Tun Dr. Mahathir,
During your 22 years' reign as the Prime Minister of Malaysia, you had been given the golden opportunities to cultivate a virtue called "Social Conscience" amongst the Malaysians, disregard of races and creeds. If you had ever bothered to put in effort in order to encourage and foster the spirit of Cooperation ("Gotong-Royong") amongst all Malaysians disregard of races and creeds, then we would be able to see a strongly binded national coalesce and social cohesiveness that would be reflected in the sharing of common goal congruence among all citizens by now. Then we would be better able to unload the national burden of affirmative actions which had to work along the racist line of Bumiputeraism and which had created so much long-lingering and divisive controversy for such a long period of time since 1970. Then we would have better chances to succeed in achieving the ultimate goals of social justice and economic justice irrespective of races and creeds.
However, besides ferocious power struggle, juicy sex scandals, bloody murder, greedy corruption and vile bad-mouthing, are we still able to find from our pool of politicians a single clue of good virtue like honesty and trustworthiness which revolve around the human nature of social conscience? Where had all the social conscience of the politicians gone now?
Isn't it time now for us to do a soul-searching and begin to promote the good virtue of social conscience so that all Malaysians can unite and work together towards the common goals of social justice and economic justice. We must be brave enough to dream of a state in which "all under-privileged and needy people will be subsidised in accordance with what they need" and in which "all who work hard will be rewarded in accordance with what they truly deserve". We must also be brave enough to sacrifice and strive hard for the dream to come true at our own expense, simply for the sake of our next generations. If we are able to build such an Utopia, then we will eventually be able to rule out the need for affirmative actions which come along with required discrimination since all grievances from each and every corner of the society will be redressed with the inner working of our social conscience without racial prejudices. This dream of Utopia is not impossible for us to realize since the working model will be more or less resembling those we find in an orphan house (Rumah Anak Yatim)!
Does Tun want to show the willingness and the determination to fight a good cause along the line of social justice and economic justice by resorting to the inner working of social conscience from the bottom of the conscientious people's heart?
Onlooker
Attached is the poem for the promotion of the virtue of "Social Conscience":
MY DEBT.
[BY EMMA PLAYTEB BEABUHY.]
How can I pay the debt I owe
For warmth, and light, and daily bread?
To all the toilers who, I know,
Have dwarfed their souls, that I be fed?
How can I pay the debts that stand
To farm, or mill, that grind or spin?
The mines that deck my jeweled hand,
The weary ones that gathered in?
How can I pay the debt again
To him who delves and toils for me?
How can I call them brother men
Unless I break their chains and free?
I place upon their neck my heel,
I rule them with my golden rod,
While I can think, and dream and feel,
And talk of justice and of God!
How can I pay mine honest debt?
By sharing poverty and blight?
Or giving where our ways have met
The glimmer of love's beacon light?
Oh! breaking hearts who dumbly plead,
Oh! burdened lives who only see
The rocky, onward paths that lead
Your crosses to your Calvary !
I stumble, but! see God's plan;
I suffer, but his voice I hear ;
I hope hope is for those who can
Look up, and see life's vision clear;
But if they cannot see the skies
Because toil pinions tighter yet
And tears and sorrow blind their eyes,
How can I pay this fearful debt?
How can I pay, how can I work,
How can I recompense them all?
I who am idle, I who shirk
To raise the burden they let fall.
Not by my gold-tliey scorn the gift;
Not by my pity, cast away,
But love and I must stoop and lift
Their cross, and carry it some day.
And resting, they may catch a gleam
Of drifting clouds, of stars that shine,
Of billowy bloom, and flashing stream,
And hear a strain of love divine.
And earth-bound hearts may sing a song
Like that my soul hears every day,
And in their strength I shall grow strong
If I but strive this debt to pay.
Miss Jane Addams, defines the "Social
Conscience" as "that feeling which would prevent
a man from enjoying a good supper if a starving
wretch were watching every mouthful he ate."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Affirmative Action
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at August 26, 2008 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (62) | TrackBacks (0) | Previous Blog
1. Affirmative action by its very nature must involve discrimination.
2. Affirmative action is about correcting imbalances between groups. But in the process, the interest of individuals would have to be sacrificed. It is unfortunate for the individual concerned but if no one's interest is to be sacrificed then corrections cannot be made. The status quo would remain and this would mean there would be no affirmative action. Simply said, no corrective action would be possible unless there is some discrimination against someone.
3. Golf is a great game. But like other games the poorer players would be given handicaps. Otherwise golf would be very boring as the good golfers win every time.
