How did the 30% equity target for Bumiputera’s come about?

October 8, 2013

30% Equity Target: How did this Magic Figure come about?

By Ranjit Singh

How did the 30% equity target for Bumiputeras come about? The answer is nobody knows.

Why 30%

Why 30%

The answer given by Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, who was a senior civil officer at time just after the 1969 riots, was that the economic consultative body which set up to study Bumiputera economic share just tossed around numbers which they thought was reasonable given that Bumiputera equity share at time stood at around 2%.

The body headed by the late Tan Sri (later Tun) Ghazalie Shafie first proposed a 50% share for the Bumiputera but then this was later brought down to 30% as a consensus figure by Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman.

But several people scoffed at an answer given during the recent tabling of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s ‘Amanah Plan’, which involved a group of eminent economists and technocrats headed by Tan Sri Dr Kamal Salih.

Yet, the 30% equity target is the basis of another Bumiputera economic plan that was recently announced by Datuk Seri Najib Razak. But the figure bandied about of RM31 billion for the new plan does not add up.

What he announced was the RM700 million for business loans under the TEKUN (Tabung Ekonomi Kumpulan Usaha Niaga) and 10 billion additional units under the Amanah Saham Bumiputera (ASB).


The point here is that Putrajaya has put out those figures because it continues to maintain the current Bumiputera equity is at 23%, a contentious figure among economists.

After all, Bumiputeras make up 67% of the population of the country and if GLC companies’ equity was monetized, the entire equity held by Bumiputera’s should exceed the 30% threshold.

However, the truth of the matter is 80% of Bumiputera households in the country earn less than RM3,000 per month and the reason for this is the policies that have favored the Bumiputeras have not trickled down to a wider portion of the population.

Under the policy, wealth had been accumulated in the hands of a small population of the Bumiputeras’ and herein lays the problem.

The New Economic Plan (NEP) had somewhat met its objectives but affirmative action effectiveness continues to mired in weak implementation.

Now it is evident that setting equity targets is erroneous as the real equity level has surpassed the 30% threshold but many Bumiputera households are in the poorest category in the country.

The way forward is to study ways and means of enhancing Bumiputera skills sets and to be fair to Najib, he had announced measures in his Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Plan.

The issue of funds being channeled to a select few who were in the inner circle or to put it bluntly ‘cronies’ under the NEP must be addressed or the new measures would not resolve the issue of lifting the majority of the Bumiputeras who form the bulk of the lower income group in the country to better economic status.

imageIn the same vein, the fixation on the 30% equity is definitely myopic and really does not make sense and makes one wonder how economic planning is carried out in this country without knowing the basis of a target. – October 8, 2013.

* Ranjit Singh reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

40 thoughts on “How did the 30% equity target for Bumiputera’s come about?

  1. The truth is it does not matter what the target is. The NEP was never going to achieve its goal. If it came close, the game is over, done. If the Malays want to get any higher goals, then something else is needed and they can’t look at the past.

    Here is the simple basic constraint – the fact of the matter is the non-Malays particularly the Chinese will ALWAYS HAVE THEIR SHARE of roughly 30% no matter what. The basic reason is that they operate in open market and hence their competitiveness do not diminish over time. Anything done to undermine their competitiveness will be self-correctting the worst case for them is migration. The Chinese could be down to 10% population wise, they would still own the same share of the economy – its simply open market competition at work.

    So if the non-Malays will always have their share, where would the Malays get more of their equity from? Basically either they get it from foreigners or others less fortunate i.e. Indians and natives of Sabah and Sarawak BUT getting it from foreigners means they would have to be globally competitive – they can’t compete against the Chinese, how do they intend to compete against the globals? So that leaves only the less fortunate Indians and natives of Sabah and Sarawak who are already down to their bare minimum.

    So is there no other way? Yes – when the Chinese don’t want their equity i.e., when they want to sell i.e., when the future is not worth their investment – when the country decline. Then they get it from Chinese, foreigners – of something no one wants.

