I was taught by legal teachers at Universiti Malaya (UM) that \’although there is a quota requisite at point of recruitment into the Public Services based on Article 153 provisions; once recruited by the PSC or Public Services Commission, all promotion and other considerations are based entirely upon merit\’. This principle holds true for gender bias, for lesser able persons, and those different from us.

I believe that would be the same ‘human resources (HR) pro-diversity policy interpretation worldwide,’ wherever there is a policy for reversing ‘traditional considerations’ based on historical development parameters which can only be reversed by positive discrimination on the same grounds.

In our particular case though, the policy needs an objective review because, if I am not mistaken, the original New Economic Policy (NEP) was intended for only 15 years and somehow seems to now have been extended indefinitely. It now appears to include a subtle framework for the ‘Melayuisation’ of the Public Services. Is such public policy execution not a new form of reversed discrimination against all other considerations?

Of course at Merdeka there was a clear and good policy of Malayanisation; a structured plan to replace the British officers of governance. But, that was to replace the colonialists. It is however my pet hypothesis that something went terribly wrong after the politically-concocted and colluded May 13 race riots.  

It is my contention a positive discrimination of non-Malays (including bumiputras of Sabah and Sarawak) and a new kind of neo-colonisation has been happening since.  

My case story of minority discrimination

After May 13, 1969, we had a short period of martial law, but most importantly, during that time, many new policies and procedures were ‘subverted into the Public Services’; which can never be supported by the Public Services Commission in the public interest, and to be constitutionally consistent. This is my case-story and experience of public service in this narrative.   

The PSC interviewed me and my Malay classmate from Royal Military College (RMC) on the same day, i.e. July 6, 1972.  However, when the letters of appointment were made, his was backdated to April 1972 and mine was post-dated to September 1972, only because I was a non-scholar of the government. Therefore, by administrative fiat, I became ‘junior’ by five months to my classmate and peer.

Then at the next round of Diplomatic and Administrative Service (PTD) promotions, after our ‘Super-scale G Course’, again, on the basis of performance in the course, and then JPA promotion interviews, I moved up from No 142 in my intake of PTD officers to No 21 in promotion seniority.

Then, somehow, when it came to the next promotion to acting Super-scale F posts, my appointment was again delayed relative to my other peers. I did not know the real reasons, but when it came to my confirmation, I then missed my promotion. Twelve of us decided to and appealed against this ‘poor decision’. Again, our appeal was later approved but we were now slotted against the next junior intake of colleagues.

Next, in 1995, I was given a promotion and I attended the Grade 1 Course in the National Institute of Public Administration (Intan) and awarded the ‘best student certificate’. Then in 2000 I was invited to attend the Jawatan Utama Sektor Awam (Jusa) Grade course and I was awarded one of the ‘five best student certificates’. But again, my promotion to even higher grades was never commensurate with the Malays in my intake, grade, and capability.

I have never understood why?

Therefore, based on my 32 years of public service in pursuit of the public interest, I am sad to conclude that I was positively discriminated against as a non-Malay.  There was no other credible reason or explanation.

I am therefore going to generalise my personal experience and extrapolate it towards the interests of the Orang Asli and other Orang Asal of Sabah and Sarawak. How many of them are in the federal Public Service today? Are they also being positively discriminated, simply by ethnicity? There are other considerations like gender or those with other forms of handicaps.

Consequently, I invite my ex-public service colleagues to please offer answers to my questions. My hypothesis is that: most ‘successful public servants’ are those who were partisan, compliant, and obedient to the Umno political hierarchy. They then move on to further benefit from  ‘government-linked appointments’ because they abandoned their desire to speak up for public service truth matters. Maybe truth does not really matter any more to them.

My questions about Article 153 implementation

When we were in  Implementation Coordination Development Administrative Unit (ICDAU), Prime Minister’s Department in 1972, one of the special NEP programmes was to encourage ‘bumiputra share’ of the ownership of businesses and capital in Malaysia which was called the agenda of creating the BCIC or the Bumiputra Commerical and Industrial Community.  

The goal of that policy programme was to “restructure foreign and non-bumiputra-ownership to reflect the racial breakdown in the country”. Their goal was at least 30 percent ownership by bumiputras.

The institution of the PNB or Perbadanan Nasional Berhad was thus created for that explicit purpose. The now infamous Abdul Khalid Ibrahim was made famous for his role as CEO of PNB and the famous London ‘Midnight Raid’; conducted through Guthrie by a back-door takeover of the company through the London Stock Market.  

It was deemed as a clever backdoor nationalisation of Guthrie, even as a public listed company. Guthrie headquarters was then moved to Malaysia; and is today called Sime Darby after mergers and acquisitions by the government-owned Khazanah.

My questions, therefore, to my ex-Public Service colleagues and all ex-chief secretaries are as follows:

  • What is the current share of ownership distribution of PNB shares by the other ethnic communities, especially the Orang Asli, and other Orang Asal like Sabah natives and Sarawak natives?
  • What is the breakdown of the allocation of pink shares by the International Trade and Industry Ministry and Finance Ministry, since 1970, to other categories of non-Malays; especially other Malaysians and even organisations, as one of the goals of the NEP was the restructuring of society and also the eradication of poverty?  
  • What is the breakdown of all licenses given out by the government in every field of endeavour and what is the proportion given to Orang Asli and other Orang Asal?
  • How does the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs) in public and private universities reflect the breakdown of Malaysian ethnicity? Why, or why not?
  • How does the most recent appoint of Appeal and High Court Judges reflect the ethnic breakdown of Malaysia; why or why not?
  • Of all the top 100 appointments in the public sphere of life, including ambassadors and mayors, how does it reflect the ethnic composition of Malaysia? If it does not; then is it fair to conclude that 1Malaysia is only a gimmick of marketers?

Dear ex-public service colleagues, are we then not headed on a trip to Abilene, or maybe you in fact think that such truths do not really matter? May God bless Malaysia with truth matters after 51 years of nationhood.