4. In boxing we cannot match a heavyweight against a lightweight. The latter would be hammered to a pulp.
5. In horse racing the lighter horse would carry weights so that the race is between evenly matched horses and riders.
6. Globalisation has been promoted by the rich countries.
7. The essence of globalisation is open borders or a borderless world. With this, the rich and the well-endowed will have unrestricted access to the countries of the poor in order to exploit them. Of course the poor can have access to the rich countries too. It sounds fair. The playing field seems to be level.
8. But what will certainly happen is that the rich will go into the poor countries and with their capital, their managerial skills, and their technology, would overwhelm the people in the poor countries with their small businesses, limited skills and limited capital.
9. The end result would be that the poor countries would effectively be owned and exploited by the rich countries and the local people would be mere workers in the big enterprises of the rich, earning a pittance for themselves. Essentially colonisation of the poor by the rich would again take place.
10. But the rich countries will claim that the people of the poor countries are free to do business in the rich countries, buy over the banks, the industries and anything they like. But they know and we know that it would be impossible for the people of the poor countries to do this.
11. This is why the WTO has been rejected by poor countries. The people of the poor countries know they cannot compete; know that in the end they would be colonised. They are not being selfish. It is simply that they want to exploit their wealth for themselves.
12. Effectively the poor countries want to discriminate in their favour by rejecting the borderless world of Globalisation. Exploitation by the rich would most likely enrich the poor countries. But they would rather be poor than be exploited.
13. We take the relative peace and stability in our country for granted. But look at other multi-ethnic countries. In most cases the indigenous people, if given power would not just discriminate against what they consider to be non-indigenous people but would want to expel them. Look around us and you will understand what I mean. Look at the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and the Indians in Burma. There are other examples which I will not mention here.
14. But the indigenous people of this country actually welcome the non-indigenous and expressed their willingness to share the wealth and the opportunities that this great country has to offer between them. But the sharing must be fair. That was the kind of sharing our founders agreed upon. The Malays would not have agreed if in this country they would be reduced to being the hewers of wood and drawers of water.
15. When the sharing did not really take place, the anger lead to the 1969 race riots.
16. Following that our wise leaders from all the communities agreed on how to carry out the sharing. They agreed on what is basically affirmative action. They agreed that they would eradicate poverty irrespective of race and that there should be no identification of race with economic function.
17. It is only a small sacrifice. But the peace and stability that came with the NEP had enriched the country which in turn had contributed towards peace and stability even during the recession caused by the financial crises. We know that racial riots occurred in other countries at that time. Contributing to the fairness of the NEP was the decision that discrimination should not be by expropriation of what already belonged to others but through the distribution of new wealth and opportunities. Thus, the sense of deprivation would be reduced.
18. But even when the discrimination is to be based on growth the rich would still feel a sense of deprivation because they cannot get all the wealth and opportunities that they believe they were qualified for.
19. If contracts or licences or permits are to be given out why should someone less qualified get them when they, the qualified could make better use of these things.
20. In the case of university admission and scholarships, why should someone less qualified get admitted when the better qualified cannot.
21. So even when the corrective action is based on new opportunities and wealth and not by expropriation of what is already in the possession of the rich, there would still be a sense of deprivation by the richer communities.
22. Accepted that the richer communities also have poor members among them and the New Economic Policy's first prong clearly proposed poverty eradication irrespective of race, the fact remains that there is more poverty among the poorer community than among the richer communities.
23. If we eliminate poverty among the rich without regard to the level of poverty, then the richer community would be rid of poverty while the poorer community would still be saddled with extensive poverty.
24. Today we have reduced poverty to 5 percent. If we care to do a study, we will find that the majority of those still under the poverty line would be from the deprived community.
25. Still, despite the alleged discrimination, our poverty eradication is regarded as being very successful. It is nearly impossible to find hard core poverty among the better-off race in the urban areas. There are more in the rural areas.
26. Fifty years is a short period in the history of nations. We have not reached menopause yet. In fact we are in our youth still. Whether we succeed to overcome our present difficulties depends on us. If we fail, pointing fingers will not save us.
27. I will readily admit that the NEP had been abused. But we are so ready to blame that we pick on the wrong target. Of course the way the affirmative action was carried out, and the abuses, were picked on by the opposition to condemn the whole policy.
28. UMNOputra, like cronyism, was a word invented by politicians and the detractors of this brash country which dared to thumb its nose at the powers that be. Unable to condemn blatant corruption as they do to other countries, they came up with cronyism and UMNOputra. When there is real cronyism and corruption they deliberately ignore them because these are committed by their favourite people.