    In other words, the debate is insane. For the Malays, the idea of gaining share from someone else is oxymoronic. Its really about how to build themselves entirely on their own. The only way they are going to get where they have targetted, is not by getting help, is simply about helping themselves, to just do it themselves the less help the better. There is no other way.

  2. Najib’s expose at the ASEAN that the stability of the country lies in the distribution of national wealth to the Malays is a typical Malay-style lies to the Regional Heads.of Governments. He is misleading his international audience. He omits the other side of the coin, a side that is smudged with corruption, cronyism, pilferage, racism, theft etc. He deliberately makes the Malays to be the victims of poverty. He deliberately and in his foxy sly manner he fails to mentions the tools of economic growth has been in the hands of the Malays for the lase 5 decades, starting with enormous income from PETRONAS. The regulator machinery and all other fcets of the economy have been and are controlled by the Malays. This sly fellow, head of a illegitimate government is parading with foul mouth spewing lies and zero truths. His racist mind does not see that it is the need of all poor families, irrespective of race , that needs to be addressed for stability.

  3. I am taking an example from a popular parable by a Prophet. It is a story
    about three groups of people approached to accept the Teachings. It is not
    my intention to offend anyone, of the religion or not of the religion.

    The Prophet says some of the seeds fell on the rocks. I liken this to those
    Malays who are clueless about NEP. This group forms the largest group,
    maybe 70percent .Yes the government extended opportunities in business,
    education and jobs but failed to explain how they should handle such
    benefits or privilege. It did not have a guiding blueprint for the Malays.Like
    some said”one is given a golden sword but he uses it to cut vegetable”. The
    fault is not with the Malays but the Government and implementer(s) who
    failed to prepare them for the benefits/privilege.

    Some seeds fell among the bushes. This group of Malays had a better
    opportunity, for they had some experience to prosper and multiply their
    benefits and privilege, but fell distracted to greed, wrong investments and
    other worldly distractions. What this people failed to do was to acquire
    better experience through discipline, education or work with people who
    had the practical knowledge and experience. In a matter of time, just like
    the seeds, they withered under strong competition, not just by established
    names in the business but by blindly competing with their own kind who
    knew little about the business. They formed nearly 25 percent of the

    Some seeds fell on rich ground. This referred to those Malays had the
    practical knowledge and skill. They did not hesitate to work with people
    outside the race with proven records. This Malays received unselfish
    guidance and support and multiplied their wealth many times over. As the
    other races prospered so did the Malays.

    This must the intention of NEP , to work with other Malaysians.

    Malaysia’s population is limited, with little hope for internal growth. The
    Malays must be prepared to work with the other races to jointly explore
    and tap the expanding opportunities in India and China. The government
    must stop suspecting the loyalty of other Malaysians and it has the
    responsibility to build the trust between Malays and other races. The
    government must not allow anyone to destroy this trust, not by religious
    and political leaders or the racist Teachers. Let Malaysians prosper as a
    whole. How will the country benefit by dividing the people and destroying
    the hopes and opportunities for the other races? Would it not be better to
    grow and prosper collectively to attain a common goal of national harmony,
    unity and prosperity.

  4. How does 30% bumi equity come about?? Why easy ! One for you, two for me. A simple economic pie analysis would tell you.

  5. “However, the truth of the matter is 80% of Bumiputera households in the country earn less than RM3,000 per month and the reason for this is the policies that have favored the Bumiputeras have not trickled down to a wider portion of the population”

    Trickle down economics are a figment of the imagination of pseudo economists living in a world of their own. Power is unevenly distributed. We cannot depend on the cracks within the system to deliver crumbs that may fall through.

    What those in position of power do to appease public outrage is to throw an occasional bone now and then to keep the rest busy.

  6. The wise man takes all that he wants and needs and leaves some for others without killing the chicken that lays the 100 Ringgit bills.

