In the last two updates, this question was "posed" (although not explicitly) - where a case of "cheating/manipulation" was perpetrated, and it was justified by saying that it was done to beat the competition in its own game - albeit without the help of "handicaps".
This was mentioned by RPK, and it was his way to rationalize that he does not need the NEP to survive.
The following are two quotes from the two articles on No Holds Barred :-
I went to meet two of those fishermen who had received free Mitsubishi engines from UMW and offered them these Yanmar engines, also free of charge. But the condition was, they would have to first sabotage their Mitsubishi engines in the middle of the sea and get rescued by the Fisheries Department.
-RPK, Why I Don't Need The NEP
Actually, the NEP is still there only partly because of Umno’s manipulation. The other reason it is still there is because the Chinese have demonstrated that they look down on the Malays and without the NEP the Chinese would have smashed the Malays to smithereens.
-RPK, The Racist Malaysian Exposed
All he's saying is that he "cheated" by sabotaging his competition to get ahead - never mind the consequences. All those who questioned RPK's assertion that he did not depend on the NEP are deemed "racists" - even if they just questioned the methods of awarding the tenders.
To RPK's "deviousness" and business acumen, I say - Bravo!!
It is quite easy to understand RPK's simplistic logic here.
It's business, and it is "war" - and all's fair in love and war, right? After all, realistically speaking, that is definitely the case - and NEP is just another form of "cheating" by the Malay elite, when the Chinese Chambers of Commerce (or the like) do a similar form "monopoly" through their "networking" prowess.
However it (this argument) is definitely wrong- especially when you seek to be a proponent of an ideal. RPK's argument against the NEP was deeply flawed. When one wishes to make an argument or brag about success a "level playing field" in marketing- it has to be based on the merit of one's services/ products and its feasibility or after sales services.
Without a doubt - RPK succeeded in manipulating circumstances and achieved his success "without the help of the NEP" in marketing the product. The way I look at it, RPK was in a very subtle manner, actually justifying the NEP as a valid form of competition - by manipulating the "market". This success that RPK speaks of was not due to the cost-effectiveness or a proven track-record of the product, but rather based on the premise that - "If I think you're playing dirty, I'll play dirtier".
So if the dirtier businessman wins with no regard for the methods used, it is definitely a valid success!!! So it is with the NEP - the only problem is, in NEP, the "dirty" businessman turns out to be a beggar for more "dirty deals" and easy money.
To RPK's "deviousness" and business acumen, I say - Bravo!!
It is quite easy to understand RPK's simplistic logic here.
It's business, and it is "war" - and all's fair in love and war, right? After all, realistically speaking, that is definitely the case - and NEP is just another form of "cheating" by the Malay elite, when the Chinese Chambers of Commerce (or the like) do a similar form "monopoly" through their "networking" prowess.
However it (this argument) is definitely wrong- especially when you seek to be a proponent of an ideal. RPK's argument against the NEP was deeply flawed. When one wishes to make an argument or brag about success a "level playing field" in marketing- it has to be based on the merit of one's services/ products and its feasibility or after sales services.
Without a doubt - RPK succeeded in manipulating circumstances and achieved his success "without the help of the NEP" in marketing the product. The way I look at it, RPK was in a very subtle manner, actually justifying the NEP as a valid form of competition - by manipulating the "market". This success that RPK speaks of was not due to the cost-effectiveness or a proven track-record of the product, but rather based on the premise that - "If I think you're playing dirty, I'll play dirtier".
So if the dirtier businessman wins with no regard for the methods used, it is definitely a valid success!!! So it is with the NEP - the only problem is, in NEP, the "dirty" businessman turns out to be a beggar for more "dirty deals" and easy money.
I do not presume to say that what RPK did was "wrong" as such - as he was faced with a juggernaut. It was a David and Goliath story - and david decided to use a missile against the sword & shield. However, that should not have been the argument against the NEP. Two wrongs don't make a right. The way I look at it, he should have argued his case by saying that he managed to prove that his product was superior, value for money, had better after sales service or more cost effective despite the "inferior" quality - and so he won.
Moving on to the NEP per se - RPK had a very valid sentiment in saying that many Chinese (or others) do not see Malay competition as being worthy of respect. The problem here is in "perception" - businesses are viewed as "Malay", "Chinese" or "Indian" or "Japanese". Why isn't a business viewed as just that - a business?
And why can't these businesses compete as just that?