29. Before making these criticisms against the affirmative action of the NEP, why not make a real study. Are most of the Malays getting the scholarships and entries into the universities the children of UMNO people? If they are, why was it necessary to have the Universities and University College Act to stop students from demonstrations against the UMNO-led Government? How did the doctors and lawyers in PAS get their education? Are the students all from rich families with connections?
30. I will be the first to admit that there have been abuses in the promotion of business among the bumiputeras. Given opportunities, given licenses, permits, contracts etc, they disposed these for immediate gains. This frustrates the efforts to help them. Some degree of abuses may be excused but the degree of abuse of the opportunities created by the NEP is far too much. They cannot all be excused.
31. I also admit that there has been unfairness in the award of scholarships and Government jobs.
32. I will not try to defend these abuses. We must try to reduce them. But affirmation is about discrimination. And those discriminated against will never understand the big picture, the benefits of an increasingly egalitarian society.
33. The Malays must accept that this discrimination cannot be forever. If they fail to respond properly to what is being done for them, they should accept this policy would be taken away.
34. When Malay youngsters, especially boys, failed to study and qualify for university education, when they preferred to play and not study, we cannot expect the non-Malays to patiently wait and give up their opportunities until the Malays decide to become serious and study. That would not be fair.
35. That was why we introduced merit in the selection of students for the universities. Unfortunately, the implementers of Government decisions chose to interpret it differently. By requiring Bumiputeras to sit for the matriculation and the non-Bumiputeras to sit for higher school certificates, they managed to give the impression that the Bumiputeras were actually better qualified than the non-Bumiputeras. With this, the intention of the Government to make the Bumiputeras become more serious about their education failed.
36. There is a tendency among Malays to regard the discrimination in their favour as a privilege, as a recognition of their superior status. I think this is wrong. The discrimination is in order to give them a kind of headstart so that they can catch up with other races. To me, it is shameful to have to be protected because we do not have the capacity to compete. We are not Red Indians to live on reserves. We should regard it as a temporary expedient to be done away with once we have achieved the capacity to compete on our own.
37. However, we must give time for ending the NEP and it should be done in stages. I hope that the time will not be too long. In the meantime, serious efforts by the Bumiputeras must be made to avail themselves of the opportunities. If this is obviously not being done, then, as with entrance into the universities, the discrimination must end.
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at August 26, 2008 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (62) | TrackBacks (0) | Previous Blog
1. Affirmative action by its very nature must involve discrimination.
2. Affirmative action is about correcting imbalances between groups. But in the process, the interest of individuals would have to be sacrificed. It is unfortunate for the individual concerned but if no one's interest is to be sacrificed then corrections cannot be made. The status quo would remain and this would mean there would be no affirmative action. Simply said, no corrective action would be possible unless there is some discrimination against someone.
3. Golf is a great game. But like other games the poorer players would be given handicaps. Otherwise golf would be very boring as the good golfers win every time.
4. In boxing we cannot match a heavyweight against a lightweight. The latter would be hammered to a pulp.
5. In horse racing the lighter horse would carry weights so that the race is between evenly matched horses and riders.
6. Globalisation has been promoted by the rich countries.
7. The essence of globalisation is open borders or a borderless world. With this, the rich and the well-endowed will have unrestricted access to the countries of the poor in order to exploit them. Of course the poor can have access to the rich countries too. It sounds fair. The playing field seems to be level.
8. But what will certainly happen is that the rich will go into the poor countries and with their capital, their managerial skills, and their technology, would overwhelm the people in the poor countries with their small businesses, limited skills and limited capital.
9. The end result would be that the poor countries would effectively be owned and exploited by the rich countries and the local people would be mere workers in the big enterprises of the rich, earning a pittance for themselves. Essentially colonisation of the poor by the rich would again take place.
10. But the rich countries will claim that the people of the poor countries are free to do business in the rich countries, buy over the banks, the industries and anything they like. But they know and we know that it would be impossible for the people of the poor countries to do this.
11. This is why the WTO has been rejected by poor countries. The people of the poor countries know they cannot compete; know that in the end they would be colonised. They are not being selfish. It is simply that they want to exploit their wealth for themselves.
12. Effectively the poor countries want to discriminate in their favour by rejecting the borderless world of Globalisation. Exploitation by the rich would most likely enrich the poor countries. But they would rather be poor than be exploited.
13. We take the relative peace and stability in our country for granted. But look at other multi-ethnic countries. In most cases the indigenous people, if given power would not just discriminate against what they consider to be non-indigenous people but would want to expel them. Look around us and you will understand what I mean. Look at the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and the Indians in Burma. There are other examples which I will not mention here.