  7. Dato
    What ever the target set is not the core issue, if the root cause of failure to achieve the target is not addressed. In the 70s till 90s bumi’s were allocated millions of new share issues of plc to address the small equity share holdings of bumis in plc.What happened to those shares ? I know of many Melayus who couldn’t wait for the listing date to sell off the shares and earn huge profit. Some even sold their allocation before listing for a quick buck.
    Bumis were given licenses to operate stalls. What did they do? They sold them to the bangaldeshis and Indonesians.
    Bumis got construction contracts and wholly sub–contracted for a fixed fee to the non-bumis.
    The list can go on and on.
    So it’s not the target that matters. It’s the bloody attitude which has not been corrected and in fact condoned by the authorities, all in the name of affirmative action. And it’s still happening though some efforts are now seen to improve the execution of the policies. So long as the core and fundamental issues are allowed to prevail, even if the target is 100% don’t expect a turnaround in results. Maybe another 50 years of nep and what not if the Malays are easy with handouts in all aspects, and lack the competitive drive to succeed it will be nothing but reruns of NEPs in different forms
    Nothing breeds success by handouts.period!

  8. Pak Bean,
    Come on! This is part of the monetarist theory. Wealth on the few can trickle down to the masses. Which is not true

  9. It is time we start thinking about building a resilient and vibrant bumiputera community. Right now the Malays and other bumiputeras are dependent on a nanny state. Let us restore honour and dignity to the Malays. Priority must be given to education.–Din Merican

  10. AGAIN I ask why has this NAJIS make all those “good” remarks while drinking barley in BALI. Why does he not have the two balls to say it in Malay-sia that his new NAJIS ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES aka NEP will not be at the expense of the nons.Have the guts to repeat the same HERE.Not to those in Bali who you think believe your shit. They are making you a laughing moron as you think they are stupid

  11. Dato,

    With due respects to you why are you so silent on what the home minister has said over the last few days on Malaysia? Threats threats threats!
    Well, I won’t handle idiots. This Minister is an idiot, playing to the extreme Malay elements in UMNO. Blame Najib for having this gangster like character in the Cabinet.–Din Merican

  12. Doesn’t matter if it’s 30% or 10% or 50%. The fact is UMNO will never ever say that the target has been achieved, not for the next million years. The day UMNO says the target has been achieved, it will start losing relevance in the political landscape and power structure of Malaysia. Which political leader will want to commit political suicide?

  13. Each racial group cannot have its equity in proportion to its population make up. The reason being that foreigners do own a certain percentage. So if we allow 30% foreign equity, then we have only 70% for Malaysians. Bumi equity should therefore be 60% of 70% or 42%. Malay equity in particular should be 50% of 70% or 35%. If foreign ownership is higher than 30% then Bumi and Malay ownership should be lower.

  14. How did the 30% come about?

    In the beginning was the Plan. And then came the Assumptions.
    And the Assumptions were without form. And the Plan was without substance. And darkness was upon the face of the people.
    And they spoke amongst themselves, saying: “It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh.”

    And the people went unto their penghulus and said: “It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof.” And the penghulus went unto the wakil rakyats, saying: “It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it.” And the WR’s went unto the ministers, saying:”It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength.”

    And the ministers spoke amongst themselves, saying to one another: “It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very powerful.” And the ministers went unto the PM, saying unto him:”This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the nation, with powerful effects.”

    And the PM looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.
    And the Plan became Policy.

    This is how Shit happens.

    “Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.” – Ayn

  15. The NEP is just a smoke screen or an excuse for those in power to grab from where ever and who ever, never ending greed. Look at the masses of bumiputra, majority of them are still living below poverty line, and it is expected that that they will only get poorer and poorer with the ever rising inflation world wide (with every country keep printing more money). What is the intention of the ruling by continuing to feed them with crumbs, giving them the walking sticks, providing them with inferior quality education. They will forever get themselves stuck in the mud, probably may go down deeper. They have to change their mindset or it will be the road to armageddon.

  16. There is no end to helping the Malays where there would come back for more when the business venture failed in a short period of time. Basically, they rely on government hand out again to support their easy life style. When there is no equality and meritocracy and the know- how in business ,the minority communities will be unhappy to patronise those business run just solely by one community.There must be trust in any business transaction that base on win win situation.

  17. The unprincipled, greedy and dishonest politicians/’leaders’ had exploited the weak and ignorant to get support for their narrow self interest.

