I refer to the Malaysiakini report Gov't aid to continue for Malays: PM .

With the greatest of respect and in all humility, it has taken almost six decades of ‘radical’ academia, hands-on social research and reformist activism, to identify this Mahathir- Najib-Khairy debate as the most crucial affecting the lives of the vast majority of Malays, because it encompasses a scenario of what might be termed ‘deceptive realism’.

This is an attempt, perhaps somewhat arrogantly, to try to answer the question posed by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak as to why ‘the Malays are still behind and need help?’

The response must necessarily invoke assertions that will be seriously contested by Malay political elites as being politically incorrect and therefore untenable. This is all the more the case considering that the assertions are being made by a non-Malay.

The answer centres on whether the Malays should now abdicate the ‘siege mentality’ and move on, or whether the mentality should be perpetuated, to ‘fight back’ structural conditions of abject and chronic poverty that the vast majority of the rural Malay rakyat and indeed entrenched urban poverty- stricken groups still find themselves in.

The debate demands that the ‘deception of the reality’ in keeping the actual causes under ‘wraps’ must now be ‘ripped off’ and laid bare so that once and for all not only can possible causal factors be identified, but most important of all, the likely implications of abandoning the mentality resulting in a ‘drop-out’ syndrome, where, because there is no other realistic alternative, Malays have become the vast majority among victims of ‘social ills’ across the board.

i. No regular monthly incomes let alone minimum wages (gaji tetap). Become indebted to make ends meet. Savings impossible so indebtedness increases.

ii) No land reforms. Even padi farmers, since the inception of the UN-funded Muda scheme in the late 1960s, continue to operate uneconomic holdings where a significant proportion work on only 3- 5 relongs.

Poverty conditions are exacerbated because of unfavourable tenancy agreements where farmers have to pay double cash advances (for land use), double rent for double cropping, and have no protection against possible indiscriminate ‘exploitation’ of these conditions by some landowners.

iii) Inshore- fishermen see depleting catches due to continuous and increasing encroachment by trawler fishermen. The indiscriminate netting and destruction of high quality ‘anak ikan’ which end up in fertiliser plants is clear indication that the inshore fishing industry is doomed to destruction.

The origins of this problem can be traced to the amendment of the legislation allowing 50-tonne boats to be used for trawling. This was hitherto prohibited because of the obvious detrimental effect it would have on the inshore fishing industry.

It is understood that this amendment was made possible by political ‘rent-seekers’

iv. Total lack of alternative opportunities to increase incomes. Householders are therefore continuously seeking ‘odd jobs’ or seasonal employment. Any one trying to do research will be confronted by respondents being always ‘busy’ because of continuously seeking out such opportunities. (This is, of course, a definitive rejection of the colonial notion of the ‘lazy native’).

Second prime minister Abdul Razak vehemently emphasized the importance and need for viable grassroots social institutions and organisations to spearhead and operationalise the overall development strategy. Accordingly, organisations such as the Jawatan Kuasa Kemajuan Kampong (JKKK), Farmers Organisations, Fishermen’s Cooperatives, Women and Youth organisations and others were instituted and fostered.

Although the objectives were initially successful especially through the efforts of state development officers, regrettably this could not be sustained mainly because of the subsequent involvement of politicians from the Malay ruling class in the decision-making process. Representatives of opposition political parties were denied membership despite being strongly recommended by the people.

Increasingly, the development projects recommended by the respective organisations did not materialise because those approved catered instead for the demands of the representatives of the ruling political class.

This resulted in the withdrawal, initially of the youth and women’s organisations followed by others, resulting ultimately in these institutions and organizations becoming ineffective.

Within the theoretical framework postulated, it is the argument here that the extremely high incidence of social ills, almost 80-90% across the board, and especially in drug abuse and snatch theft are among Malays, can possibly be related to ‘intra-class’ ‘unscrupulous parties’ among the Malays themselves (being responsible) for the manipulation of the implementation of the New Economic Policy to the detriment of the ‘rakyat’

Najib himself succinctly pointed out that such groups not only benefitted from the affirmative action policy but now even ‘proudly proclaim that they no longer need the government’s crutches’.

They seem to have ‘forgotten reality’ in calling for the abandonment of these crutches. Najib returns to the central theme of his Umno speech by raising the moot question ‘what about the Malays who still need help?’

But with respect, this question needs to be turned on its head. Because the implementation of the NEP primarily benefitted Malay political elites and others in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy, it would make no difference to Malays in the state of abject and chronic poverty and who really ‘need help’ if the siege mentality were to be abandoned.

Indeed, it can be convincingly argued that because these groups were denied access to ‘government’s crutches’ and were forced to survive on the margins of existence without any other alternative means whatever of making ends meet, that many ‘slid’ into becoming victims of social ills.

It is now well known that long periods of unemployability (due to lack of skills), and unemployment are leading causes of drug abuse and addiction simply because the absence of viable ‘safety nets’ and the breakdown of the extended family especially in urban areas.

These conditions are generally accompanied by a state of hopelessness and misery resulting in a ‘drop-out’ syndrome from mainstream society as victims of ‘social ills’. The Malay snatch thieves are perhaps a defining, desperate extreme ‘classic case’ of those creating such misery and even death by being forced to snatch and steal to buy their ‘next fix’.