> The crisis of independence in 1969, usually called May 13 after the
> date on which racial riots broke out, resulted in the formulation of
> a policy which called for (a) the eradication of poverty and (b) the
> elimination of the identification of economic function with race
And the latter is supposed to be achieved through discriminatory policies?
> the policy has been largely
> successful. Kuala Lumpur is today a multi-ethnic town, as are the
> other large towns in the country. Malay urbanization is now close to
> 50%. In a generation, the poverty rate has been brought down to well
> under 10%, with the poverty line income now defined at around Ringgit
> 540 per household per month, average household size of 4.7
Mahathir would love us to believe this. IMO this is drawing a false relationship. It's considered almost to be a truism, among comparative public policy theorists, that Malaysia's economic success is the results of incentives for foreign investment and export-oriented industries. (Some have claimed that Singapore and Malaysia were the models for the "European tiger" --- Ireland during the last 10-15 years. Malaysia may have been even more successful _without_ the restrictions placed on minority business activity. Racist policies are essentially _anti-development_ , and there are plenty of examples to prove it.
> As and when it suits him; but you will find that
> he's probably the most popular of the prime ministers amongst
> Malaysia's Chinese population.
Perhaps fear that things could get worse plays a part here. I mean I could introduce you to some conservative, business-oriented ethnic Chinese and/or "Indians" whose families preferred to leave Malaysia at various times over the last 30 years because of persecution. (As well as some who left East Africa for similar reasons.)
regards,
Grant.