    They will say anything to get support….like a salesman. They know with political influence and bad leadership and gross mismanagement of the country, there are lucrative corrupt deals/transactions to enrich themselves.

    Decades of bad leadership and gross mismanagement had done enormous damage to the economy and country.

  18. Din,
    This is the light hearted joke on positive discrimination. It may not be directly related to the issue we have on hand but it explains why we are going around in circles all these while. Enjoy!

  19. NEP revived – 20 to 50 years
    Speech (3) on the Ninth Malaysia Plan by Lim Kit Siang
    (Parliament, Monday) : In reviving the New Economic Policy and extending it from a 20-year into a 50-year policy, the National Mission has also revived a subject of grave national dissension both between bumiputras and non-bumiputras as well as between the bumiputra haves and bumiputra have-nots.
    The revival of the NEP was the rallying cry of the UMNO Youth leader, Dato Hishamuddin Husssein and his deputy, Khairy Jamaluddin at the UMNO Youth general assembly in July last year, who called for the Malay Agenda to be embedded in the Ninth Malaysia Plan and to become the New National Agenda for a 15-year term ending with Vision 2020.
    Khairy wanted the Malay Agenda – covering ownership of land, housing, business premises and intellectual property –to target 30 per cent bumiputra share ownership by 2020.
    We see the translation of the Malay Agenda of UMNO Youth into the 15-year National Mission when the 9MP was presented on Friday. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that despite 35 years of social engineering and economic restructuring the Malaysian dream of a just and equitable society remains a faint and hazy dream.
    When UMNO Youth called for the revival of the NEP in July 2005, MCA and Gerakan leaders, both at the national and youth levels, publicly expressed their criticism and opposition. But such criticism and opposition were easily squashed when Khairy summoned a Barisan Nasional Youth special meeting a few days later. After a two-hour meeting, Khairy announced that all the youth movements of the Barisan Nasional component parties, including MCA and Gerakan, were in full support of UMNO Youth’s call for the revival of the New Economic Policy as “a national agenda for all Malaysians”.
    Up to now, not a single MCA or Gerakan leader, whether at national or youth level, had explained their sudden reversal of stand – fully reminiscent of their support of the “929 Declaration” on 29th September 2001 by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad that Malaysia was an Islamic State when they had all along until then asserted that Malaysia was a secular state with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic State!
    The most significant aspect of the genesis of the New Economic Policy (NEP) had been overlooked, ignored or forgotten – that while the NEP had a two-prong objective of eradicating poverty irrespective of race and the restructuring of Malaysian society to eliminate the identification of race with vocation or location, the overriding objective of NEP from the very first day of its promulgation in 1970 was to achieve national unity.
    This means that the most important measure in the evaluation of the NEP must be its success or failure to fulfill its overriding objective to achieve national unity – and this must also be the yardstick in the discussion of the pros and the cons of the revival of the NEP.
    When the New Economic Policy was introduced in 1970, it was envisaged as a 20-year programme. With UMNO Youth’s proposal for the revival of the NEP for 15 years from 2006-2020 accepted in the Ninth Malaysia Plan and the 15-year Mission, the 20-year NEP is going to become a 50-year programme.
    The 20-year NEP had failed in its overriding objective to achieve national unity, or 46 years after Merdeka in 1957 there would be no need to introduce the national training service and 49 years after Merdeka to revive the NEP or NEP2.
    In postulating a 30% bumiputra share of corporate stock ownership, UMNO Youth, the 9th Malaysia Plan and the National Mission have not addressed two matters:
    the target of 30% ownership of corporate shareholdings by Bumiputras was but one and not the “be-all and end-all” target of the NEP, whose overriding and overarching objective was the achievement of national unity; and
