (Completely Knocked Down), not CBU (Completely Built-Up). This means the cars are assembled in Malaysia (in Proton's Tanjung Malim plant) from boxes of parts. This process: 

   · Adds local value through labour and assembly.

   · Creates and sustains jobs for Malaysian engineers and technicians.

   · Allows for the gradual increase of local part sourcing (from the 30-40% content initially to say 80% in later years). 

But what is the cost of this strategy?

 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org

The most comprehensive and frequently cited study on this topic comes from the Institute for International Economics (IIE) in a 2010 report. According to the 2010 study by the IIE, the total cost of Proton's protectionism to Malaysian consumers from 1985 to 2010 was estimated at RM 33.6 billion (in 2007 Ringgit terms). This figure primarily represents the "consumer tax"—the extra amount Malaysians had to pay for cars due to high tariffs and the lack of competition that kept Proton's prices artificially high. 

The total cost to the consumer is not just the higher sticker price of a Proton. It's a combination of direct and indirect costs: 

High Import Tariffs: Taxes of up to 300% were placed on fully imported cars, making them prohibitively expensive for most Malaysians. 

Excise Duties: High excise duties were applied to all cars, but local assemblers (like Proton) received significant exemptions, further skewing the market in their favour. 

Import Quotas and Approved Permits (AP): The system limited the supply of foreign cars, reducing competitive pressure. Malaysians therefore paid significantly more for both Protons and all other cars than they would have in a free market. For example, a Proton Saga that might have cost RM 20,000 to produce could be sold for RM 35,000 because a comparable Japanese car (after tariffs) would cost RM 60,000. The consumer lost the choice to buy a better-quality foreign car at a reasonable price. 

The IIE's RM 33.6 billion figure is largely the sum of this "overpayment" by every Malaysian car buyer over that 25-year period. 

Economic Inefficiency and Misallocation of Resources 

The billions spent overpaying for cars could have been spent on other goods and services (e.g., housing, education, food, entertainment), stimulating other, potentially more productive, sectors of the economy. 

Commercial vehicles (vans, trucks) were also more expensive. This increased the operating costs for virtually every Malaysian business, from SMEs to large corporations, making them less competitive and contributing to higher prices for goods and services across the board. 

Quality and Choice Suppression 

Consumers were forced to accept. Proton was slow to innovate because it faced little competitive pressure. Without the need to compete globally on quality, standards often lagged international peers. The market offered far less choice than a similar-sized open market like Thailand or Australia. 

The Cost of "Bailouts" and Government Support 

Proton consistently required financial support from the government (and by extension, the taxpayer), including: 

·       Soft loans and direct cash injections.

·       Writing-off of debts.

·       Cost of implementing and administering the protectionist system (e.g., the AP system). 

The "Benefits" (The Rationale for Protectionism) may include: 

-Job Creation: Proton and the supporting vendor ecosystem created thousands of jobs. 

-Industrial Development: It forced the development of a local automotive parts and engineering sector (over 200 vendor companies). 

-Technology Transfer: The initial partnership with Mitsubishi provided some level of technical know-how. 

-National Pride: Proton became a symbol of national engineering capability and independence. 

Most economic analyses conclude that the costs of Proton's protectionism vastly outweighed the benefits. The RM 33.6 billion cost (1985-2010) is an estimate of the direct consumer burden. The benefits, like job creation, could arguably have been achieved at a much lower cost through other industrial policies or by fostering competition that would have forced Proton to be efficient from the start (much like how the national airline, MAS, had to compete internationally). The policy ultimately created a reliant, uncompetitive company that struggled the moment market liberalization began. Malaysia's automotive market is now more open, and Proton's survival is largely attributed to its strategic partnership and eventual majority acquisition by China's Geely in 2017. 

So, was it worth it? No, and Mahathir knew this! We are a small economy with limited sales volume (total industry volume was about 500,000 to 600,000 units for many years. Now it is reaching 800,000). To be a serious global player, we need a throughput of at least a million units (of just Proton cars). It might have been better if we had focused on a niche area of the total car market and did the gamut including the R&D.

Is It Just Incompetence?

 

A former Malaysian Minister (Zaid Ibrahim) said recently, “Malaysia is not at risk of collapse because of ideology. It is at risk because of incompetence.” “Nations fall when their leaders fail to govern effectively, when debts spiral beyond control, when resources are squandered, and when corruption robs citizens of their future.”

 

“Oil, gas, timber, and land; our natural inheritance is depleted or monopolised. An economy stolen. Cartels, cronies, and politically connected companies enrich themselves while ordinary Malaysians are asked to (tighten) their belts,” said Zaid.

 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org

 

Citing Nepal and Indonesia, Zaid pointed out that the problems plaguing both countries had nothing to do with extremism. Nepal did not become one of Asia’s poorest nations because of extremism. It became poor because of chronic political instability and weak governance. Indonesia, in 1997, did not collapse because its people were too religious. It collapsed because of crony capitalism, corruption, and unsustainable debt. So too for Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. They had other issues as well but corruption, cronyism was at the core.

 

But it is just that for Malaysia? Racial discrimination in education, employment and business contracts has no parallel anywhere else in the world. And we accept it as “takdir”?

 

Let me be very plain, if one is a non-Malay and aspiring to be a doctor, one may never be able to realise one’s dream. A creative genius will be shunted out of the system or the country (I speak with experience – my son serves the NHS as a consultant not the MOH). A young person with a desire to become an ambassador will also be deprived of the opportunity to study liberal arts and win a government scholarship.

 

The sad truth is that innocent Malay children also suffer from this system too by virtue of having privileges that others do not. The disenfranchised from poor families are taught in bad schools where standards are low because it appears the system does not believe that gaining access to the best education is critical. They are thus less able to compete and they grow up believing they are entitled.

 

Indeed, the sense of entitlement applies across the economic spectrum. Such is the perverse nature of discriminatory policies. What is the large-scale discrimination that everyone knows about but only whispers of? It has nothing to do with how affirmative action should be used to benefit poor Malays, but everything to do with a deep psychosis at the heart of the political and economic system. That psychosis is institutional racism.

 

But the non-Malay, will find a way and will emerge stronger and better. In a perverse way, by being stoical and tolerant of blatant racism, you have in-built resilience and a great chance to succeed as a professional. You are helping to build the country. You fortify the country against the risks arising from the lack of meritocracy in key institutions, which allows many of your Malay classmates to reach elevated positions and earn shockingly high salaries without competing with you. You become the backbone of the country. Without you, the economy of the country would be in tatters. By staying and building the country, you have become a proud patriot!

 

True incompetence is a derived relationship of entitlement, background, social standing, confidence (or the lack of it) and the absence of skill sets necessary to navigate a new world.  But our politicians choose to be oblivious!

 

References:

Zaid: Incompetence a bane to M'sia's progress, not ideology, Malaysiakini, 12 September 2025

 

Non-Malays must attain grades that are 3 times better than a Malay student in order to gain access to a local university, The Coverage, 9 September 2025