林德宜：为何华人对新经济政策保持沉默

先前一篇文章建议国家团结部透过其最新成立国家团结谘询理事会，对新经济政策（NEP）展开全面检讨，但在华文媒体读者群中反应冷淡；反而在英语社交媒体平台上，引发了不少发人深省的回应。虽然多数回馈都是个人的意见，但也反映了国人对这课题及其许多影响的高度关注。

总结这些回应，多数意见对新经济政策持批判态度，认为其未能实现当初设定的“国民团结的总体目标”。

各方提出了不同理由，解释为何反对新经济政策，并说明其失败的过程与原因。一些评论者援引网络上可查阅的研究与出版资料，另一些则以个人经验为基础，说明其观点与结论。

贯穿这些负面回应与悲观情绪的，是一个几乎一致的看法：无论是现任还是未来的马来西亚政府，都极不可能放弃以族群为基础的政策工具，尽管这些政策可能削弱国家团结与社会凝聚力。

归根究柢，推动政策改变与改革的关键，仍掌握在政党及其政治精英和支持者手中。然而，理解民间对新经济政策普遍存在的失望与负面情绪，或许能为改进政策、并最终为族群式平权政策及其分裂效应画下句点，提供一条可能的路径。

新经济政策：一个难以启动的议题

新经济政策议题与问题往往被回避，因为提出或讨论可能令人恐惧、显得不切实际，甚至引发出无意义感。

新经济政策之所以未能更频繁地被推上马来西亚公共讨论的舞台，原因包括：

● 恐惧与焦虑：对于新经济政策一旦终止后的局势，政策受益者普遍感到高度不安，若政策被废除，恐惧与不确定感随之而来。这种反对声音在享有政治影响力的精英受益者中尤为强烈，而公共论述往往把焦点转移到“整体族群可能蒙受的损失”。

● 被认为不切实际、无解：许多人认为，在既有族群权力分配结构下，新经济政策的问题根本无解。追求一个明确答案，尤其对年轻世代而言，往往被视为徒劳无功。

● 社会与文化规范：主流文化倾向鼓励人们“向前看”、顺应既有权力与权威体系，无论是族群、宗教或其他形式。质疑不受欢迎，而对抗则很可能招来报复。

● 以接受作为因应方式：许多受过良好教育的马来西亚人，最终选择专注于当下生活。他们多半接受既有政策现状，并鄙视那些似乎陷入无谓质疑循环中的人。

或许，当前新经济政策议题是最“震耳欲聋的沉默”，关键在于自我审查，以及政策空间被制度性障碍与既得利益所垄断。许多人认为，质疑被塑造成神圣不可侵犯、不可更改，与联邦宪法相关的“社会契约”问题，是一种冒犯行为——此后，这更进一步延伸至新经济政策。

除了恐惧与投机心态抑制了自由表达意见之外，社会上也普遍不愿正面挑战负责执行政策的公务员体系。

粤语中的“搞掂”（kau tim）一词，在某种程度上说明了许多马来西亚人如何面对执行的政策、特别是与商业领域相关的官僚体系。

公务员体系与新经济政策

在新经济政策启动之初，政府承诺，其“去除经济功能与族群身份挂钩”的两大政策目标之一，将同时适用于私人与公共部门。

然而，这一承诺不仅未在公共部门落实，公务员体系的族群结构反而变得更加失衡，下面数据清楚反映了这一点。

1970年公务员体系族群结构

● 在新经济政策实施之初，马来人与其他原住民（土著）已是公务员体系的多数。资料显示，马来人约占整体公务员的60%。然而，在最高行政与管理层级中，马来人仅占39.3%，显示其在整体上虽占多数，但在顶层职位中的代表性相对较低。

● 非马来人方面，华人约占18.8%，印度人约为15.7%。

2025年公务员体系族群结构

截至2024年底或2025年初，公务员总人数（不包括警察与军人）约为130万至160万人。

● 近年来，土著（马来人与其他原住民）在公务员体系中的整体比例，持续维持在约90%，反映了新经济政策长期影响下结果。最新估计：马来人占77.5%，沙巴与砂拉越土著占22.1%，华人仅5.7%，印度人占3.8%，原住民占0.2%。

● 马来人目前在高层管理与决策职位中占据压倒性多数。2022年，马来人已占超过80%的最高决策职位，这一比例很可能已进一步上升。

新经济政策房间里最大的“大象”

从这些数据可见，若要追求社会凝聚力与国家团结，政策本身以及政策执行者的结构，都必须接受严肃检视。一个具代表性、多元族群组成的公务员体系，理应成为国家的核心优先事项。近年来，对其他族群以及东马土著在公务员体系高层严重代表不足的忧虑不断升高，部分原因在于区域发展落差持续扩大。

最后，也是同样重要的一点，民主规范要求一个具代表性、公正且中立的官僚体系——不仅是为了确保公共政策能公平、合理地回应所有公民的正当需求，也为了避免在个人或集体层面出现族群偏见。

正视并完成新经济政策未竟的改革议程，应成为国家关切的重中之重。这一提醒，尤其应引起掌权政治人物，以及首相署、财政部、经济策划单位等中央机构高级公务员的高度重视，因为正是这些单位在主导并塑造新经济政策的方向。

林德宜《为何华人对新经济政策保持沉默》原文：Why Chinese Are Silent On The NEP

An earlier article proposing that the Ministry of National Unity through its latest advisory council undertake a comprehensive review of the NEP drew little attention from Chinese media readers. However it generated thought provoking responses from readers writing in the English language social media. Although much of the feedback has been personal, they provide insights into the engrossment and deep interest that the subject with its myriad ramifications has for Malaysians.