14. But the indigenous people of this country actually welcome the non-indigenous and expressed their willingness to share the wealth and the opportunities that this great country has to offer between them. But the sharing must be fair. That was the kind of sharing our founders agreed upon. The Malays would not have agreed if in this country they would be reduced to being the hewers of wood and drawers of water.
15. When the sharing did not really take place, the anger lead to the 1969 race riots.
16. Following that our wise leaders from all the communities agreed on how to carry out the sharing. They agreed on what is basically affirmative action. They agreed that they would eradicate poverty irrespective of race and that there should be no identification of race with economic function.
17. It is only a small sacrifice. But the peace and stability that came with the NEP had enriched the country which in turn had contributed towards peace and stability even during the recession caused by the financial crises. We know that racial riots occurred in other countries at that time. Contributing to the fairness of the NEP was the decision that discrimination should not be by expropriation of what already belonged to others but through the distribution of new wealth and opportunities. Thus, the sense of deprivation would be reduced.
18. But even when the discrimination is to be based on growth the rich would still feel a sense of deprivation because they cannot get all the wealth and opportunities that they believe they were qualified for.
19. If contracts or licences or permits are to be given out why should someone less qualified get them when they, the qualified could make better use of these things.
20. In the case of university admission and scholarships, why should someone less qualified get admitted when the better qualified cannot.
21. So even when the corrective action is based on new opportunities and wealth and not by expropriation of what is already in the possession of the rich, there would still be a sense of deprivation by the richer communities.
22. Accepted that the richer communities also have poor members among them and the New Economic Policy's first prong clearly proposed poverty eradication irrespective of race, the fact remains that there is more poverty among the poorer community than among the richer communities.
23. If we eliminate poverty among the rich without regard to the level of poverty, then the richer community would be rid of poverty while the poorer community would still be saddled with extensive poverty.
24. Today we have reduced poverty to 5 percent. If we care to do a study, we will find that the majority of those still under the poverty line would be from the deprived community.
25. Still, despite the alleged discrimination, our poverty eradication is regarded as being very successful. It is nearly impossible to find hard core poverty among the better-off race in the urban areas. There are more in the rural areas.
26. Fifty years is a short period in the history of nations. We have not reached menopause yet. In fact we are in our youth still. Whether we succeed to overcome our present difficulties depends on us. If we fail, pointing fingers will not save us.
27. I will readily admit that the NEP had been abused. But we are so ready to blame that we pick on the wrong target. Of course the way the affirmative action was carried out, and the abuses, were picked on by the opposition to condemn the whole policy.
28. UMNOputra, like cronyism, was a word invented by politicians and the detractors of this brash country which dared to thumb its nose at the powers that be. Unable to condemn blatant corruption as they do to other countries, they came up with cronyism and UMNOputra. When there is real cronyism and corruption they deliberately ignore them because these are committed by their favourite people.
29. Before making these criticisms against the affirmative action of the NEP, why not make a real study. Are most of the Malays getting the scholarships and entries into the universities the children of UMNO people? If they are, why was it necessary to have the Universities and University College Act to stop students from demonstrations against the UMNO-led Government? How did the doctors and lawyers in PAS get their education? Are the students all from rich families with connections?
30. I will be the first to admit that there have been abuses in the promotion of business among the bumiputeras. Given opportunities, given licenses, permits, contracts etc, they disposed these for immediate gains. This frustrates the efforts to help them. Some degree of abuses may be excused but the degree of abuse of the opportunities created by the NEP is far too much. They cannot all be excused.
31. I also admit that there has been unfairness in the award of scholarships and Government jobs.
32. I will not try to defend these abuses. We must try to reduce them. But affirmation is about discrimination. And those discriminated against will never understand the big picture, the benefits of an increasingly egalitarian society.
33. The Malays must accept that this discrimination cannot be forever. If they fail to respond properly to what is being done for them, they should accept this policy would be taken away.
34. When Malay youngsters, especially boys, failed to study and qualify for university education, when they preferred to play and not study, we cannot expect the non-Malays to patiently wait and give up their opportunities until the Malays decide to become serious and study. That would not be fair.
35. That was why we introduced merit in the selection of students for the universities. Unfortunately, the implementers of Government decisions chose to interpret it differently. By requiring Bumiputeras to sit for the matriculation and the non-Bumiputeras to sit for higher school certificates, they managed to give the impression that the Bumiputeras were actually better qualified than the non-Bumiputeras. With this, the intention of the Government to make the Bumiputeras become more serious about their education failed.
