I was struck by Brendan Pereira’s article on Sunday about perceptions and reality, and can’t seem to get my head around what he meant by that article.
Globalization’s a word much bandied-about these days, representing, in turns, salvation or doom for countries. There have been detractors, and there have been others who ardently support it. A few years ago, friends of mine reflected how ‘Globalization’, like ‘terrorism’ today, has been co-opted to mean many things, and in that vacuity of precision, it has come to mean very little at all. Close to its heart, I figure, are probably things like the free communication of ideas, the mobility of labour and ideas of an open, ‘globalized’ market.
Take mobility of labour and capital for instances of globalization at our doorstep. Garment manufacturers in Batu Pahat and Johor Bahru now have widespread operations in China and Cambodia. Whilst handling one of their jobs, I caught the Finance Manager of this company commenting on the need to move. Cheaper markets, he said, and cheaper labour. We obviously can compete here any more.
That same manager entertained thoughts of returning to the UK for work. I think that’s even more worrying.
Skip several steps ahead, and the thing that’s been bothering me becomes this: wherefore nationalism if globalization demands and encourages this very sort of mobility? Is nationalism feasible in such a scenario? I believe Singapore’s been trying to deal with this for some years, where the debate still rages on how to maintain an effective labour force in the light of a ‘brain drain’ of talent plying their skills beyond Singapore’s shores.
And it doesn’t help that there is a underlying perception amongst non-Bumis that this country in which has become and is becoming less and less hospitable to live and work in.
I’ve been thinking about this because Mr Pereira mentions this:
“Here is the reality. Malaysians are not competing against each other. The day we adopt such a myopic view will be the day Malaysia will become a backwater for investments and economic development.
The day we adopt that myopic view is the day we will abdicate our position as among the top 15 destinations for foreign direct investments or be ranked among the top 18 exporting nations in the world.
Meritocracy is based on the concept of survival of the fittest. In the context of a globalised economy like Malaysia’s, this is a contest between Malaysia and the fast developing economies of its neighbours.
It is not a contest between Malays and non-Malays or a contest between those in rural communities or urban centres. This is the reality.”
He has a telling point; we should band together as one and leave petty ethnic divisions aside to, presumably, fight for a viable nation-state that can stand tall amongst others. That’s the context within which his article operates. But it’s pretty idealized, even more so after the pronouncements coming out of the UMNO General Assembly.
Here’s another reality check: there are some sectors of the population who do in fact feel that they are being side lined. It’s a plain and simple fact. More to the point, there are those who do believe that the sort of chauvinism that engenders this sort of side lining is necessary for the betterment of other sectors of the population.
So, what does one say to the non-Bumi student who, having been side lined, decides to study medicine overseas, and then refuses to return?
“Malaysians for Malaysia”? Some are already giving pointed opinions about the latter by voting with their feet.