    the target of 30% equity share for bumiputras had been achieved by the end of the 20-year NEP in 1990, if the Malays had not sold off their share ownerships from bumiputra quotas for quick capital gain and shares held by nominee companies which were mainly bumiputra interests had been taken into consideration.
    The contention that the 30% target for Bumiputra equity holding had not been achieved; and that Bumiputra holdings are only 18.9% of total corporate equity is highly dubious.
    There is much misunderstanding of the NEP target concerning ownership of share capital.
    In 1970, when the initial calculations of share ownership were done, the calculations were done on the basis of taking the par value of the shares of all limited companies, both public limited and private limited companies, distributed by ethnic origin. Thus, the total stock of share capital at that point in time was valued in nominal ringgit terms.
    The calculations took no account of the true asset or equity values which are a correct measure of wealth. Par valuations are notional and equate a single share in a small private family owned business with a single share in a large asset-rich public limited company listed on the stock exchange. The resulting aggregate values (at par values) understated the net worth of asset-rich companies whilst exaggerating the value of shares in private companies. The total par value of shares as measured is an under-estimate of the value of all corporate assets/equity or the net worth of corporate entities.
    This same methodology has been applied consistently since 1970. According to the 9th Plan (table 16.6), the total par value of share capital in 2004 amounted to RM 529.8 billion of which 18.9 percent was owned by Bumiputras, 40.6 percent by Non-Bumiputras, 32.5 percent by Foreigners and 8.0 by Nominee companies.
    Many observers have argued that the holdings of Nominee companies should be aggregated with Bumiputra holdings to give an overall Bumiputra ownership of 26.9 percent, a figure close to the NEP target of 30 percent. These commentators have contended that Nominee companies are mainly Bumiputra owned.The figure of 18.9 percent is clearly an under-estimate for other reasons beyond those cited above.
    The total value of RM 529.8 billion represents the total par value of all shares in both public and private limited companies. As of last Friday, the market capitalisation of 1,025 listed companies with Bursa Malaysia stood at RM732.9 billion. – a figure that exceeded by RM 203.1 billion the total share capital of all companies (both listed and unlisted) in par value terms.
    This is clearly an inconsistency. No published figures are available about the ethnic distribution of the capitalized value of RM 732.9 billion. It can however be reasonably argued that all listed companies on Bursa Malaysia are companies that have been restructured, resulting in a minimum 30 percent Bumiputra ownership.
    It must be recalled that restructuring is a pre-condition for listing on Bursa Malaysia. On this basis, it would not be erroneous to assume that 30 percent of the capitalized value of listed shares belongs to Bumiputras. To this extent then, Bumiputra ownership is close to or even exceeds the NEP target.
    It should also be observed that ownership is but one dimension. Control matters. In terms of control, even through minority holdings, Bumiputras and Bumiputra controlled entities are likely to be in control of corporate wealth well in access of 30%. On this basis, the data presented in the 9th Plan is moot and anomalous.
    In terms of value of corporate equity attributable to Bumiputera, the amount increased from RM447 million or 2.4% in 1970 to RM100 billion or 18.9% in 2005, though a major portion of this stock remains in the hands of the GLCs.
    So long as Malays can sell their shares to realize short-term profits, Malay equity ownership would never reach 30% even if the NEP was extended beyond 2020. If the Malays had held on and not sold the shares, the Malay equity would have reached 30% by its stated period of 1990. An estimated 40% of the Malay preferential shares given were sold for profit gains.
    Documented verification is provided by an academic working paper titled, “Privatisation of Ports: A Malaysian Case Study” by Associate Professor Malcolm Tull and Dr James Revely of Murdoch University in January 2001,
