The planners are envisaging a Malaysia well-developed, her people united and happy. That has always been the dream, whatever slogans or plans that the politicians have come up with. — Bernama file photo
SARAWAKIANS missed the boat when the First Malaysia Development Plan was launched after the creation of Malaysia. We caught the tail end of the Second Plan after the May 13, 1969 riots in Kuala Lumpur when the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced.
However, we began to actively participate only in the preparations of the third and subsequent Plans. The New Economic Policy (NEP), for instance, was to eradicate poverty and to restructure society.
The NEP, through its affirmative action programmes, was successful in reducing incidents of extreme poverty among certain sections of the population, but not effective enough for the indigenous peoples of Sarawak.
Over the years, a few other strategies were also tried out – measures such as the New Economic Model (NEM) and Rural Transformation Programmes (RTP). These met with sporadic successes where projects were properly managed.
Still, there was plenty of room for improvement in terms of preventing ‘penyelewengan’ (misappropriation), poor monitoring and diversion of funds by corrupt implementers.
Since the formation of Malaysia in 1963, native communities in Sarawak have been relying on the application of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution in terms of reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, et cetera, for Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak.
And in Sarawak, they have been waiting for application of Article 39 of the State Constitution when it comes to the reservation of quotas in scholarships, other educational facilities and business licences.
If affirmative action measures had been taken along the line of those constitutional privileges to those communities, and equitably distributed and managed without political bias, these people’s economic conditions would have been different from what they are today, almost half a century after Merdeka. It is a bit like the situation in George Orwell’s book ‘Animal Farm’: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
People still have not lost hope in governmental measures. Where can they go anyway?
They have been pinning their hopes on Vision 2020. This vision should have been fulfilled in two years’ time.
Too bad, it was not!
Another ‘vision’ is quickly substituted, a decade further off! Can we wait for another 10 years before we can close the gap in economic developments by regions, by areas, by ethnicity?
The current co-prosperity plan, ‘Shared Prosperity VISION 2030’, sounds great to those not old enough to remember the great Japanese ‘Co-Prosperity Sphere’ during World War II. That ‘prosperity’ mainly meant we wore gunny sacks and lived on tapioca because there was no rice.
Planners are envisaging a Malaysia well-developed, her people united and happy. That has always been the dream, whatever slogans or plans that the politicians have come up with.
Bright prospects for every Malaysian in terms of an equitable distribution of wealth within the period – can you wait some more? And more? And more?
Catchy phrases like ‘fair and equitable distribution of the economic cake’ and now, ‘Shared Prosperity Vision 2030’, are in themselves statements of intent, more self-explanatory than the Vision 2020.
The latest approach, the ‘Shared Prosperity VISION 2030’, is promoted as being a more effective and more equitable than the previous measures such as the NEP, the ‘DePAN’ (National E-Learning Policy), the ‘EAC’ (National Economic Action Council), the ‘ETP’ (Economic Transformation Programme), and ‘NEM’.
We have heard them all before. Acronyms and slogans have not been able to address the disparities between the region (Peninsular Malaysia and the Borneo States), between the states themselves, between the rural and urban areas, as well as between the ethnic groups in the country.
In some countries, distribution of wealth depends on the existence of wealth itself before talking about how it is to be distributed. There is potential wealth based on the existence of abundant natural resources, but the government is poorly organised.
The distribution of wealth is ineffective due to corruption in high places, poor administration of the taxation system, poor customs collection of revenues, and political turmoil.
However, compared to many countries, Malaysia, for its population of 28 million, is relatively rich in terms of natural resources now being tapped and those that remain untapped.
The government is relatively stable politically, though it could be better run if corruption had not been entrenched in the system.
The citizens are, by and large, law-abiding, working hard to save pennies, and generally look at the future with confidence. Irritations like extreme religious and political views are not impossible to reduce given time.
And if Sarawakians and Sabahans were to have an equitable share within the next 10 years, the planners should consider the importance of the constitutional provisions; otherwise, we would be back to square one.
We will not be able to take advantage of the 15 Key Economic Growth Activities (KEGA) proposals – Islamic Financial Hub 2.0- (Second Wave / FinTech); Digital Economy; Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR); Content Industry (animation programming, entertainment, culture, and digitalisation); Asean Halal and Food Hub; Commodity Malaysia 2.0; and sustainable logistics and mobility.
Shared vision replacing NEP
I read from a report by Institut Masa Depan Malaysia (Masa) in The Borneo Post of Oct 1, 2019, that the ‘NEP did not seem to achieve its goals as problems like income and wealth gap between classes, races and territories, as well as extreme disparities in the supply chain, remained unresolved in the country’; hence, the introduction of Vision 2030 to bridge the various gaps and at the same time, to excite the economy encumbered by enormous public debt and wrecked by scandals.
I do not see any improvement or a quantum leap in the economy of the natives in Borneo – unless and until there is a realisation that they ought to be specially treated as ‘poor in the midst of plenty’.
Their natural resources around them are diminishing in front of their very eyes. Until their lands are fully utilised by themselves and for their own benefit, theoretical planning just would not help, and neither would political quarrels between the state and the federal governments.
Grand designs of sharing prosperity would remain largely a plan, on paper, or on computer screens – it makes no difference if in the end, the poor of Sarawak would miss out again.
This time, we may miss the bus.
