Why Khairy is right
Published on: Sunday, April 30, 2017
Text Size:
A few days ago, Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Khairy Jamaluddin was reported as saying “that young Malaysians want a more common identity that is not defined by race, based on their feedback on the government’s National Transformation 2050”.
He was also reported saying that the quota system into local universities is an insult to the Malays.
He was very promptly rebutted by an Umno Supreme Council member. Quote from Sinar Harian: “According to Datuk Sohaimi Shahadan, the Malays and Bumiputera are ‘masters’ in the land, and forever deserve any special privileges accorded to them.
“As “masters” on our own land, Bumiputeras or Malays indeed deserve to enjoy the privileges at all times, although we have succeeded in narrowing the gap between races in the country,” he said in a statement’.
There are two main reasons for a people who can be “masters” over the others.
One as Sohaimi has said, by virtue of being masters or owners of the land as in England during the feudal time.
Two, that this people think their genes are more superior. The latter is commonly linked to the Aryan/Nazi idea of the “master race”. Both have serious intrinsic flaws.
The concept of a people wanting to be “masters” over others is as old as history. The idea is tempting and many politicians have tried to promote it for selfishness. The Greeks have done it during the time of Aristotle.
He claimed that the Greeks were “the ideal race”. The Egyptians did the same as have the Romans.
China thought the whole word revolved around it, glorifying itself in pseudo superiority and called themselves the “Middle Kingdom”.
Stark reality set in after invasions and defeats by Europeans, Americans and Japanese.
Her subsequent submissions and subjugations in the form of concession areas to these foreign powers shattered the facade of the self-bloated ego of “Middle Kingdom”.
The Nazi Germans and Japanese were the most recent in wanting to be “masters” over others before the 2nd Word War. Both countries went to war with this screwed up concept and were defeated.
The Japanese idea of “master” is encompassed in their Yamato-damashii (“Japanese spirit”) or Yamato-gokoro (“Japanese heart/mind”).
All these concepts mean only that these people throughout history, have for one reason or others, got the idea they have been conferred or predestined with certain rights without working for it.
Because of this, they are therefore better than other races and deserve to be “masters”.
Sohaimi’s idea is quite different from the aforementioned concept. He has two main thrusts in his argument.
First is country/land ownership and secondly, the “masters” have certain implicit or implied weaknesses.
This is contrary to the concept that all men are created equal and all men are equal before the law.
Khairy’s idea is totally different and imply attainment and possession of confidence, ability to compete and getting on in life without “tongkat”. Their ideas are just like day and night.
Clearly, giving tongkat and becoming “masters” of destiny are incongruous and incompatible.
Why many politicians throughout history up to the present time have resorted to the “master” theory?
To sum up very simply, they want to retain or gain power.
Most people can be tempted to surrender their support by being told nice things like they are the “masters” and are entitled to privileges by virtue of their birth rights. Khairy is against this. He is wise.
There is no such thing as birth rights in this highly competitive globalised world and in a political democracy.
The only way to keep staying on par or keeping ahead of other countries is to be the better.
Demanding to be “masters” is the wrong way of doing it.
A society or country that has the majority of its population dependent on special rights and privileges will never, I repeat, never attain competitiveness and get ahead in this modern fast changing world driven by technology.
A country can never build its economic strength on “special privileges” with majority of its citizens demanding to be “masters”, except Brunei and Saudia with plenty of oil and gas.
Two generations of Japanese and Germans worked their guts out and sacrificed everything after the 2nd world war to establish themselves as world economic powers.
Never have they thought of they being “masters” again. Today, they can stand tall among nations.
They did not do it as “masters”. They have done it by hard work, use their brains and savings.
The most dramatic example is China. Having been looked down as a pariah nation, mired in poverty for decades, Deng Xiaoping’s simple policy in the form of this quote “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice” has transformed China into the 2nd most powerful country within one generation.
He never told the Chinese that they have rights or privileges or how to become “masters” or that they have weaknesses. He just set them to work, think for themselves and that to get rich is glorious.