It is simply due to the fact that we have institutions catering to race-based businesses - Indian, Malay, Chinese associations for businesses, education, sports, entertainment, religion and politics. This exists everywhere in the world as people tend to seek "common ground" to form alliances in business.
In Malaysia though, blatant racism in institutionalized for the benefit of a small group of people with political clout. It is the system that breeds racism and polarisation, which eventually confines people to their own business/educational/social ghetto. So when a business is successful, that community is thumping its chest with empty pride, even if it had nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with excellence.
So it was with RPK - he viewed UMW as a "Chinese business" although it had within it enough "bumi" hotshots, who were simply rent-seekers/ pirates who increased the operating costs, and so were increasing the cost of the end product for consumers - the poor fishermen.
So logically speaking, reducing the 6-7% of the profit margin shouldn't have been much of a deal for the businessman- RPK would probably have lost out had there not been pirates within UMW who pushed up costs by about 10% ....... But then again, Pete - it was a job well done.
Congrats - but for gottsakes, use a better argument next time!!
P.S.
It is sad that people seem to keep seeing things from the same perspective all the time.
They even want to play the same game, even if they knew that their competition has a wealth of resources in playing the game - and as such become underdogs. Then when they become the underdogs, they cry foul about the "tilted playing field" and ask for "affirmative action".
It should be somehow possible to simply start a new game - wherein perceptions change, and the old rules of sectarian alliances and prejudice cannot apply anymore.....
Cruzeiro,
ReplyDeleteLet's try to see from this perspective:
1. UMW is a much bigger organization with bigger resources.
2. Although it is a Chinese link company, it has better access to those on top ie minister, prime minister and etc
3. UMW has bigger resources and better connections.
4. UMW is using their resources to compete, eg. giving free engines and using their connections, eg. requesting the minister to back them up.
So, I believe what RPK is trying to say is that, how to fight a big organization when you have very little. It is a question of have vs have not. Well connected vs not well connected.
That is why RPK does not belief that Malays cannot fight the chinese in business. I believe him because although I am not as successful like him, my experience tells me that there is nothing so special about Chinese in business.
RPK can just cry our loud that Chinese is unfair, they are bigger and bullying everybody else, or government should assist him based on his race and such.
But he chooses not.
Dear Anon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say, as I do with what RPK says.
All I say is that, the argument is flawed, and raises questions.
Here's why:-
1. Why were there only two bids for a 30 million contract? Was it an open tender?
2. Does it take "eyes & ears" in the MoF to get wind of such a contract?
3. Were the products tested for reliability prior to the award of the contract?
4. Were the Yanmar and Mitsubishi engines on par, as were the prices (presumably)?
5. On what grounds was the tender "split" to 15 million each? NEP? The "race factor"?
6. If the Abim man demanded for fair distribution, why then didn't he demand that they invite for more tenders?
7. Does saying that "I can cheat better" make a man truly superior in business? Is that a reason for abolishing of the NEP?
8. Doesn't it "in a way" justify the cheating that takes place through the NEP?
Without a doubt - he was up against a giant, and was resourceful, and won the battle. For that - hats off to RPK.
However, (being a little "idealistic") to me, the ethical question of cheating & NEP looms large.
All I tried to say was that RPK could have used a better argument which was based on ethical merit, insted of something that was unethical.
Cheers!
Cruzeiro,
ReplyDeleteI will try to answer your question from my own experience.
1. Why were there only two bids for a 30 million contract? Was it an open tender?
Answer: They are few procedure that I come across before. One of them is that they made preliminary bid. For this they sent questionnaire about your company's information and supply history. You would also would be required to give reference.
So lets say out of 10 companies that participate in this exercise, few would be chosen to participate in the real bidding ie. pricing and specifications.
2. Does it take "eyes & ears" in the MoF to get wind of such a contract?
To get wind of such contract you need a low level of 'eyes & ears". But if you are participating in it, you would need a higher level of 'eyes and ears'.
The reason for this are, 1. you need to know your competitors offers and pricing and 2, you need someone to back you up once your competitors' 'eyes & ears' started to push for their products.
3. Were the products tested for reliability prior to the award of the contract?
Answer: Like I said, they will ask you where you had supplied this before. And if its another government agency, they can write letter to them requesting assessment of products supplied by your company.
If your product is new in the local market, they would pose a challenge for you to push your products. That would need lots of creativeness.
