Maszlee thinks Racial Quota Is Needed Because the Market Is Unfair to Bumiputeras? Huh?
So,
Issue: allegedly, the market is discriminating against those who do not have a particular skill viz. the ability to converse in Mandarin. Or, from a more rational perspective, the market, that I assume to have paramount interest to make maximum profit on the basis where most people are out in the market to make profit, is only recruiting individuals (regardless of their inherent colours or backgrounds) who could assist the market in achieving its ultimate goal of maximising profit. And that includes individuals who possess the essential skills essential for a particular field in the market. This can be contrasted against discrimination based on a non-skill attribute i.e. requirement of being a particular race. Such non-skill quality is inborn or a social construct that is legally recognised based on biological characteristics, in which most rational people would agree, it cannot be adopted in any sense.
This is not the same as a skill-based attribute i.e. the ability to converse in a particular language, in this very case, Mandarin. It doesn’t run through a person blood nor could biological factors determine a newborn’s ability to speak in a specific language. This is a fact, not a normative proposition. Hence, when the market impose a skill-based condition upon individuals as a prerequisite to be hired, it is not discrimination, but a market requirement on the basis of achieving its goal of maximising profit.
You might ask, how then the ability to speak Mandarin can bring profit to the market or to improve the economical condition in Malaysia? Inter alia, the answer is China. Most people from China can only converse in Mandarin or they felt most comfortable to converse in Mandarin. If an individual from Malaysia, regardless of whether he or she is of any race or colour, does not possess the ability to speak Mandarin, how can a Malaysian company do business with a Chinese company?
Even if you insist that such requirement is still being discriminatory, then it must be accepted that it is discriminatory against everyone, including “banana” who is born Chinese but doesn’t speak Mandarin or any other races who do not speak Mandarin. Of course, it is also arguable that such condition discriminates Malay indirectly (indirectly discriminate because Malay do not usually born in an environment that speak Mandarin which couldn’t allow them to adopt Mandarin naturally in the course of adulting). However, this applies equally to non-Chinese families including the Indian, Sikh and any others.
Besides, if it is indirectly discriminatory, such indirect discrimination also applies to most Chinese who embrace Christianity as most Chinese-Christian operate in a English speaking environment without having the chance to engage in Chinese conversation.
Next, market discrimination must be differentiated from market demand. Market discrimination is about imposition of condition based on certain attributes without an economical/legitimate purpose that. Market demand is about imposition of condition based on the needs of the market with an economical/legitimate purpose to achieve its market objective. Such language requirement is certainly a market demand. Having more Chinese wouldn’t improve the economy, nor having more Malay would do the same. But it is the skill viz. the ability to converse in a particular language, that the market is demanding.
Whereas, in contrast to the to the governmental policy, is it a societal demand or merely being discriminatory?
In my opinion, the government use of “market discrimination” to justify their policy is unjustifiable because the policy is directly discriminating against the non-Bumis. That includes the Indian. If market is being discriminatory against the bumiputras that favours the chines, then why does the governmental policy discriminate against the Indians that are equally vulnerable in the market?
If, the educational minister’s justification is deemed to be reasonable, then shouldn’t the policy be made solely against the Chinese, who are alleged to be the race who dominates the market, without placing the Indian in a disadvantageous position?
Comments