Malaysia does not agree with the United States that the Bumiputera policy is discriminatory, according to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Claiming that this is the bottom line, Malaysia stands firm on its existing policies.

Hence, the US increases its tariff on Malaysian goods by an additional 1 percent from 24 percent to 25 percent.

The 1 percent may seem small but the increase is significant.

Do not forget that for Indonesia, the US dropped the tariff from 32 percent to 19 percent, and Vietnam from 46 percent to 20 percent.

This means Malaysia will lag behind its neighbors in attracting investments and export competitiveness.

Does the “bottom line” by Anwar meet the long-term interest of Malaysia? This is something that the government of Malaysia ought to take into consideration seriously.

As it turns out, it’s not just the non-Bumiputeras in Malaysia who are dissatisfied with the Bumiputera policy—even foreign countries (such as the US) are displeased.

How exactly the US is unhappy, we don’t know for certain. But it’s well known that since the New Economic Policy (NEP) was launched in 1971, the goal has been to secure 30 percent equity for Bumiputeras.

Government projects and contracts are prioritized for Bumiputera contractors; certain sectors are reserved exclusively for Bumiputeras; Bumiputera companies enjoy various incentives and privileges; and top management positions in GLCs are, by unwritten rule, reserved for Bumiputeras.

Globally, it’s nearly impossible to find another country with such racially-driven policies.

As a result, economic participation opportunities for non-Bumiputeras and foreign investors are effectively blocked, or at least half the door is shut.

The Bumiputera policy erects a high wall in the economic realm—non-Bumiputeras cannot easily enter. And if they do, it often requires going around through informal channels, incurring additional costs—something not all non-Bumiputeras can do.

This could be one of the reasons the Americans consider the policy discriminatory.

The US has the upper hand. If you insist on holding your ground on the Bumiputera policy, then be prepared to accept higher tariffs.

The Americans simply don’t care—Southeast Asia offers plenty of alternatives. Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines offer better terms—and none of them have Bumiputera-style policies.

What Trump wants is fair trade—though admittedly, his version of “fair” is tilted in favor of America.

 It’s your choice whether to engage. If Malaysia insists on clinging to the Bumiputera policy, then it can step aside.

However, for the non-Bumiputeras—who are the biggest victims of the Bumiputera policy—do not have the leverage that the US does.

No matter how unhappy they are, they can only grit their teeth to endure.

In the era of “Madani,” they’re even more voiceless.

During the Barisan Nasional era, the DAP would at least speak out against the Bumiputera policy in defending non-Bumiputeras.

But once they joined the government, they stopped bringing it up, as if the policy had been erased from their memory.

Now, the remarks from the Americans have once again reopened old wounds for the non-Bumiputera community.

Anwar’s statement is not only a rebuttal to American pressure, but also a renewed justification for the Bumiputera policy.

Politically, it’s also a message to the Malay community—that he stands as the defender of the Bumiputera cause.

In comparison, former prime ministers Tun Abdullah Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak at least made attempts to reform the Bumiputera policy—such as the liberalization measures under the Economic Transformation Program and the removal of Bumiputera restrictions in 24 sectors.

The key point is this: While the Bumiputera policy may have initially helped improve the economic status of Malays, its effectiveness has diminished over time.

Eventually, it became a tool for a privileged few Malays to benefit disproportionately—widening the wealth gap within the Malay community itself.

The policy has also hurt overall economic performance. Government resources are heavily invested for minimal returns.

Some protected sectors have lost their competitiveness, leading to a culture of dependence and fostering corruption.

When the NEP was created, it had a 20-year timeframe.

The government at the time understood that such affirmative action could not be extended indefinitely—otherwise, it would hinder national economic development and unfair to non-Bumiputeras.

But 20 years turned into another 20—and once people got a taste of the benefits, they were unwilling to give them up.

There’s no end in sight. Politicians only see short-term gains, never mind that the country is sinking deeper into the quicksand.

A wise leader should not shy away from deep-rooted national issues. What the Americans call a discriminatory policy has merit.

It may be a form of pressure—but also a wake-up call. Only those pretending to sleep do not wake up.