36. There is a tendency among Malays to regard the discrimination in their favour as a privilege, as a recognition of their superior status. I think this is wrong. The discrimination is in order to give them a kind of headstart so that they can catch up with other races. To me, it is shameful to have to be protected because we do not have the capacity to compete. We are not Red Indians to live on reserves. We should regard it as a temporary expedient to be done away with once we have achieved the capacity to compete on our own.
37. However, we must give time for ending the NEP and it should be done in stages. I hope that the time will not be too long. In the meantime, serious efforts by the Bumiputeras must be made to avail themselves of the opportunities. If this is obviously not being done, then, as with entrance into the universities, the discrimination must end.
Inefficient New Economic Policy of Malaysia
Tun Dr. Mahathir,
By right, New Economic Policy (NEP) should have been ended since 1990. If the Malay people still insist today that NEP should be carried on until the true achievement of the final target of 30% wealth and 30% employment in the public companies be given to the Bumiputeras, then in Bursa Malaysia we will hardly be able to find many counters that are really a good choice for investment. This means that it is not easy to find the companies that really come with good quality assets in true sense, as well as in the sense of book values that are being reflected as assets of high Net Tangible Value in the balance sheets of the company annual reports. More often than not, what we are able to see in Bursa Malaysia will only be the stocks of some high gearing and debt-ridden companies, which will eventually be graded as PN4 or PN17 members when recession hits. This will be the end-result of the long term implementation of the NEP - shamefully lack of economic motivation and management efficiency for the publicly owned companies to perform well in the business world.
What rationale do you find that can really make us feel proud of the success of the government intervention measures for bailout purpose, such as those measures of Dana Modal and Dana Harta? I find that I myself have no reason to feel proud of any bailout effort at all! I would rather like to see more and more small and medium businesses, which are not required to abide to the 30% Bumiputeras Rule of NEP, growing slowly but steadily in Malaysia than seeing more and more Bursa Malaysia member companies, which are required to allocate at least 30% shares to Bumiputeras, finally slipping itself into the category of PN4 or PN17 when time turns bad.
In this article, Tun still does not show a strong determination to call for the abolition of the affirmative action. Before Tun continues to give your support to the continuation of affirmative action in favour of Bumiputeras in Malaysia, I would like to call for your attention to an article, which attempts to define the meaning of justice as published in the website below.
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/socialjustice-defined.htm
By the way, I wish to remind Tun that the word "Red Indian" should not be used again to identify the American Indigenous Ethnic if Tun speaks to Americans or to the other World. The more appropriate name, which is much more commonly used in America for identifying this Indigenous Ethnic, is "American Indian".
Onlooker
By right, New Economic Policy (NEP) should have been ended since 1990. If the Malay people still insist today that NEP should be carried on until the true achievement of the final target of 30% wealth and 30% employment in the public companies be given to the Bumiputeras, then in Bursa Malaysia we will hardly be able to find many counters that are really a good choice for investment. This means that it is not easy to find the companies that really come with good quality assets in true sense, as well as in the sense of book values that are being reflected as assets of high Net Tangible Value in the balance sheets of the company annual reports. More often than not, what we are able to see in Bursa Malaysia will only be the stocks of some high gearing and debt-ridden companies, which will eventually be graded as PN4 or PN17 members when recession hits. This will be the end-result of the long term implementation of the NEP - shamefully lack of economic motivation and management efficiency for the publicly owned companies to perform well in the business world.
What rationale do you find that can really make us feel proud of the success of the government intervention measures for bailout purpose, such as those measures of Dana Modal and Dana Harta? I find that I myself have no reason to feel proud of any bailout effort at all! I would rather like to see more and more small and medium businesses, which are not required to abide to the 30% Bumiputeras Rule of NEP, growing slowly but steadily in Malaysia than seeing more and more Bursa Malaysia member companies, which are required to allocate at least 30% shares to Bumiputeras, finally slipping itself into the category of PN4 or PN17 when time turns bad.
In this article, Tun still does not show a strong determination to call for the abolition of the affirmative action. Before Tun continues to give your support to the continuation of affirmative action in favour of Bumiputeras in Malaysia, I would like to call for your attention to an article, which attempts to define the meaning of justice as published in the website below.
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/socialjustice-defined.htm
By the way, I wish to remind Tun that the word "Red Indian" should not be used again to identify the American Indigenous Ethnic if Tun speaks to Americans or to the other World. The more appropriate name, which is much more commonly used in America for identifying this Indigenous Ethnic, is "American Indian".
Onlooker
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Bumiputeraism versus Gracism
Dear Tun Dr. Mahathir,
If Bumiputeraism can be the panacea to all the economic problems of the Malays, then why do we always find a handful of Malays out there keep crying foul for not getting their fair shares of sliced cake from NEP?