4. Were the Yanmar and Mitsubishi engines on par, as were the prices (presumably)?
Answer: I don't this. So you have to ask those who had used those engines before.
5. On what grounds was the tender "split" to 15 million each? NEP? The "race factor"?
Answer: That is a question mark to me too. Lets assume RPK is telling the truth ie. he is not close to ABIM guy, and that guys is straight is hell and he is a high ranking officer who has access to many sensitive documents.
My guess is that guy saw lots of other contracts 100% went to UMW before and he think it is not fair.
Why I say this is, I would do the same thing if I am at this ABIM guy shoes. Nothing racist about it because if you turn it around, UMW is Malay and RPK is Chinese, I would still gave it to RPK if I knew UMW has been monopolizing all this while.
6. If the Abim man demanded for fair distribution, why then didn't he demand that they invite for more tenders?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: I don't know. Perhaps they already did the preliminary tender invitation earlier. Who knows? You have to ask RPK what is the procedure back then.
7. Does saying that "I can cheat better" make a man truly superior in business? Is that a reason for abolishing of the NEP?
Answer: The superiority in business is measured in terms of profits and in terms of cash flows. Not in honesty.
I might be honest but if no contracts come to my way, nobody is going to say I am good in business.
Lots of Chinese were and getting big contracts from government using a front Ali-Baba company.
A good question you might want to ask your friends is this, is this call 'cheating' or 'business savvy'?
8. Doesn't it "in a way" justify the cheating that takes place through the NEP?
Answer: A relevant question for this - which one comes first, chicken or egg? The policy of British of allocating the Chinese at towns and major cities? The decision of the government to introduce NEP? The trend of setting up Ali Baba front companies right from the start of NEP?
Cause and effects dear Dr. I am not a wise man which means I too, look for answers for these questions. And good luck to u. And do tell me if you feel you find the answer.
""All I tried to say was that RPK could have used a better argument which was based on ethical merit, insted of something that was unethical.
Answer: You are right at this point. However, RPK is not wrong too. So it makes both of you right in your ways.
From what I read, the message I get from RPK is this: Malays don't need NEP. If they bang their head against the wall hard enough, eventually the wall will crack and crumble. And if they use their brain more, they might not need to bang their head, a simple knock might do.
But that is just me.
Wow - I didn't expect such a "comprehensive" answer.
ReplyDeleteGreat- and I appreciate the pretty good answers.
Which brings me to the point - some people were called racist by RPK for speculating on these very questions!!!
What he said is very true - he competed with those guys and won. He didn't need a crony to do it, and that proves that they don't need NEP.
ReplyDeleteHowever, considering the prevailing conditions/ mindsets, the above questions are very much valid - one cannot be deemed racist or condescending for asking these question.
Cruzeiro,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can add this question, UMW almost get 100% of the contract if not because of one ABIM chap.
How do we prevent this from happening?
And the question of which comes first, chicken or egg.
Should we blame the Chinese for starting what I call the 'Clan association' culture in Malaysia.
Put it this way. This started way back in China where you have clans based on family names, the Wong clans, the Chan clans and etc.
One of the purpose of this clan association is for business activities. Assistance, protectionism among one own clans and etc. Each clan would unite to compete with other clans.
When Chinese migrated to Malaysia, they brought with them this culture, and hence you see a lot of these clans associations. On top of it, these different clans would form a single association ie Chinese business chambers, culture association and etc.
Among these clans, they compete with each other. Mr Wong is expected to give preferences in business for another Mr or Miss Wong. And when we talk about the bigger association, a Chinese is expected to give preference to another Chinese and etc.
So now you have a monopoly or oligopoly of one race. In some countries, monopolies are illegal. And in some countries, discrimination based on gender and race is unlawful.
Back to the question of chicken and egg, should we blame the Chinese for bringing and preserving this culture in Malaysia? Or should we blame the Malay politicians who saw this, and take advantage of Malay sentiment to introduce race based laws in order to gain some political points?
Cause and effects Cruzeiro. Smart politicians know this well and those who are successful like the damn Tun take full advantage of it.
Think about it.
As for me, I believe what RPK believe ie. there is no point of playing the blame game, and Malays should look into the future with confidence in themselves, and Malays don't need the government to protect them and the politicians can screw themselves, and Malays could and will, if they want, defeat the Chinese even if the Chinese are protected by a thousand associations.
