DR Lee Hwok Aun’s very thoughtful analysis on the Bumiputera Preferential Regime has initiated a much-needed debate about the legacy of Malaysia’s New Economic Policy (NEP), especially on how it can be tweaked if that legacy is to be continued.

The Malaysian Insight followed up with an article entitled “Winners of the New Economic Policy” by fellow academic, Dr Mustafa K. Anuar, giving the perspective from academia, as to how ethnic-based preferential policies have supported the career of many academics in Malaysia, many of whom I know as highly supportive friends and mentors. More importantly, if one gets to read their work, you will definitely agree that they will stand the test of merit, anywhere anytime.

But such is the flip side of a race-based preferential policy, as the argument of merit tends to be diluted for everyone who sees your success as a handicap, which makes Dr Mustafa’s article a highly important one.

That being said, there is still a need to reconcile the demands of merit with a policy that systematically discriminate groups of people whereby needs-based arguments are rendered irrelevant if you are not of a particular ‘race’. This is as Dr Zaharom Nair puts it in the article,

“I felt disappointed,” he said, “and even angry then, that friends of mine who needed financial assistance to go to university, and had similar or better qualifications, just couldn’t do so because they lacked the, as it were, kulitfication. They were not Malay.”

The ‘Meritocracy Within Ethnicity’ fallacy

And my fear is that ‘merit within ethnicity’ arguments would have buried the issue entirely.

Talking about this issue is arguably a highly emotional issue for the success of the NEP means that everyone in some way is affected by it; the good and the bad. But if we expand our horizons to look at discussions abroad, let’s say the United States and the United Kingdom, perhaps we can unpack the question better in a comparative sense.

The Ivy League in the US and Oxbridge, in particular, in the UK have long been accused of sustaining white dominance in their admissions. To be clear, the issue is more complicated as the class dimension is prevalent in many elite universities’ admission statistics, too. See, for example, how high-income households are overly represented in America’s best colleges.

Being lucky enough to find myself in one of these places, one can clearly see the pitfalls of a “meritocracy within ethnicity” argument. Of course, my ‘white’ colleagues are smart, in fact, they are in many ways the smartest person in any room one can find. If the whole idea is that the system is working as long as smart people get in, never mind the systemic privileges, then the Ivy League and Oxbridge should be let off the leash. The motive of picking ‘smart’ people is served. But is that fair?

Thence, the issue isn’t really about the under-qualified getting into these places (with some dubious exceptions, of course) but it is about qualified people who don’t. And like it or not, these places are limited and will always be (even the competition to get into good local university programmes in Malaysia is as fierce as it can be), any thinking towards social justice will have to parse with what we, to use a social science term, path dependence.

Every step of the way helps a long way

Path dependence dictates that every little breakthrough we get is important, as our decks are cumulatively stacked against those who don’t.

To use academia as an example, this means getting into a good pre-U institution boosts your chance of getting into a good university for your undergraduate degree, which increases your chances of getting into a good grad school for your Masters (and get recommendation letters from renowned professors) to get you into a good place for your PhD, which augments your chances of getting good positions in top universities, which is why Ivy League Graduate Schools are preponderously filled by (who else?) Ivy-League educated people.

No one is saying personal diligence does not matter. It matters immensely. As do luck, as my personal story informs. But help given at critical junctures (be it a loan, a scholarship, or an admission to a prestigious institution) often makes a difference on the trajectories of individuals, personal agency notwithstanding.

And if there are systematic advantages given, it means that there are systematic discriminations imposed and we must inquire under what reasons, more so when needs- or class-based discussions are often silenced in Malaysia.

In other words, one success story should not drown out the many deserving yet failed ones. If not, we risk legitimising a false narrative that further entrenches inequality, as was the case whereby an appealing but ultimately false meritocratic narrative of the self-made man à la the American Dream prompted an election of a billionaire just to perpetuate the interest of billionaires.

Second thoughts on second chances

Another problem about the merit-story is that it emphasises on second-chances, but second chances come rarely if one is economically disadvantaged (you get more second chances only if you can afford to travel or pay your own tuition fees), and more so when it’s about ascriptive identities.

Case in point, you get a second chance in life for committing petty theft, but you probably won’t get it if you are born as Rohingya.

For the academia-inclined, having a smooth passage towards your PhD (one can see most, but not all, successful academics got that PhDs by their late 20s/early 30s) also confers you a significant competitive advantage towards those who don’t. Getting your PhD early means you publish early, which also means better chances of securing positions in top universities and hence getting tenure, that is in very limited supply, early.

No doubt in the past there’s many stories of late entry into academia, but in today’s highly competitive job market, early boosts trump latecomers, for the reasons I’ve outlined above.

The inconvenient truth is, as Dr Zaharom points out, no one is entirely self-made. Acknowledging the unfairness within a system, even if we thrived or benefitted from it, shouldn’t be taken as shame or any dint to our personal credentials.

As people in relatively privileged positions (as scholars or wannabes), this is the least we can do, for those whose dreams are crushed and names unreported, many of whom guilty only for having the wrong surname, to begin with. – January 3, 2018.

* A Forensic Science-Asian Studies hybrid, Nicholas Chan is interested in how authority is shaped, exercised, and more importantly, resisted in Southeast Asia.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.