The capital control measure which Tun adopted in September 1998 for overcoming the currency crisis proved that Tun possesed a sharp mind and good analytical skill for problem solving. Perhaps Tun should spend time to do further analysis on the reason why nowadays everything in the economy seems to have slowed down except that the inflation rate is confirmed going up with a rocketing high speed. Why did NEP fail to prosper now?
Obviously NEP has already entered the dead end in the course of the economic prosperity. The momentum of economic growth seems to constantly decelerate within a short period of time, mainly caused by the fast depletion of allocable natural resources such as crude oil, timbers, tin ores, aerable lands, fisheries-viable ponds, lakes, rivers and sea territorial water. Sometimes Tun must thank God because your 22 years' reign of Malaysia was really made so much easier by God when Malaysia was bestowed with plenty of valuable natural resources during Tun's tenure of PM's office. However, it lookes like Pak Lah has lost the favour of God and the present Government can now find not much natural resources which can be exploited for purpose of spurring up the economic activities.
After about 34 years' implementation of NEP, it may be time now for Malaysians to begin a proper review and do an overhaul on this null-effect economic policy. Frankly speaking, I have a wishful thinking that Bumiputeraism should be abandoned from now on because it is no longer giving much appeal to the majority Malays who simply don't believe that they can be benefited much out of the continued implementation of the blue-print of Bumiputeraism,ie. the NEP.
I hope Tun can do some studies on the latest economic theory and tell us how the current government economic policy should be revised and improved. Perhaps we should turn to seek God for an answer to these worldly problems of ours. Perhaps by the process of our continued effort to seek God, God shall give us an answer, and the answer!
Is it possible that the answer to the ineffectiveness of Bumiputeraism lies in a new set of theory called "Gracism"?
We really need to spend time and effort in order to do further research and experiment before we can get a confirmed answer about the desirable effective economic solution that is acceptable to all races of Malaysian people!
Onlooker
What is "gracism"?
Gracism is the positive extension of favour to people, both in spite of and because of colour, class, or culture. It's not affirmative action but intentional actions of grace and affirmation. So whenever we see a racist act, instead of responding in a way that is punitive, gracism calls us to respond in the way that God might respond.
Gracism turns racism on its head. It reaches out to people in a way that desires true understanding, in spite of the labels that have been attached to their skin colour or cultural background. —David Anderson
How does gracism behave differently than racism?
Racism is to speak, think, or act negatively against someone else based solely on his or her colour, class, or culture. Grace, on the other hand, is God's unmerited favour extended to humankind. Something you can't earn, you don't deserve, and you can't repay.
Gracism turns racism on its head. It reaches out to people in a way that desires true understanding. It means thinking positively about others, in spite of the labels and stereotypes that have been attached to their skin colour, economic status, or cultural background. Take for instance, "Malayu malas", "Cina tipu dacing" and "India pusing" are biased racist labels and stereotypes which should be changed and permanently removed from each and every one's mindset in order to enable a positive thinking.
Some folks might wonder, What about justice? Isn't grace without justice a cheap grace?
Justice and repentance are important, but we must get first things first. True reconciliation begins with forgiveness. It doesn't say, "First, you apologize and grovel, and then maybe I'll forgive you." We've not found the sociological or spiritual healing that we need in our world because we have not done this one important thing, and that is to forgive. Forgiveness begins the healing process.
When you think about it, God is the biggest gracist of us all. He was making the first step and extending grace when we were still in the midst of our sin and not even thinking about Him, and yet he wants to be in relationship with us and include us in His plans.
So in practical terms, what will gracism look like in our schools, communities, political institutions, and social organizations?
It should look like the majority population, whoever that is, reaching out and into the minority population to serve, learn from, and partner together for common purposes. It should involve fellowship across racial and economic lines. It will play itself out through what I call "grace-onomics." This is when knowledge, as well as relational and financial networks, is shared freely to help others succeed.
In the book, you talk about "The Seven Sayings of a Gracist." How can they help us live out gracism?
The seven sayings grow out of doctrine about the interdependence of an insitutution and the special role each member of the institition plays. If we could cling to them, and not only say them but do them, they can give us practical principles for making gracism real.
We have to figure out what it means to be a gracist in our daily lives. Once you internalize it, you'll know what to do when the opportunity hits.—David Anderson
For instance, the fifth saying is "I will stand with you," and is based on the national need of unity. If I'm in the majority culture or a position of power, what this means is, I have chosen to stand with those in the minority culture or with those who are in a weaker position of influence. So if a board of directors has ten people who are male and two that are female, and we're about to make a major decision, the gracist in the room says, "How is this decision going to affect the women in our organization?" If I make a corporate decision to expand my company into an urban area, the gracist in the group might say, "What will this mean for the people who live in that neighbourhood?" See, it's standing with people and considering people before you make the final decision.
