All migration is inherently economic. Yes, while there have been famous political refugees take for example European Jewry fleeing the Holocaust, the vast majority of immigrants move to find a better life, economic liberty and material happiness.
Many people would be quite happy to endure living under the harsh yoke of tyranny if they are confident that, at the end of the month, they have a nice paycheck to buy whatever goodies they can dream of. All the arguments about being second-class here and there in whatever country ring false.
It is again unfair to tar all migrants with the same brush. Malaysian migrants are largely bi-modal that is either they are very well-educated with opportunities to work around the world, or they are desperately working-class and are looking for a lucky break abroad.
For the first category of people, it is purely an economic question. The returns to human capital are higher in developed countries than it is in developing countries. If the Malaysian economy is better able to produce, and pay for, jobs that require the best and brightest, then the best and brightest will return home.
As an example, it does not make sense right now for say a programmer, of whatever origin, to work in a developing country the payoff is so much more lucrative in Silicon Valley and other IT hubs in the developed world.
For the second category, it is also an economic question with the element of risk thrown in. Many of them are likely to be down on their luck in Kajang, Kepong or Kota Kinabalu, and are merely hoping to roll the dice again in some foreign land.
You might stumble across them in some laundromat, restaurant or hotel in Anglo countries. The fact that these people are Malaysian is purely incidental. They could have just as well come from Fujian rice paddies, Bombay street corners, the slums of Manila, etc.
Is either category of people happier at 'kowtowing to their white masters' - as King Kong claims - than they do to fellow Malaysians? Only in the sense they are trying to find a better life for themselves. That line of argument would make sense if you equate making a living with kowtowing.
At the end of the day, the issue of how bumis treat non-bumis is interesting but it does not affect the migration numbers too much. There is also a high rate of emigration out of Singapore as well, which is predominantly southern Chinese.
The Hokkiens don't seem to discriminate against the Cantonese, and Senior Minister Lee is Hakka but Hakkas do no better than anyone else there. Still, Prime Minister Goh did an eloquent speech on 'quitters' vs 'stayers' not too long ago.
Another piece of evidence? The number of Malaysians working in Singapore. Surely, these people don't cross the border to have more press freedom? Are Malaysian non-bumis promoted any faster in Singapore? If not, the only reason must be that there are better-paying jobs there. Again, a purely economic consideration.
My personal pet peeve if a non-bumi does not make it in Malaysia and emigrates, why blame the NEP? Why claim people leave because of policy? Would that person really have been more successful had there been no NEP? Would that person have stayed?
Another pet peeve why point the finger at those who leave? They are merely looking for better economic opportunities. If someone moves from Kuala Terengganu to Kuala Lumpur for a better job, surely they will not be accused of selling out Terengganu.
Malaysia has done tremendously well in creating jobs over the past two decades. So well in fact, that we have relied on foreign immigrants from Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines for quite a while now. This is no small achievement.
At the same time, it is a also true that developed countries have broader economies with a richer variety of jobs, higher returns for effort. It is also true that there will be people who win and lose under any economic system, and the losers will naturally want to start afresh elsewhere.
And that's why there is migration.