Khairy wants the same model to be adopted. He is being crucified for his good intention.
History will prove KJ right and Sohaimi very wrong.
To presume that a whole section of the population cannot compete, cannot stand on their feet is illogical, unkind and condemnatory. He is doing them the greatest disfavour.
The right way is to provide them with real opportunities, improve their competitiveness, productivity, encourage them to the self-sufficient financially. Empowerment is the solution. Dependency will doom them.
Proud days it was when Malaysia used to produce world class talents and leaders in several industries.
One of the most valid reasons for Malaysia having lagged behind badly in last 30 years is simply this – Malaysia has been plagued with an increasingly closed system.
Malaysia has invented the most advanced technology that has “shot ourselves in the foot”.
It is called “WHO YOU KNOW”. “WHAT YOU KNOW” has little value, even in universities and technical research institutions. So the best brains have voted with their feet out of the country and are shinning in other countries that appreciate them.
Khairy knows the score. Ibrahim Ali may condemn him but KJ is right.
With due respect to Sohaimi, his demand should be accompanied by answers to some fundamental questions.
Why the policy has limited success after all these years?
Why are there still so many poor?
What has happened to all the money that was poured into this policy? Has the money been spent on the intended group?
What percentage?
Where has the balance of the money gone to? Has the money been spent to make the rich richer?
He wants this policy to continue ad nauseum. What are the economic costs and implications for the nation in the long term?
Not willing to resolve these questions is just like pouring water [money] into the deserts of Saudi Arabia.
Reducing these two contrasting ideas down to the personal level, which parents would not want their children to achieve financial independence and wean them from being dependent on them as soon as possible?
Would they want to continue looking after their grandchildren and great grandchildren?
It is obvious to those with good sense that Sohaimi’s stance is not sustainable and not in the long term interest of the “masters” and the country.
The other consideration is that as the number who are entitled to these privileges grows as population increases, can the government go on granting each and everyone special treatment?
Deng’s model has proven to be the most effective in the history of mankind, by encouraging and remoulding the 1.3 billion Chinese into the largest and most effective potent economic force the world has even known.
What took USA more than 200 years, Deng took just 30 years or one generation.
China has uplifted 600 million Chinese out of poverty. Deng’s new China now has a space station, rockets and some of the richest people in the world. China has overtaken USA in quantum physics and has the fastest computers.
A good lesson for people like Sohaimi to ponder.
There is very little sophistication in Deng’s method. All that he had done is to release the 1.3 billion Chinese’s desire for better life through personal initiatives, think for themselves and hard work.
The one and most demanding factor on Deng Xiaoping was the political courage to dramatically shift the whole Chinese population of 1.3 billion from dependence on Government to “I can look after myself”.
China, before Deng’s initiative, was the biggest “bumiputra” country in the world!
Everyone was poor under communist China then.
In a nutshell, Deng reversed the Chinese mindset from “masters” in dependency on government to become “masters” of their own destinies. By a simple policy utterance, he had taught 1.3 billion Chinese that “respect” and being “masters” can only be earned, you can’t demand it.
Today, no nation can deny that China or the Chinese people are not their own “masters”, not even USA and European countries which had conquered and invaded her before.
Likewise, USA has over taken many countries in the last 100 years because its government has always allowed Americans to exercise their initiatives and invest in their own future by hard work, brain power and personal initiatives.
I am confident that Khairy’s idea, if adopted, will create a great Malaysian nation within 10, at most 15 years and a really superb, world class country by 2050. Adopting Sohaimi’s means short term political benefits and a long term national economic disaster.
Nothing new or is news in what I have written today. The political leaders know what it takes to make Malaysia great.
The heart of the matter is – do they have the political courage like Deng to transform Malaysians into “masters” of their destiny?
Or they want to continue patronage/tongkat so that they can continue to dish out “freebies” and “goodies” in a feudal system that is clearly not sustainable.
ADVERTISEMENT
