THE Bumiputera agenda was front and centre this week when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim enunciated on the Bumiputera Economic Transformation Plan 2035.
In it, he emphasised a focus on advancing Bumiputera communities without infringing on the rights of non-Bumiputera communities.
I view this as a watershed development because Anwar's pronouncement marks the arrival at a rare political consensus between both government and opposition parties and coalitions that promoting the Bumiputera agenda is the right thing to do.
Parties — both in government and the opposition — representing non-Bumiputeras may still have their misgivings, but they should view this political consensus as an opportune time to move on.
Instead of expressing reservations, they should make suggestions and proposals on safeguards so that the rights of non-Bumiputeras will not be infringed upon, as the prime minister said.
Bumiputera advancement has always been predicated on the premise of a growing economic pie that accommodates rising Bumiputera aspirations while not impinging upon those of non-Bumiputeras.
It seems, for the sake of real national unity, timely as well to recognise and accept that rather than the Bumiputera-non-Bumiputera dichotomy negatively impacting national social cohesion, that dichotomy represents Malaysian realpolitik, at least for the foreseeable future.
It so happens that also this week, a rather interesting short video appeared on YouTube, in which well-known American academic Thomas Sowell was interviewed.
He propounded on the Bumiputera affirmative-action agenda and policies advancing it.
Sowell explained how prior to the promulgation of the New Economic Policy (NEP), Bumiputeras were negligibly represented in university enrolment or the professions, for example.
The NEP, of course, brought about a sea change in this sad and untenable reality.
Sowell then went on to enumerate the costs he claimed were incurred with the NEP, such as the flight of both investments and talent abroad by non-Bumiputeras aggrieved by the NEP.
All that Sowell asserted are rather uncontroversial statements of ground realities, both good and bad.
But what I find somewhat misleading and over-the-top is the heading that introduced his video: "How Affirmative Action Destroyed Malaysia".
If we accept that any public policy comes with both pros and cons, any logical and rational judgment passed on it must surely consider whether the pros outweigh the cons, on balance.
The May 13, 1969, incident tells us that the prevailing conditions obtaining prior to the introduction of the NEP were nothing short of a ticking social time-bomb.
Rather than the NEP "destroying" Malaysia, is it perhaps more true to assert that the policy "saved" Malaysia?
Yes, the cons involved are highly regrettable and measures must be instituted to minimise them.
It is also true that some non-Bumiputeras who sought greener pastures abroad did so for a variety of reasons, and not all were related to unhappiness over the NEP and its successor policies.
There is also the related criticism that Malaysia is the only country in the world that provides affirmative-action policies for its majority communities and handicaps minorities.
South Africa also has a programme to empower its Black majority population. Asian Americans are also chafing at university enrolment criteria they view as discriminatory towards them, a minority.
What this tells us is that all these policies are designed to promote desirable social objectives, such as greater economic equity and political peace.
There are no perfect answers to the almost intractable ills confronting Malaysian society, and that goes for other societies the world over, too, when tackling their issues.
However, before critics point accusing fingers at us for our Bumiputera-policy shortcomings, they should have better alternative answers and solutions at the ready.
Criticisms are rather cheap and uncalled for, otherwise.
The writer views developments in the nation, region and wider world from his vantage point in Kuching