Be truly independent – stop talking of extending affirmative action

Malaysia could improve in numerous aspects, but the writer does not have the necessary skills or motivation to effect change. Rather than criticizing, they are more forgiving of individuals with sincere intentions who attempt to improve the situation. These individuals make difficult decisions and compromises, but their integrity remains unwavering.

Unfortunately, there are not many of these people, so accommodating them is not a significant burden. Recently, there have been cautious statements suggesting that affirmative action programs, which form the foundation of national politics, may need to be modified or phased out. However, these opinions are primarily coming from peripheral political figures who often hedge their statements, suggesting a gradual withdrawal at an unspecified future time or proposing minor adjustments to the existing programs.

Some argue for both "meritocracy" and continued affirmative action, claiming that Malays are not yet prepared to relinquish their ties to these programs. The writer is skeptical of the "meritocracy" concept, as it often masks the desire to maintain existing advantages in areas such as wealth or culture, rather than genuinely promoting merit-based fairness.

The writer themselves benefited from earlier affirmative action programs, which enabled them to overcome poverty and achieve better opportunities. The original Affirmative Action programs, known as the New Economic Policy, were intended to expire in 1990, but their implementation was unrealistic. Educating Malays in a short period and equipping them for the competitive global economy proved to be a formidable challenge, potentially resulting in the loss of admirable Malay traits such as warmth, friendliness, and a cooperative spirit.

As a consequence, many of the original NEP advocates, such as Onn Jaafar, Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, and Ismail Ali, are no longer present, and their disappearance has left a void filled with a sense of entitlement among Malays. This insecurity stems from their historical experience of centuries of colonial rule and internal feudalism, where loyalty to those perceived as "betters" was expected, even if unearned.

While affirmative action programs have undoubtedly benefited Malays, they have also created an unsustainable dependency that is now difficult to relinquish. The writer argues that these safety nets have become permanent fixtures, and the fear of living without them has become deeply ingrained within the Malay psyche. These privileges have been manipulated as political tools, preying on the insecurities of many Malays who fear competing on equal footing with others.

Consequently, these concerns have become institutionalized and deeply ingrained in Malaysian society. Affirmative action claims often amount to political manipulation, but they resonate with Malays due to their fear of facing the unknown and competing on a level playing field. This fear is deeply entrenched and has shaped the collective mindset of Malays.

In an attempt to counter these insecurities, some political figures propose raising the percentage of corporate wealth owned by Malays from the original 30% target to 50%. This proposed change is seen by the writer as a smokescreen for the elite Malays to amass even more wealth for themselves, potentially at the expense of the broader population.

The writer fears that this move will lead to a concentration of wealth among a few Malay elites, further exacerbating inequality and creating a new class of Malay billionaires while leaving many struggling families behind. The writer is concerned that the pursuit of 50% ownership will not be attainable and will result in the creation of a privileged elite while the majority of Malays continue to suffer.

The writer emphasizes the importance of shedding these crutches, celebrating national independence not merely as a rejection of colonial rule but also as an opportunity to liberate oneself from the shackles of self-imposed limitations.