Talk:Malaysian New Economic Policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Evidence
These have been removed pending some citation. (apparently its allowed)
"During the first phase of ISI, Chinese-run businesses were largely the beneficiaries."
"One of the main tools was the transfer of up to 30% ownership in Chinese-controlled businesses to Malay investors for a preferential price."
Don't think this ever occured. New businesses had to satisfy requirements but there wasn't an operation to transfer out 30% of existing businesses into Bumi hands.
"Although this shift in the distribution of wealth was not as dramatic as intended, it helped increase national confidence, and likely prevented some socioethnic tensions."
Two wrong contentions 1) increased national confidence - This is very wrong since even the PM in his speech says we need to get rid of the NEP because if we always have crutches then we wind up in a wheel chir. I am sure he said this because the NEP increased "national confidence...
2) Prevented socioethnic tensions - ermmmmmmm!!!
[edit] Modified
"Malaysia no longer exhibited the same disparity of wealth that divides Indonesia along racial lines and created such racial tension."
Malaysia still has social disparity along racial lines. Note the percentage of poor Indians and Peninsula Orang Asli...
[edit] Removed
"(Malaysian Muslims, most of whom are Malay)"
A better discussion of this can be found in the Bumiputra article and topicality is very important.
", as it was generally seen as not a large price to pay in a country where they were allowed freedoms they were deprived of in China. Appreciation of this was heightened especially due to the racial riots of May 13 1969, where there were clashes between Malays and Chinese."
Whatever
[edit] Sneaky
How very convenient. In the move a lot of the dissenting views you fought so passionately against have dissapeared. Yes you will surely say "assume good faith". But let me use the "Tu qouqou" before you do and say it. Assume good faith. --Malbear 10:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- By all means go ahead and assume bad faith. I'm eeeeeeeeevil and engage in acts of sodomy with Abdullah Ibrahim's car driver on a regular basis! And Johnleemk is a part of a conspiracy that is out to get you, you, and you!
- Either that, or you're welcome to stick all the dissenting views you want in "Criticism". Jpatokal 11:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] New Economic Policy vs New Economic Plan
I've just renamed this from Malaysian New Economic Plan to Malaysian New Economic Policy. I note that googles shows:
- Malaysia New Economic Plan -> 718,000 hits
- Malaysia New Economic Policy -> 1,450,000 hits
- Malaysia New Economic Plan Tun Razak -> 2,620 hits
- Malaysia New Economic Policy Tun Razak -> 3,730 hits
-- sabre23t 03:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Bias, bias, bias!
Again, like oh so many of our articles on Malaysian politics, this has been turned into a campaigning ground for politicians and their supporters. The recent edits by the anon gave the article a lot of substance, but we must tone down the article's apparent bias! The article begins with an openly biased sentence declaring the NEP as being very similar to apartheid; while I would agree with that, this is an opinion, not fact. Suddenly, the article shifts tone, implicitly trying to justify the policy with "The Malaysian Chinese mostly accepted this redistribution of wealth, as it was generally seen as not a large price to pay in a country where they were allowed freedoms they were deprived of in China"; this is quite one-sided, and quite possibly opinion as well. Then it flips back, using words like "robbed" and describing the government's actions as "flip-flopping", both of which are dubiously NPOV. Neither is describing the government's excuses as flimsy NPOV; if the excuses are flimsy, they should flaunt their weakness; if it's not obvious in the article, perhaps they aren't that flimsy, or not enouh research has been done to prove the flimsiness of the excuses. Sentences like "Anyone who questions NEP will be arrested under the Internal Security Act by the authority." are of highly questionable veracity: As far as I know, nobody here has been arrested yet. Last but not least, is "The NEP is currently in its eighth incarnation and is scheduled to run until the kingdom come." truly encyclopedic? Due to all these, I'm placing the NPOV template on this article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I nuked all of anon's edits outright and merged this with a large section of the Bumiputra article, using my delete key mercilessly as I went along. Comments? Jpatokal 09:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'm very happy with this newer version, which is much more neutral and encyclopedic than before. I've decided to counter-balance the example of Badawi's opposition of the Malays' crutch with noting that many other politicians directly opposed his stance in prior speeches at the assembly. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'm glad to see the neutrality of the article as well. I wish there was some way I could work in Dr. Mahathir's criticism of the Malays as being a weak race needing of support (and his follow-up criticism of the Malays becoming *too* dependent on the NEP and thus torpedoing the whole idea) into the article without disturbing its neutrality. Personally, this was very central to understanding the government's stated intent for the NEP. - chibikit
[edit] Current status
Was:
- Originally planned to end in 1999, the NEP is currently in its eighth incarnation and is scheduled to run until the year 2010.
Is:
- The term of the NEP ended in 1990, and it was succeeded by the Vision 2020.
Which one is correct? Jpatokal 04:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- NEP ran from 1971 to 1990, not to be confused with the Five-Year Development Plans called Malaysia Plans. The current 8th Malaysia Plan runs from 2001-2005. --sevven 06:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- This keynote address by Dato' Mustapa Mohamed the Executive Director of National Economic Action Council, on 22 October 2001 says ...
- The National Development Policy (NDP), which replaced the NEP in 1991, saw the emphasis change to a much broader perspective with a balanced development approach, in line with the Vision 2020 to become a fully developed nation by the year 2020. -- sabre23t 07:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, NDP will run till 2010. Thanks sabre23t. --sevven 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] plagiarism
This article should not be merged with New Economic Policy (Malaysia). Instead, the other article should be deleted or at least redirected here. New Economic Policy (Malaysia) is taken from UNRISD __earth 08:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Since nobody objects the redirection...
...I'll remove the merge sign, okay? feel free to voice your objection to my action here. I won't bite. __earth 18:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article Clean-Up & Race Riots Figures
I'm cleaning up this article. I've glanced through the article's history and I understand it's been edited a lot to maintain (or achieve) neutrality, but it still seems slightly biased to me. For example, the phrase The NEP's success — or lack of it — is a subject of heated debate carries a POV and I'd argue that it isn't neutral. Just wanted to leave a note before I start editing, it seems a lot of people have already been working on this. :)
Also, does anyone have the book Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation by Gordon P. Means? It's cited as the third source in this article, and states that 178 people died as a result of the May 13 race riots, whereas the actual riot article has a different number (196), but doesn't state a source. In any case, I'm deleting the lengthy mention of the riots (the link to the incidents should suffice as information), and since the reference will be deleted too, c&p to here:
- Means, Gordon P. (1991). Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation, pp. 7, 8. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-588988-6.
Paperdoll51 06:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Innovation Section
I've removed the following paragraph titled 'Innovation' from the Criticism section, and placed it below. I can't edit it because I don't really understand what the paragraph is trying to state, so if anyone wants to rephrase it and stick it back in, please go ahead. Until then, I think it should stay in the discussion pages--I really can't make anything out of it.
- NEP did not look for nor implement any mechanism (e.g R&D fundings, especially scientifical and development studies) to encourage, cultivate and spread technological knowhow, it was designed to soothe and address the real and perceived social inequality for the political survival of the country. Opportunity for education as a youth is different from developing mindset of continuous learning as an adult in the post Cold War world. NEP part of State funding of books (one of the repositories of knowledge and wisdom) publishing was limited to a few areas like local literature, political stories and documentateries. Whatever parts of technical distribution of knowledge was limited to technician skills to improve low-level jobs capabilities.
Paperdoll51 08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
