WHEN DAP Penang Deputy Chief Minister P. Ramasamy described the Malaysian civil service as being ossified, it is highly likely that he was referring to the definition of things becoming inflexible and rigid.

It is highly unlikely that he was referring to the Irish slang in which the word is to describe being drunk, usually resulting from a binge.

Dismissing the second meaning, the civil service turned into being ossified (as in the first definition), according to Ramasamy, due to the domination of one particular race, the Malays, and that warranted a  reform.

He then accused former twice Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad of institutionalising Malay hegemony in the public sector.

Ramasamy dismissed two arguments in justifying the Malay domination of the civil service – first that it was to counterbalance Chinese domination of the economy, which can also be interpreted as domination of the private sector.

The other thing that he dismissed was the argument that non-Malays shy away from the civil service because of the lack of promotional prospect, claiming that there were overt and covert forms of racial discrimination.

However, his allegations had been outrightly disputed by the Public Services Commission of Malaysia (SPA) which stated that there was no racial discrimination in the recruitment of civil servants in the country and that “Malaysians have equal opportunity to be considered in open and fair competition.

It further said that the method of appointing civil servants is transparent and based on the candidate’s merit and competence, adding that no quota was set for a particular race or ethnicity.

Congress of Union of Employees in the Public and Civil Services (Cuepacs) president Datuk Adnan Mat said the recruitment and appointment of staff in the public service are based on merit and candidates’ competence without involving quotas as stipulated by the Public Services Commission (PSC).

And Adnan also outrightly debunked Ramasamy, claiming that the lack of interest in joining the public service among non-bumiputras could be attributed to the perception of low salaries compared to working in the private sector or doing business.

While Dr Mahathir had chosen to ignore Ramasamy as the latter’s rendition only affirmed the former’s commitment to ensure a fair equity for the Malays, it was not so easy for PM Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi though both attempted to make light of it.

For Anwar, much as he had dismissed Ramasamy’s statement as something personal and not that of the DAP, the latter’s supporters down the line are obviously hoping that Anwar would pursue reforms for the civil service vis-à-vis the racial composition.

Other, not too important PH personalities, such as its Hulu Langat MP Mohd Sany Hamzan had demanded that the DAP sack Ramasamy.

The other PH personality was Dr Maszlee Malik who described Ramasamy as the biggest liability to the “unity” government and that the DAP should discipline him before it’s too late.

It is doubtful that the duo’s strong stand would have much influence on Anwar or the DAP and this can be adduced by the reaction shown by the party’s secretary general Anthony Loke who chose not to make public what action the DAP would take, only saying that it will be dealt with internally.

If there is one person who could have made Anwar and the DAP act against Ramasamy, it would have been Zahid, given the fact that he is the Deputy Prime Minister and that the continued existence of the current government depended on him and Umno and that his party had been pedigreed to take on the likes of Ramasamy.

Instead, he took the easy way out, making a flippant label of Ramasamy of being a loose cannon and leaving it to the DAP to handle the controversy.

Thus, it is left to the SPA, Cuepacs and to a certain degree inconsequential personalities from PH to take up the cudgel with Ramasamy.

Actually, what Ramasamy had raised pertaining to the issue of Malays dominating the civil service and discriminating against the non-Malays is not something new.

According to the Razak report or the National Operations Council’s white paper on the May 13 tragedy, it stated that prior to the riots, during the preceding election campaign period, it was repeatedly raised by racist candidates.

The report then revealed that in reality, division one government servants (except the police and armed forces), the non-Malays made up 63.74 percent while the Malays were only 32.26 percent or in actual numbers, 2,252 non-Malays against 1,142 Malays.

Even in the police force, the non-Malays made up 61.24 percent while the Malays were only at 38.76 percent. (Actual numbers were not provided for security reasons, the report stated).

In terms of the armed forces, the Malays were the majority with 64.5 percent while the non-Malays made up the remaining 35.5 percent. (Actual numbers were not provided for similar reasons).

But the report further stated that the non-Malays had shun the lower ranking positions in the police and armed forces.

The report also pointed out that the Malays then had felt that they were out of the loop in the economic sector also felt that their position in the civil service was under threat following the allegations discrimination by the non-Malays.

Fast forward to current times, in PSC’s statistics of 2015-2019, of the nearly 1.5 million job applications, the Malays made up 78.9 percent, Chinese a meagre 1.6 percent, the Indians slightly higher with 3.1 percent, while Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputras plus the indigenous formed 16.4 percent.

Out of this, 1.2 percent Malays gain employment, the Chinese 2.1 percent and the Indians at 0.8 percent.

However, given the huge disparity between the applicants from among the Malays as compared with the other races, the imbalance will be obvious as 100 percent employment of the non-Malay applicants will not be able to match even six percent of the Malay applicants.

It then boils down to the oft-repeated argument that the non-Malays are not keen to join the civil service because of the low salary which Ramasamy claimed was untrue. If at all, the non-Malays were only keen for top positions in the civil service.

Another perception that Ramasamy tried to debunk is that the non-Malays controlled the economy hence the efforts by the Malays leaders to provide employment in the public sector is unjustified.

But looking at the sheer number of Malay applicants as opposed to the non-Malays, the next question that needed to be asked is where do the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese turn to since they did not apply to the public sector.

On the flip side, the perception that Malays get discriminated in the non-Malay dominated private sector can be the reason why they apply in huge numbers to the public sector and that too include all the lowly positions which perceptions have it is shun by the non-Malays.

But of course, such perceptions are of no consequence to Ramasamy and his ilk. As in racism, the tactic is to accuse others of discrimination loudly.

It’s like the thief shouting thief.