There have been other books and movements that have preached a message of racial unity and reconciliation. Promise Keepers, among others, led the way in the 1990s. Then the thrill began to fade. How do you envision gracism being worked out in our schools in a way that lasts beyond the hugs and apologies and feel-good declarations?
By teaching gracism, you're not just teaching Chinese people to be kind to Malays, or Malay people be kind to Chinese. You're creating a culture where everyone is thinking all the time, "How can I be one who includes? How can I be one who lifts others up?" And so, what you're teaching is Civics—it's an onset value system of social norm and moral standards.
In Malaysia, the racial reconciliation message tends to emphasize Chinese reaching out to other races. But it works the other way as well.
Reconciliation is a two-way street. If a Malay person visits an all-Chinese school, the gracist in the classroom will say, "I have the responsibility to reach out and welcome that Malay person."
But it's also important to understand that gracism is bigger than race. We can show gracism to anyone who is on the fringes and needs to be invited back into our communities. A community of gracists will always be thinking about how they can reach out and show favour to those on the fringes, whether it's the homeless, the disabled, the divorced, the single parent, or the ex-convict.
Below is a list of the 7 sayings of a Gracist, which form the fundamental principles of Gracism.
The 7 Sayings of a Gracist
1. "I will lift you up." Lifting up the humble among us. (Special honour)
2. "I will cover you." Protecting the most vulnerable among us from embarrassment. (Special modesty)
3. "I will share with you." Refusing to accept special treatment if it is at the detriment of others who need it. (No special treatment)
4. "I will honour you." God, as a gracist, has given greater honour to the humble. (Greater honour)
5. "I will stand with you." When the majority helps the minority, and the stronger help the weaker, it keeps us from division within the body. (No division)
6. "I will consider you." Having a heart as big for our neighbours as we do for ourselves. (Equal concern)
7. "I will celebrate with you." When the humble, or less honourable, are helped, we are to rejoice with them. (Rejoices with it)
From Gracism: The Art of Inclusion by David A. Anderson (IVP Books, 2007).
If Bumiputeraism can be the panacea to all the economic problems of the Malays, then why do we always find a handful of Malays out there keep crying foul for not getting their fair shares of sliced cake from NEP?
The capital control measure which Tun adopted in September 1998 for overcoming the currency crisis proved that Tun possesed a sharp mind and good analytical skill for problem solving. Perhaps Tun should spend time to do further analysis on the reason why nowadays everything in the economy seems to have slowed down except that the inflation rate is confirmed going up with a rocketing high speed. Why did NEP fail to prosper now?
Obviously NEP has already entered the dead end in the course of the economic prosperity. The momentum of economic growth seems to constantly decelerate within a short period of time, mainly caused by the fast depletion of allocable natural resources such as crude oil, timbers, tin ores, aerable lands, fisheries-viable ponds, lakes, rivers and sea territorial water. Sometimes Tun must thank God because your 22 years' reign of Malaysia was really made so much easier by God when Malaysia was bestowed with plenty of valuable natural resources during Tun's tenure of PM's office. However, it lookes like Pak Lah has lost the favour of God and the present Government can now find not much natural resources which can be exploited for purpose of spurring up the economic activities.
After about 34 years' implementation of NEP, it may be time now for Malaysians to begin a proper review and do an overhaul on this null-effect economic policy. Frankly speaking, I have a wishful thinking that Bumiputeraism should be abandoned from now on because it is no longer giving much appeal to the majority Malays who simply don't believe that they can be benefited much out of the continued implementation of the blue-print of Bumiputeraism,ie. the NEP.
I hope Tun can do some studies on the latest economic theory and tell us how the current government economic policy should be revised and improved. Perhaps we should turn to seek God for an answer to these worldly problems of ours. Perhaps by the process of our continued effort to seek God, God shall give us an answer, and the answer!
Is it possible that the answer to the ineffectiveness of Bumiputeraism lies in a new set of theory called "Gracism"?
We really need to spend time and effort in order to do further research and experiment before we can get a confirmed answer about the desirable effective economic solution that is acceptable to all races of Malaysian people!
Onlooker
What is "gracism"?
Gracism is the positive extension of favour to people, both in spite of and because of colour, class, or culture. It's not affirmative action but intentional actions of grace and affirmation. So whenever we see a racist act, instead of responding in a way that is punitive, gracism calls us to respond in the way that God might respond.