    “… By 1995 the privatised companies accounted for 22.1 per cent of the total market capitalisation of the KLSE. Many shareholders took advantage of the opportunity to realise short-term capital gains and sold their shares. The sale of shares in Klang Container Terminal and other privatised companies has, however, led to a dilution of Bumiputra equity: between 1983 and 1990 it declined from 65 per cent to 38 per cent of total paid up capital on the KLSE.”
    This Australian study showed that almost 41% of the shares in privatized companies held by the rich Malays were sold. Applying this rough ratio would mean that the 19.3% of Malay shares in 1990 only represented 60% of the shares given by the government. In other words Malays had sold 12.9% equity stake. If Malays had held on to every share given, they would have a total 32.2% equity stake, far exceeding the 30% target in 1990.
    It is clear that the decline in private Bumiputera holding of corporate equity need not necessarily mean that the volume of wealth they hold is not on par or is smaller than that held by non-Bumiputera.
    The government’s figures are also in dispute because a tabulation of the market capitalisation of equity owned by the GLCs, which are recognised as Bumiputera private sector investments, would indicate a substantial increase in this bumiputera ownership of share capital than the reported 18.9%.
    In fact, Ramon Navaratnam, a former senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Finance, was quoted as saying that recent studies indicate that Bumiputera now own about 50% of the corporate sector (The Star, 6 November 2005). A study by Terence Gomez published in 1990 of corporate equity owned by politicians and political parties, including UMNO, revealed that they have resorted to using nominee companies to conceal their ownership of corporate equity from public scrutiny
    During the public balloting of newly listed stock, Bumiputera get a double bite, so to speak, of such equity. This would mean that Bumiputera would end up with more then 30% of a firm’s equity during its IPO. Most of this Bumiputera apportioned stock is immediately sold off for a quick profit and the management of these new quoted companies are required to top up their Bumiputera equity shareholding if they want to participate in a subsequent corporate exercises or a government-related projects.
    The sale of equity by Bumiputera post-IPO, or after a rights or bonus issue, constantly leads to a dilution of this community’s ownership of equity. Has the government data on the magnitude of this “leakage”?
    A study has pointed out to the flaw in the system where Incentives and privileges have been provided to Bumiputera, regardless of their level of income or volume of assets owned, which is prone to abuse, with the educated and informed middle and upper class Bumiputera being the primary recipients of IPOs.
    With the government’s wealth redistribution measures targeted at middle and upper class Bumiputera, the government has failed to use this delivery mechanism to address and alleviate the plight of the most disadvantaged Bumiputera, a factor that has now also contributed to serious intra-Bumiputera wealth disparities.
    Economic policies based on race do not serve as an incentive to disadvantaged segments of society (middle to lower classes non-Bumiputera and Bumiputera) to participate in the economy.
    Equitable wealth distribution can only be achieved if the recipients are subjected to income and assets tests, regardless of race, a mechanism employed in countries that have adopted affirmative action. Disadvantaged individuals should be given incentives to participate in the economy.
    If the government hopes to get a more objective picture of wealth distribution among ethnic groups, a better measure than the distribution of publicly-traded share capital would be volume of assets owned or income.
    The revival of the NEP has come at a time when studies have shown that the government had not been successful in creating an economically sustainable, independent Bumiputera commercial and industrial community through the NEP – whether from selective patronage through the NEP or privatisation.
    Thus when Khairy wrote that the revival of the NEP will not see the return of the gravy train, who will believe him – when he will be regarded as the top candidate to benefit the most from the new gravy train as a result of the NEP revival!
    This is why the question that must be posed about the Ninth Malaysia Plan is whether it is a RM220 billion “gravy train” for new UMNOputras or a wake-up call that Vision 2020 is “off track” whether in achieving fully developed nation status or accomplishing its nine strategic objectives.