To summarize the reaction, the majority were critical of the NEP and its failure to achieve what was set up as its “overarching goal of national unity”.

Various reasons were advanced to explain the opposition to the NEP and details provided on how and why failure happened. Some commentators referred to the research and published material on the NEP that is available through the Internet. Others drew on personal experiences to explain their opinions and conclusions.

Underlining the negative responses and pessimism was the almost unanimous opinion that the Malaysian government - present and future - is highly unlikely to abandon race based policy initiatives however much these may undermine national unity and social cohesion concerns.

Ultimately the catalyst for policy change and reform lies in the hands of political parties and the political and supportive elite where decision making power resides. However, understanding the defeatist and negative popular sentiments on the NEP may be able to provide a way towards improvement and closure of race based affirmative policies and their divisive impacts.

NEP As A Non Starter Subject

Existential issues and questions often are avoided because raising or discussing them can be frightening, impractical, or leads to a sense of meaninglessness.

Some reasons why questions on the NEP are not brought out more prominently into the Malaysian public limelight include

● Fear and anxiety: The uncertainty of what happens after the NEP has been overwhelming among beneficiaries and has triggered fear and dread if the policy is aborted. Opposition is especially pronounced among favoured elite beneficiaries with political clout although diversionary attention has been focused on the perceived losses to the larger community.

● Perceived impracticality and unanswerability: Many people view NEP questions as unanswerable given the ethnic distribution of power. The pursuit of a definitive answer may seem pointless especially to the younger generation.

● Social and cultural norms: Culture generally encourages focusing on getting ahead and going along with the systems of power and authority in Malaysia, whether racial, religious or other. Questioning is discouraged while contestation is seen as inviting
retaliation.

● Coping by acceptance: Many educated Malaysians reach a point where they choose to focus on living in the moment. Most accept the status quo in policies and are critical or even contemptuous of those that appear stuck in a cycle of what is regarded as futile questioning.

Perhaps the most important reason for the present deafening silence on the NEP is the self censorship and institutional barriers and capture of the policy space in the country. There are many who think that it is an offence to question what has been touted as sacrosanct and immutable ‘social contract’ issues relating to the Federal Constitution - since then seen as extended to NEP policies.

In addition to the factor of fear and opportunism inhibiting the free expression of opinion, there has been general reluctance to take on the civil servants implementers of the policy.

The Cantonese expression “kau tim” explains much about the way many Malaysians deal with our bureaucracy implementing policies especially related to business.

Civil Service and the NEP

At the time of its initiation, the government promised that part of the two prongs of the NEP policy aiming at the reduction in the identification of economic function with ethnicity was its application to both the private and public sectors.

Not only has this not taken place in the public sector, its ethnic composition has become even more uneven and lopsided as seen in the data below.

1970 Civil Service Composition

● Malays and other indigenous groups (Bumiputera) already formed the majority of the civil service at the time of the NEP. Available data indicated that Malays accounted for approximately 60% of the total civil service. In the top rungs of the civil service, Malays filled 39.3% of the positions. This highlights that while they were the majority overall, their representation was lower in the highest administrative and managerial roles.

● Non-Malay representation consisted of the Chinese share of around 18.8% and Indian share of around 15.7%.

Circa 2025 Civil Service Composition

The total number of civil servants (excluding police and military) was reported to be around 1.3 million to 1.6 million as of late 2024 and early 2025.

● The overall percentage of Bumiputera (Malays and other indigenous groups) in the civil service is consistently reported to be around 90% in recent years, reflecting a long-standing trend influenced by the NEP. Current estimates place the Malay share
at 77.5%, Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputera share at 22.1%, Chinese share at 5.7%, Indian share at 3.8% and Orang Asli share at 0.2%.

● Malays now hold an overwhelming majority of top management positions. In 2022, Malays accounted for over 80% of top decision-making posts. This has probably increased.

Biggest Elephant in the NEP Room

From the data, it is evident that both policy and the body of implementers need scrutiny in the quest for social cohesion and national unity. Also that a representative and multiracial civil} service should be a key national priority. Concern over the under representation of other communities and East Malaysia native communities at the higher levels of the civil service has lately been growing in part due to the regional disparities in development.

Finally, but not least, democratic norms call for a representative, impartial and neutral bureaucracy not only to ensure that public policies are responsive to the legitimate needs of all citizens in a fair and equitable fashion but also to ensure that there is an absence of racial bias in the individual or collective.

Addressing the unfinished agenda of the NEP should be a critical part of the nation’s concern. This reminder is especially pertinent to the politicians in power and the senior civil servants in the central agencies such as the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning Unit and other central agencies that dictate NEP policy.