Who are the disadvantaged?

Affirmative action is well-intentioned; no one can easily argue against helping the disadvantaged. It's a plausible principle that just doesn't work out in practice. Here's what always happens:

The "disadvantaged" group is mobilised by leaders so as to gain legislative support for their aims. The argument is always a variation of the "historical forces" argument. Who will articulate this argument in a persuasive way? Who will organise the meetings and manage the media? In other words, who will lead? These will, almost always be well-educated and not "disadvantaged". Who will receive the bulk of the benefits once affirmative action is legalised? The leaders of course!

This has happened with African-Americans and, subsequently, with the Malays in Malaysia. At least in the USA, the affirmative action laws apply to a minority. Not so in Malaysia where the children of the aristocracy and civil servants have received premium scholarships and the inside track to business and political success, thus perpetuating the giant fraud on their own majority community which takes foolish pride in this national theft!

It is difficult but possible to define "disadvantage" in any society. The definition will not be the same in every society nor will it remain the same over time. Some of the more obvious criteria from moral philosophers and sociologists are:

1. Irregular income i.e. no permanent work.
2. Lack of education.
3. Physical or mental impairment.
4. No physical security e.g.violent family members, violent neighbourhoods and genocide.

There are others which aren't so obvious but can be revealed through better studies. My point? Correcting "historical disadvantage" is not about race. That was Adolph Hitler's thesis in "Mein Kampf." Malaysia NEP is more correctly understood as its Nazi Economic Policy and will have the same result.