Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

I would suggest that Maybank also set a minimum 50% bumiputra equity requirement for its clients i.e. its banking facilities would be made available to only clients with 50% bumiputra equity. That way, it would truly be a bumiputra bank, if that is what it wants to project itself to be, and being analagous to PNB with its unit trust business. And to be sure, extend that same requirement for its business overseas.

Maybe, Maybank is no longer the bank for ALL Malaysians.

Maybe, Maybank wants to go to Hong Kong. It has grown big enough to play Father Santa Claus without waiting for Christmas.

A few years back, we had another Malaysian bank who did the same, only to get themselves fatally embroiled in the Carrian saga. Where is the bank now?

There is no need to clarify or explanation from the bank .

My understanding from the Bank's statement is that it only wants bumiputra to act for them.

Articles and reports so far only name Maybank as one of the 2 banks which have imposed this ruling. Does anyone know the identity of the other bank?

They should be taken to task as well, not just Maybank alone.

What an irony- the banner declaring "50 years of Merdeka" jubilantly overhead, while these events (and so many more in recent days) clearly insult the very freedom our forebears sought to forge with their very lives.

This practice is not new in Malaysia. This is akin to requirement of a particular race for employment in some establishments. Same goes for lawyers getting work in other establishments apart form banks. Discrimnatory practice along racial line is quite obvious, albeit subtle.

This is the reality of the day. On the 50th anniversary of Merdeka....Quo Vadis?

Yes Fareed. It's not new. It's subtle and it IS discriminatory. Glad that you can see it.

So what is the intention of you putting up the posting above? Are you trying to say its OK to be discriminatory because "This practice is not new in Malaysia"? Are you trying to say that this is the reality in Malaysia and so we just have to live with it?

Will you tell a Black American that the discrimination practice in USA "is not new in" USA and therefore Quo Vadis [which is incidentally meaning 'Where are you going']. Is that what you are trying to tell people when u said 'Quo Vadis'??

Just a friendly enquiry.

Richard Wee,

I was just making an observation and it is up to anyone to make up the conclusion. Quo Vadis was meant to be ....'where are we heading to?'.

Why should there even be any race requirement in the first place? Why should Maybank require such a requirement? What purpose does it serve? I can understand the need for partnerships with at least 3 persons. At least that can be explained... What about this bumiputera requirement? How in the world would you be able to explain it?

Maybe we should get everyone to boycott this bank just to show them that hey... you just did something stupid and you WILL pay for it. This is a country which is MULTI racial NOT UNI racial. This just boils down to BAnks getting a free hand in everything that they do. From charging yearly fees for ATM cards to charging interests for balances below a certain amount. This is definitely UNFAIR. I'm glad BC has taken a stand. I support it all the way! Equality! Non Bumi's are Malaysians too!

Ahhh.. I now see, Fareed - that you were merely writing without any purpose whatsoever. And that your posting was purely stating an observation that this discrimination is 'not new in Malaysia'.

Hmmm.. writing without any purpose whatsoever, and purely to state one's observation.... I must try that one.. [haha]

Gentlemen

This just goes to show that the cries of the French Revolution of 1789 - Liberty, Equality, Fraternity - remain merely cries and nothing more.

Some people are just around to observe. Blessed are those with such limitations for theirs is the kngdom of ...

Blessed are those who follow such observers for they shall inherit ...

Richard Wee,

what's wrong with you? I don't think your last comment was something 'friendly' as you posted earlier.

I suppose we are now able to see the effects of the banking consolidation in this country. Supposedly it was to produce just a few big banks that can compete against the foreign banks that intend to come into Malaysia. The downside is that these same big banks may become arrogant and adopt a take it or leave it attitude, and then push whatever political agenda they may have. Well, hopefully the foreign banks do really come in a big way and promote real competition. When you need to stay competitive, you tend to have less appetite to indulge in market-distorting discriminatory practices.

Actually, I think Abdul Fareed's observation is important. It implies that the Bank's action in putting the policy in writing instead of just quietly and gradually implementing it (which would have been much harder to observe let alone prove) is only the tip of the iceberg. With the letter, at least there is a firm basis on which to discuss the issue openly and freely. I think its important to get the message out that this issue has serious implications affecting all Malaysians and not just lawyers alone.

Fareed - perhaps you should lighten up a bit. You seem so defensive.

Yes, I agree with Fareed and David. Perhaps Bank Negara should come out with a statement on this issue. Why would banks impose such discriminatory policy at the expense of business unless it is a requirement?