Gracism turns racism on its head. It reaches out to people in a way that desires true understanding, in spite of the labels that have been attached to their skin colour or cultural background. —David Anderson
How does gracism behave differently than racism?
Racism is to speak, think, or act negatively against someone else based solely on his or her colour, class, or culture. Grace, on the other hand, is God's unmerited favour extended to humankind. Something you can't earn, you don't deserve, and you can't repay.
Gracism turns racism on its head. It reaches out to people in a way that desires true understanding. It means thinking positively about others, in spite of the labels and stereotypes that have been attached to their skin colour, economic status, or cultural background. Take for instance, "Malayu malas", "Cina tipu dacing" and "India pusing" are biased racist labels and stereotypes which should be changed and permanently removed from each and every one's mindset in order to enable a positive thinking.
Some folks might wonder, What about justice? Isn't grace without justice a cheap grace?
Justice and repentance are important, but we must get first things first. True reconciliation begins with forgiveness. It doesn't say, "First, you apologize and grovel, and then maybe I'll forgive you." We've not found the sociological or spiritual healing that we need in our world because we have not done this one important thing, and that is to forgive. Forgiveness begins the healing process.
When you think about it, God is the biggest gracist of us all. He was making the first step and extending grace when we were still in the midst of our sin and not even thinking about Him, and yet he wants to be in relationship with us and include us in His plans.
So in practical terms, what will gracism look like in our schools, communities, political institutions, and social organizations?
It should look like the majority population, whoever that is, reaching out and into the minority population to serve, learn from, and partner together for common purposes. It should involve fellowship across racial and economic lines. It will play itself out through what I call "grace-onomics." This is when knowledge, as well as relational and financial networks, is shared freely to help others succeed.
In the book, you talk about "The Seven Sayings of a Gracist." How can they help us live out gracism?
The seven sayings grow out of doctrine about the interdependence of an insitutution and the special role each member of the institition plays. If we could cling to them, and not only say them but do them, they can give us practical principles for making gracism real.
We have to figure out what it means to be a gracist in our daily lives. Once you internalize it, you'll know what to do when the opportunity hits.—David Anderson
For instance, the fifth saying is "I will stand with you," and is based on the national need of unity. If I'm in the majority culture or a position of power, what this means is, I have chosen to stand with those in the minority culture or with those who are in a weaker position of influence. So if a board of directors has ten people who are male and two that are female, and we're about to make a major decision, the gracist in the room says, "How is this decision going to affect the women in our organization?" If I make a corporate decision to expand my company into an urban area, the gracist in the group might say, "What will this mean for the people who live in that neighbourhood?" See, it's standing with people and considering people before you make the final decision.
There have been other books and movements that have preached a message of racial unity and reconciliation. Promise Keepers, among others, led the way in the 1990s. Then the thrill began to fade. How do you envision gracism being worked out in our schools in a way that lasts beyond the hugs and apologies and feel-good declarations?
By teaching gracism, you're not just teaching Chinese people to be kind to Malays, or Malay people be kind to Chinese. You're creating a culture where everyone is thinking all the time, "How can I be one who includes? How can I be one who lifts others up?" And so, what you're teaching is Civics—it's an onset value system of social norm and moral standards.
In Malaysia, the racial reconciliation message tends to emphasize Chinese reaching out to other races. But it works the other way as well.
Reconciliation is a two-way street. If a Malay person visits an all-Chinese school, the gracist in the classroom will say, "I have the responsibility to reach out and welcome that Malay person."
But it's also important to understand that gracism is bigger than race. We can show gracism to anyone who is on the fringes and needs to be invited back into our communities. A community of gracists will always be thinking about how they can reach out and show favour to those on the fringes, whether it's the homeless, the disabled, the divorced, the single parent, or the ex-convict.
Below is a list of the 7 sayings of a Gracist, which form the fundamental principles of Gracism.
The 7 Sayings of a Gracist
1. "I will lift you up." Lifting up the humble among us. (Special honour)
2. "I will cover you." Protecting the most vulnerable among us from embarrassment. (Special modesty)
3. "I will share with you." Refusing to accept special treatment if it is at the detriment of others who need it. (No special treatment)
4. "I will honour you." God, as a gracist, has given greater honour to the humble. (Greater honour)
5. "I will stand with you." When the majority helps the minority, and the stronger help the weaker, it keeps us from division within the body. (No division)
6. "I will consider you." Having a heart as big for our neighbours as we do for ourselves. (Equal concern)
7. "I will celebrate with you." When the humble, or less honourable, are helped, we are to rejoice with them. (Rejoices with it)
From Gracism: The Art of Inclusion by David A. Anderson (IVP Books, 2007).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)