Dear Anon,
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you and RPK that the "Malays" don't need the NEP - and that they can defeat any competition if they hone their skills through competition, instead of depending on hand-outs.
However, I wouldn't say the same about RPK's declaration that those who questioned the terms/procedures in the awarding of the contract, are racists.
The very fact that you saw it fit to answer the questions that linger in the minds of readers, and that you further posed some questions yourself points to that.
Anyway, we cannot be playing the "blame-game"- after all as you say, it is a "chicken & egg" scenario. The Chinese business fraternity (aka MCA), together with Umno, has to to equally bear the blame for the NEP- after all both indulge in "protectionism".
Having said that, we cannot afford to pander to the very same primitive ideas that appeal to the "lowest common denominators",- the "flight ot fight" mentality - as is perpetuated by BN & their ilk. We cannot afford to get defensive and charge others of "wrongdoing", when valid questions are posed, and reasonable answers can be sought.
Thank you.
Cruzeiro,
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wouldn't say the same about RPK's declaration that those who questioned the terms/procedures in the awarding of the contract, are racists.
Answer: I see your point. However, let's try to see from different probably perspective.
From Chinese view: Why is this ABIM chap insists on giving 50% to RPK? It must be NEP!
From Malays view: Why is the minister propose giving 100% to Chinese UMW? He must be a Chinese ass-kisser! That is not fair!
In other words, it is hard to be neutral and serious efforts are needed.
The commentators probably giving their doubt based on their value. But their opinions are what the Malay politicians could and would use ie. MT Readers would rather prefer the contract to be given 100% to Chinese UMW, or they never question if the contract is given 100% to Chinese and would only complaint and whine if it is given to a non Chinese, or they only question why contract was awarded to RPK but no questions asked why it was awarded to UMW or why it was almost 100% awarded to UMW.
Logic does not work in one way.
MT Readers would rather prefer the contract to be given 100% to Chinese UMW, or they never question if the contract is given 100% to Chinese and would only complaint and .....
ReplyDelete==================
You're being a tad presumptious here aren't you?
Why would the question of UMW arise if RPK's endevour was the topic?
You're wrong to say that the readers wouldn't question discrepencies involving "chinese businesses". There have been numerous cases that have been brought up on MT that involved "chinese" businesses - and they implicated politicians (for without them, businesses cannot run).
It appears that you seek to highlight, just like RPK did, the sectarian factor in the whole matter. One-way or two-way, call it what you like - The problem here is your logic which still works along the sectarian paradigm ..... you don't see a business as a business (just like what the "wise leaders" would like you to do).
While it may be true (you cannot run away from this - under the current system, you're one thing or other at all times), you don't make things any better, and seek refuge in the "lowest common denominator" in your argument - an artificial socio-political construct - RACE.
You're being a tad presumptious here aren't you?
ReplyDelete==========
In case you miss it but I started the whole paragraph with this 'But their opinions are what the Malay politicians could and would use'
Personally, I see it as David vs Goliath thing.
"The problem here is your logic which still works along the sectarian paradigm"
The whole RPK's article works along the sectarian paradigm. It is a message meant for Malays and why they need not a sectarian-paradigm policies.
Put it this way, telling the Malays to discard NEP is the same like telling the UMW that they don't need 'eyes and ears' in the tender committee.
Telling them is one thing, influencing them is another. To influence effectively, you have to convince them they need not the NEP to succeed.
Tell me, if RPK went and tell UMW to discard their good relationship with the minister on the basis that it is unfair to RPK and other companies, would UMW comply?
So we know RPK's message is meant for Malays, and the purpose is trying to convince the Malays of their capabilities. Based on this, is it a flawed argument?
Cruzeiro,
ReplyDeleteI think you should know by now that RPK is very much against NEP.
But the question now is that he has on the other side, people who wishes NEP to continue.
They will stop nothing at trying to convinve Malays that NEP is their survival rope.
If you think that the idea of giving out slogans like 'being fair' or 'NEP is ruining the country' is more convincing that 'Malay have special rights', then maybe we ought to stop here.
Personally, I share view with RPK. You have to convince Malays they need not NEP to succeed. In fact they never had.
Hi Anon,
ReplyDeleteHmmmm.....
Ok - you got me there. The message may have been for Malays.
Yup- If that's the case, I'm with you.
Cheers buddy!
PS
Wouldn't it be nice if I had a name to call you other than just Anonymous?
Peace!