How does Malaysia’s Bumiputera Policy Attempt to Correct Historical Inequality While Also Reinforcing Ethnic Boundaries Between “Native” and “Non-Native” Citizens? In Chapter 8 of Ethnicity and Nationalism, Thomas Hylland Eriksen examines the relationship between identity politics, culture, and rights in multicultural societies. He argues that governments face a difficult challenge when addressing inequalities experienced by particular ethnic groups. If governments ignore ethnic differences and treat everyone identically, historical disadvantages may remain unaddressed. However, if governments recognize and support specific groups through public policy, those groups become formally defined and politically significant. As a result, policies intended to promote equality may also reinforce ethnic categories. Malaysia’s Bumiputera policy provides a useful example of this tension. Malaysia’s New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in 1971 following the ethnic riots of 1969. The policy emerged from a society in which economic activities had become strongly associated with ethnicity. During the colonial period, Malays were concentrated in rural agricultural sectors, Chinese communities were heavily represented in commerce and urban business, while many Indians worked on plantations and estates (Article 2). The government viewed these patterns as a source of inequality and ethnic tension. Consequently, the NEP sought not only to reduce poverty but also to restructure society by eliminating the identification of ethnicity with economic function (Article 2). To achieve this goal, preferential policies were introduced for Bumiputera populations, including Malays and other Indigenous groups, particularly in areas such as education and economic participation (Article 1). However, the policy created a contradiction that remains relevant today. The NEP sought to weaken the connection between ethnicity and economic position, yet it relied on ethnic classification to achieve that objective. The government wanted ethnicity to become less economically meaningful, but doing so required ethnicity to become more politically meaningful. This raises an important question: can governments reduce ethnic inequality without reinforcing the ethnic categories on which their policies depend? From Eriksen’s perspective, this question reflects a broader challenge of multicultural governance. Efforts to reduce inequality often require governments to identify which groups have been disadvantaged and design policies specifically for them. In Malaysia, this meant distinguishing between Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera populations. These categories were not merely cultural labels. They became administrative and political categories that influenced access to educational opportunities, business programs, and other forms of state support (Article 1). Ethnicity therefore became embedded within the distribution of resources and opportunities. The Malaysian case illustrates an important paradox. The NEP was designed to reduce the significance of ethnicity in economic life by increasing Bumiputera participation in sectors where they had historically been underrepresented. Yet the policy itself depended on maintaining ethnic distinctions. In practice, reducing ethnic inequality required the continued recognition of ethnic categories. Rather than disappearing, those categories remained central to public policy because they determined who qualified for assistance and who did not. At the same time, interpreting the policy solely as a mechanism of ethnic boundary reinforcement would be incomplete. The policy responded to genuine inequalities and appears to have contributed to the growth of a Bumiputera middle class and greater participation in higher education and professional occupations (Article 1). For supporters, these outcomes demonstrate that targeted intervention was necessary because equal treatment alone would not have altered historically unequal conditions. Critics, however, argue that the continued reliance on ethnicity risks institutionalizing divisions that the policy originally sought to overcome. They question whether assistance should increasingly be based on socioeconomic need rather than ethnic identity. Malaysia’s Bumiputera policy highlights the dilemma identified by Eriksen. The policy attempted to make ethnicity less economically meaningful while simultaneously making ethnicity more politically meaningful. Its achievements in addressing historical inequalities cannot be separated from its reliance on ethnic categorization. The Malaysian case therefore suggests that in multicultural societies, efforts to promote equality and efforts to reduce the significance of ethnic boundaries may not always move in the same direction.