Clinton and the result is a disaster for the world to see. The
greatest nation on earth suffering under the worst economic disasters
that the world has ever seen, only to be saved by Affirmative Action
policies.
If USA had opted for the dogs eat cats policies favored by Bush and
now the Malaysian NEM, The world will suffer from a bad economic
disaster.
Now the NEM claimed to apply Afifrmative Action based on needs. This
is nonsense and misleading. Affirmative Action as practised in USA is
never based on needs but based on ethnic lines or strategic needs.
Just because you are poor, you deserve government aid, just as the
rich Banks do not deserve any help; only charity is based on this
principle, not affirmative action.
Affirmative action was introduced in USA in order to reduce racial
discrimination and not to reduce poverty. It was applied to elite
university entrance based on racial quota to the point of lowering
slightly, entrance requirements for certain races that have a
disproportionately low representation in top universities.
In USA it is the white dominance of the economy despite the presence
of large pockets of poverty among white people.
In Malaysia it the chinese dominance of the economy despite the
presence of large pockets of poverty among chinese people.
This is interpreted as clear proof of racial discrimination practised
by these dominant people in perpetuating their dominance in the
economy especially those that practise open unregulated economy that
had led to the economic disaster in 2006 in the first place, such as
USA in 2006 and now Malaysia.
Sunday April 4, 2010
Knock the NEM at your own peril
The Star Says . . .
TO conceive of something like the New Economic Model requires honesty
and realism. To implement it in the way it is intended requires
responsibility and courage, undaunted by attempts to distort or
subvert it.
For example, there is the carping complaint that the NEM does not
possess an ethnic agenda, which really should be a compliment in multi-
ethnic Malaysia.
Those who still need the crutch of an ethnic agenda should look for it
under corporate restructuring or genetic engineering, not 21st-century
national policy.
Much the same goes for complaints that the NEM contains no ethnic
stake in economic distribution. The reason is simple: it's about the
inclusive provision of opportunities based on need, not an exclusive
divvying up of the goods based on presumed favouritism.
Those who set "fairness" against "equity" only trip themselves up, as
if inequities can be fair. These crass voices typically emanate from
that netherworld of partisan NGOs angling for political leverage,
reeking of political opportunism and delinquency.
To argue that any particular community cannot compete in an open
tender system after more than half a century of independence is a
gross insult to that community, unless one is referring to those
spoonfed into a state of passive incapacity.
To compete, people must first feel competitive, not complacent.
The malcontents who oppose the NEM also reject the proposed Equal
Opportunities Commission.
The EOC functions to sustain the laudable purposes of the NEM, akin to
the central pillars of the erstwhile New Economic Policy: economic
restructuring and national unity, by decoupling economic function from
ethnicity.
True, the EOC's decisions should not contravene the Federal
Constitution. But neither should thoughts, sentiments and actions
against the EOC and its work.
Those who say the NEM and Article 153 of the Constitution are
incompatible understand neither. Article 153 gives broad powers to the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong, not intemperate rabble-rousers, in deeming what
is "reasonable" on bumiputra rights.
Those who denigrate the NEM on clearly racial grounds flirt with
sedition and are playing with fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment