Why do Dayaks miss the boat?
I WAS a guest at the 17th annual general meeting (AGM) of the Dayak Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) held in Kuching on Thursday.
The chief executive of a state does not attend an annual meeting of just any organisation unless he thinks it is politically correct; so we were proud to see that the function on Thursday was graced by the presence of Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg.
As I was listening to pleas for government’s help from the speakers purporting to represent the Iban, the Bidayuh and the Orang Ulu business interests within the context of ‘Maximising Dayak Participation in Sarawak’s Development’, my memories flooded back to the early years of Malaysia.
I used to accompany ministers on official travels in the interior of Sarawak.
This meeting with the Chief Minister in a luxurious convention centre in Kuching reminds me of an after-dinner dialogue in a longhouse.
In this connection, I must commend the organisers of the event for somewhat arranging a similar format of discussion – a speech to welcome the guests, followed by addresses by representatives with requests for projects or pleas for help for welfare aid.
The last to speak was the honoured guest himself.
In a longhouse setting, his turn to speak would come depending on the length of speeches of the previous speakers. I remember a minister starting to speak at about midnight when everybody, he included, was already pretty exhausted.
Any private secretary to a minister would feel relieved for not having to write a speech for him when he visited a longhouse. You cannot predict what the speakers before you would be talking about, so a prepared speech would not be useful except for the release of the usual policy statements.
That is why leaders like the late Tun Temenggong Jugah, affectionately known as ‘Apai’, were more effective in getting their messages across than a minister with a prepared speech drafted by his private secretary.
Back to the DCCI meeting – in the segment under the theme ‘Maximizing Dayak Participation in Sarawak’s Development’, papers were presented by businessmen purportedly representing the commercial interests of the Iban, Bidayuh and Orang Ulu communities.
Their common complaint was that it had been difficult for them to succeed in their tenders for big government projects as a result of stringent terms and conditions of tenders, financial constraints and lack of technical knowhow.
And they pleaded for intervention by the Chief Minister to see to it that they would be able to successfully compete in biding bid for government tenders.
In his speech reacting to the appeals for help, the chief minister announced that he would set a 30-per cent quota of government contracts reserved for tendering from Bumiputera companies only. Applause. Details of these were vague; no doubt these would be made clear soon enough.
During the dialogue with the three deputy chief ministers, (two of them were represented by an assistant minister and a permanent secretary respectively), there were the usual grouses of lack of technical knowhow; for example, the scarcity of engineers who are Dayaks and the availability of sufficient funds.
I wish the speakers had attributed this handicap to the failure of the New Economic Policy (NEP) or New Economic Model (NEM) and the many interventions that had failed to address the poor Dayak participation in commerce and industry.
No one mentioned Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and Article 39 of the Sarawak Constitution as directly or indirectly linked to possible interventions, or as bases of government policy in the past.
These constitutional provisions, having been inequitably applied to the Dayak economic development, have directly or indirectly contributed to poor showing of their economic advancement.
My opinion — they have missed the boat, and the bus, for many years past.
These two constitutional provisions may be assumed to legitimise the reservation of quotas for natives of Sabah and Sarawak in trade and business other than for quotas in scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities.
While these special privileges have been fully exploited by the Malay businessmen in the peninsula, the provision of Article 39 of the Sarawak’s constitution has not, to my knowledge, been used by successive governments since the formation of Malaysia to reserve quota of business for the natives in Sarawak. Prove me wrong. I don’t understand why this provision of the Sarawak’s constitution has not been modified in line with the spirit of its federal counterpart.
I was expecting someone from the DCCI, especially the presenters of papers, to raise this matter with the Chief Minister so that he could have a close look at this provision as the legitimate basis to reserve business quotas or contracts for government funded jobs.
Government policies are all right if the same government retains power at the next state elections, but we have learnt a lesson that government can change hands unexpectedly.
However, a policy enshrined as a constitutional provision is not easy to change by an incoming new government – unless the constitution is amended. And that requires two-thirds of the vote in Parliament, or the State Legislative Assembly to be effective legally.
In the context of fighting for Sarawak’s rights, this one move to help improve the Bumiputera’s participation in big scale development, the government is expected to do its best to help. Who else would help? That’s one of the questions that the Iban, Bidayuh and the Orang Ulu members of the DCCI could have discussed thoroughly with the government; not only at one meeting but at regular intervals.
Otherwise, we will miss it again – this time around, the plane.