  20. As for Malay dignity etc., it had eroded though there was a time when it seemed to have ascended (unfortunately during TDM’s time). The reason? over affirmative action and lately hand-outs.

    While education holds the dignify key to level playing field, education eroded from affirmative action only made non-Malays competitive.

    The other factor not discussed is all these affirmative actions have simply brought about negativism development when most malay just became more inward-looking. A check when competing for off shore business will tell their confidence level against non-malay groups who network ability have developed insightful deep reaches

  21. I have never ever heard a Malay leader stand up in the UMNO assembly and say “give the man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime” because if he does, he will be out as Ketua Bahagian next round… that is why the Malays will always depend on the economic tongkat in whatever name you might want to call the tongkat…. they just won’t want to change. Sorry Dato Din, I would like to believe you in wanting to build a resilient self reliant group of Bumis, its already 50 years too late… just go on with life and let this country self implode, we do not deserve to exist….
    It is never too late. The Malays can change when challenged. If they are spoon fed, they will remain dependent on a patron. Given political will, we can remodel our approach to socio-economic development. –Din Merican

  22. The Malays can change when challenged- Dato Din

    I thought when challenged, Malays will run for cover under the sarongs of the pariah UMNO leaders.

    They were in fact challenged to cross the rubicon, and to take the giant leap of faith on 5 May, 2013′ after the disastrous failure of 30 years of NEP and later clones, to help the poor and marginalized section of the Malay community. And what did the Malays do on 5 May 2013? We know the result and the analysis if the demography of the voters.

    More of the same, in fact worse since then. Nothing will change whether Malays are challenged, if the history of the 50 years is any guide.

    Underlying this is the Malays’ sense of insecurity in their own country being encouraged by the long lines of pariah UMNO Malay leaders, the latest being the imbecilic home minister. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and the GE 13 loser Ali Rustam.

    Sorry if I poured ice cold water on this. It is a statement of fact.

  23. When Malays are challenged, some of their ‘leaders’ will automatically default to race, religion and King issues as defence.

    It is easy for these cowards to hide behind these non issues for narrow, divisive and damaging political interest, instead of arguing about policies…..if this failed, there is a strong culture of threat, bullying and intimidation to silence the opponents by abusing their power.

    If Malays can change, as most are politicallty active and aware, they would have voted out the corrupt government destroying the country without hesitation……the fact the majority of Malays voted for UMNO shows that they stand to gain significantly from the present ‘ situation ‘.

  24. Why question the “small” privilege of the Malays..?? Isn’t it already been stipulated and enshrined in the Constitution?? 30% equity is nothing compared to 67% majority Malay population in the country. At least Tun Razak was “lenient” when he drafted the DEB in 1970, to let the Malay possess only 30% of the equity rather than 40, 50 or 60% which is the more appropriate compared to the 67% majority population of the Malays.

  25. Jeff,
    Why not take 100%? Which part of constitution stipulated that melayus got privileges? Wow position can be translated in to privileges or special rights. Just one simple, who are the real melayus?

    The non melayus should not have supported Tunku during the 1964 GE. At this rate, it would be better Malaysia to be under Sukarno instead. I bet Sukarno is far better & smarter than Madhater

    P.S : That’s just a off the cuff statement.

  26. In all the recent statement of uplifting of the Melayus from poverty this UMNO Melayus from Najib o UMNO supreme council members to the Fake Melayu Madahtter , not a single word of recognition on the poverty of the bottom segment of the Indians, Chinese and other races. The sly looking Najib does not know how to be an inclusive Prime Minister for. The Agong is a Malay and he too remains silent over his responsibility to ALL his subjects. The Sultans are happy with the largess they receive from their Malay UMNOs’ What life chances to the poor non-Malays have in this country, run by thieving UMNO Malays.

  27. ‘ Underlying this is the Malays’ sense of insecurity in their own country’ – Frank.

    I always thought the Malays are secured because they know they are in totally control of the government, including the police, army, Rela etc..

    If you think they are insecured and weaked, it is because they played with your emotion and minds to give you the wrong perception of their ‘ situation ‘ …….when you are in majority consistently playing politics of race and religion at all cost without shame and in control of the guns, anyone would feel secure.

  28. How the 30% was contrived at ? Have no data, nor the complete analytical basis of Economic-eugenics basis of ‘proving’ that 30% figure, and do not know even if plucked from thin air. It was more of intuitive reasoning based on the population ratio of 67% to 70% Malay population, to 30% of the other non-Malay population, back at that time the configuration was contrived. Meaning, that in terms of the Macro-economic landscape of Malaysia, the 70% Majority population TOTAL PRODUCTIVITY was ONLY 30% of the Gross National product, whereas the 30% Non-Malays’ PRODUCTIVITY was 70% of the GNP…..see the Inverse proportion in the ratio of GNP over the Population ratio, we can see the ‘ indictment’ why Malays need not only to Increase, but have to work much, much harder , and be Industrious, Innovative and RESLIENT like our Counterpart Chinese and Indians who can garner 70% of our TOTAL GNP……..?
    So, jangan laaaa Goyang Kaki, Goyang Badan sahaja….mesti lebih giat buat KERJA !

