FOUR underlying reasons were presented to the Dewan Rakyat earlier this month explaining why non-Malays find the armed forces an unattractive, even uninviting, career option. Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi attributed the meagre number of non-Malay soldiers, particularly during the recruitment years of 2008 and last year, to:
- fear of strict discipline;
- a less rewarding job compared with the private sector;
- no encouragement or support from family members; and,
- lack of patriotism.
Is the minister correct in his assessment? With only 82 Indians and 26 Chinese, and some Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputeras, against 9,054 Malays, the armed forces have always been top heavy in Malays, who, as a community, regard serving in uniform as a noble vocation. In that respect, it can be stated that the civil service is Malay top to bottom heavy.
The inference to be made on this lopsidedness is political: since the ruling party had always been Malay-based in 53 years of rule, it is natural that the civil service, from top to down, is filled in the ranks with Malays. The same concept applies to other countries, Singapore included.
That's not to say that non-Malays have not made it to the senior ranks on their own ability.
They have excelled in sectors like education, the navy, air force, police and sciences, but the salient concern here is that the rise of non-Malays to the top in the civil service ranks is irregular, thus the need for the minister to address the issue in Parliament.
Coming back to Zahid's appraisal, his assumptions need to be tested, especially on the assumption that non-Malays fear strict discipline and lack patriotism, which might be contentious at best.
The Chinese are known for their strict discipline in schools and universities, especially in studying and prepping. So, taking orders from a barking drill sergeant, marching in perfect unison, saluting superiors and living under regimented conditions is simply a different feel in the deployment of mass discipline.
Did Zahid mean to say that the Chinese and Indians are not suited to roughing it up in the jungles or the high seas, of eating off the land, ready to lay down their lives in the event of an invasion (an extremely slim prospect)?
That's odd because if genetics is the sounding board, the Chinese are already prepped in the ways of war, their DNA cemented from the long line of fighting at the height of crises and wars between warlords in China in over 2,000 years of imperialism.
Genetically speaking, too, the Indians are known for their high stamina and a long line of fighters from centuries past and ability to work in close quarters in the regimented lifestyle.
So, does it filter down to lack of patriotism? Zahid was vilified for suggesting lack of patriotism as a stumbling block.
The many non-Malay servicemen and ex-servicemen interviewed and profiled by the press since then attest to the fact that patriotism is not an issue.
However, Zahid appears correct in stating that the financial rewards are nowhere close to the private sector and, yes, because of this and other distinctive reasons, family support is unenthusiastic.
But the lack of Chinese and Indian participation in the military and, to that extent, the civil service, can also be attributed, rightly or wrongly, to this perception: the government, being a dominant Malay entity, has little or no place for non-Malays to pursue their ambitions, especially in a sobering climate of ethnic entitlement, identity and angst.
Conceding that the government doesn't enforce an "inclusionary" policy to even the racial balance on recruitment, other than qualification and interest as criteria, Zahid should be addressing this challenging question: why is it so, especially after senior politicians regularly implore non-Malays to join the military and, to that extent, the civil service, as the better trajectory of their occupa-tional ambitions?
In any case, Zahid might need to change tact or at least tweak the recruitment policies, perhaps with this novel, if not radical, idea: re-engineer the recruitment policy to purposefully include non-Malays, starting perhaps with a 10 per cent increase in the ranks and capping it at a gradual 30 per cent, in the same fashion Malays have asked over the past 40 years that the private sector fulfil the New Economic Policy's stipulatory 30 per cent quota.
The non-Malays might be taken aback with the idea that they, too, might need official abetment.
The Malay intelligentsia, in and out of the government, should regard the idea as an accommodation of their sincerity: it is only fair that they allow a nominal non-Malay number in the domain of their control in the same manner they beseech the private sector to give up a certain portion of their executive populace to Bumiputeras. (It might be argumentative fodder here that in some parts of the private sector, the 30 per cent slice has been abolished.)
Would this be an acceptable quid pro quo in the Malaysian institution of social engineering? It won't be known unless this far-reaching theory is given a try.
2010/11/29
AZMI ANSHAR
mishar@nst.com.my
Source:
NST 