Richard, I understand that you are trying to be witty but try not to do it at the expense of others.

Sure Nicole - perhaps I have crossed the line here.

Fareed - I refer to your posting telling all here that discrimination is nothing new, and then you claim it is only an observation. Let me quote your posting:-

This practice is not new in Malaysia. This is akin to requirement of a particular race for employment in some establishments. Same goes for lawyers getting work in other establishments apart form banks. Discrimnatory practice along racial line is quite obvious, albeit subtle.

This is the reality of the day. On the 50th anniversary of Merdeka....Quo Vadis?

This is how I comprehend it :-

It seems to me your posting is suggesting we should just live with this discrimination. You stated it is a reality of the day, when it should not be. And when I asked you what you meant - you answer was; you were merely stating an observation.

I cannot agree with that suggestion and we live in a Country where we are free & equal, living and sharing the same resources & fighting the same cause. No one should tell me who my fellow partner [or more precisely, the race of my partner] should be in my legal firm.

Thanks.

Richard Wee

Different people react differently to discrimination. The idealist or progressive people fight it. The realist or pragmatic elements acknowledge it and even can find a way to profit from it. The worst are conservative or reactionary elements: they encourage and perpetuate it.

As someone said, this may well be another sign of an election looming. If it is, then it is a bad sign because after nearly 50 years of Independence, if our political parties cannot fight on ideas and principles but have to resort to the racial card, it marks a deep-seated malady in our political system.

Richard Wee,

Your are putting words into my mouth! When did I suggest that one should live with the discrimination? You have taken my posting out of context!

I stress again that it is reality and we cannot appear to be oblivious to what is happening around us. I have experienced it myself in the course of my profession, not to mention even at various other points in life. That is the observation I made to create discussion on the subject. In fact I even went on to say that at the 50th anniversary of Merdeka where are we heading to with these practices?

At no point did I suggest that I agree with discrimination. If you have a problem with someone on who should be your partners, take it up with them. Don't bark on the wrong tree.

Suffice to end that we should eliminate the discrimination and prejudice that exist within ourselves and strife to make this world a better place for everyone, in equality, of course.

Fareed

1. I am so very glad that you finally said that - "At no point did I suggest that I agree with discrimination."

I was concerned that for one moment, a former candidate for Bar Council elections had no objections to this discrimination by the Banks.

2. Have a good day, and hope you would not be discriminated today.

Often on topics of race and religion and matters pertaining to them, it is very easy to lose sight of the overall picture when one focuses on issues only relative to oneself at the expense of historical and prevailing reality.

Without doubt, the recent “letter” issued by MayBank conjures that very emotion.

The fact of the matter is that affirmative action which specifically gives special privileges to Malays is something quite abhorrent to those who are not. It is immaterial to most non-Malays that this “social contract” which was agreed to by the founding fathers on the formation of this country tries to address an economic and social imbalance.

It is immaterial also that such protection is within the Federal Constitution as promulgated under Article 153 and various other legislation.

The general emphasis however which is often argued by non-Malays is that everything in this Federation should be based strictly on merit emulating our successful neighbour across the causeway. Sublimed within this line of rhetorical argument is that Malays would fail miserably in a fair competition with the non-Malays on account of their lack of intelligence and ability and being the epitome of indolence.

It is very easy to delude and condition oneself into thinking along the aforesaid racially motivated psyche which borders on ignorance and arrogance.

The truth of the matter is that currently without such legal protection and governmental intervention, it is inconceivable to most Malays that non-Malays (with exceptions of course) would voluntarily and happily lift their social and economic predicament. It is this silent discrimination which is being felt by Malay professionals especially when dealing with corporations and other entities which are controlled predominantly by non-Malays.

And perhaps it is with this clear understanding of reality that MayBank has openly provided an avenue to ensure that Malay professionals are given a chance.

Be that as it may, affirmative action as practised in Malaysia should be reviewed ensuring that it truly tries to elevate the position of Malays as a whole with transparency (as it is supposed to) and not as a nepotistic tool for the unjust enrichment of a selected few. Neither should it be implemented at all costs inconsequential to the need for quality as opposed to quantity.

Perhaps most importantly, there must be real efforts from all sides to engage constructively in breaking down of barriers and to the building of trusts (which is apparently lacking at the moment) so that any one citizen of this land irrespective of race, creed or religion can legitimately expect a future of hope and prosperity without finally resorting to the preferential card.