  29. 75% or 9,000,000 MALAYS earn rm 3,000 and less
    rm 27,000,000,000

    24% or 2,800,000 MALAYS earn rm 12,000 per month
    2,800,000 x 12,000 = 33,600,000, 000

    1% or 120,000 MALAY earn rm 100,000 per month
    120,000 x rm 100,000 = 12,000,000,000

    RM 12,000,000,000=UPPER CLASS TOTAL SALARY
    RM 72,000,000,000




    40% RM 800,000,000,000 = FOREIGN CONTROL
    35% RM 700,000,000,000 = CHINESE CONTROL
    20% RM 400,000,000,000 = MALAY CONTROL
    5% RM 100,000,000,000 = INDIAN CONTROL
    100% RM 2,000,000,000,000

    RM 2,000,000,000,000?

    1% = RM 20,000,000,000
    5% = RM 100,000,000,000
    10% = RM 200,000,000,000
    20% = RM 400,000,000,000
    30% = RM 600,000,000,000
    40% = RM 800,000,000,000
    50% = RM 1,000,000,000,000
    60% = RM 1,200,000,000,000
    70% = RM 1,400,000,000,000
    80% = RM 1,600,000,000,000
    90% = RM 1,800,000,000,000
    100% = RM 2,000,000,000,000
    TOTAL = RM 2,000,000,000

    THEREFORE PER YEAR IS ABOUT RM 864,000,000,000?




    LAND RM 500,000,000,000
    HOUSING RM 500,000,000,000
    VEHICLES RM 500,000,000,000
    SHARES RM 500,000,000,000
    UNIT TRUSTS RM 500,000,000,000
    BONDS RM 500,000,000,000
    TABUNG HAJI RM 500,000,000,000
    SAVING RM 500,000,000,000
    CURRENT RM 500,000,000,0000
    FIX DEPOSIT RM 500,000,000,0000
    OVERSEA RM 500,000,000,000
    OTHERS RM 500,000,000,000
    TOTAL RM 6,000,000,000,000 OR TM 6 TRILLION?

    20% OF RM 30 TRILLION IS RM 6,000,000,000,000?





    THE LAW STATE THAT 1% + 24% +75% = 100%


    10% = 700,000
    1% = 70,000
    4% = 280,000
    5% = 350,000
    20% = 1,400,000
    24% = 1,680,000
    25% = 1,750,000
    70% = 4,900,000
    75% = 5,350,000

    70,000 X RM 100,000 SALARY PER MONTH = RM 7,000,000,000

    24% = 1,680,000 CHINESE FROM MIDDLE CLASS
    1,680,000 X RM 12,000 SALARY PER MONTH = RM 20,160,000,000

    5,350,000 X RM 3,000 SALARY PER MONTH = RM 16,050,000,000

    1% = RM 7,000,000,000 = UPPER CLASS
    24% = RM 20,160,000,000 = MIDDLE CLASS
    75% = RM 16,050,000,000 = LOWER INCOME GROUP
    100% = RM 43,210,000,000 OR RM 43 BILLION



    IN ONE YEAR IT SHOULD BE RM 518,520,000,0000 OR RM 600 BILLION?






    RM 1,800,000,000,000 X 60% = RM 10,800,000,000,000? OR 10 TRILLION RINGGIT?

    LAND RM 900,000,000,000
    HOUSING RM 900,000,000,000
    VEHICLES RM 900,000,000,000
    SHARES RM 900,000,000,000
    UNIT TRUSTS RM 900,000,000,000
    BONDS RM 900,000,000,000
    INSURANCE RM 900,000,000,000
    BANK SAVING RM 900,000,000,000
    CURRENT ACCOUNT RM 900,000,000,000
    FIX DEPOSIT RM 900,000,000,000
    OVERSEA RM 900,000,000,000
    OTHERS RM 900,000,000,000
    TOTAL RM 10,800,000,000,000 OR RM 10 TRILLION

    60% OF THE RM 18,000,000,000,000 = RM 10,800,000,000,000?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.