Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited is a New Zealand multinational publicly traded dairy co-operative owned by New Zealand farmers. The company is responsible for approximately 30% of the world's dairy exports and with revenue exceeding NZ $22 billion, making it New Zealand's largest company. It is the sixth-largest dairy company in the world as of 2022, as well as the largest in the Southern Hemisphere.

Fonterra was established in October 2001 following the merger of the country's two largest dairy co-operatives, New Zealand Dairy Group (NZDG) and Kiwi Cooperative Dairies, with the New Zealand Dairy Board. The name Fonterra comes from Latin , meaning "spring from the land".

History

In New Zealand, as in most Western countries, dairy co-operatives have long been the main organisational structure in the industry. The first dairy co-operative was established in Otago in 1871. By 1920, there were 600 dairy processing factories of which about 85% were owned by co-operatives. In the 1930s there were around 500 co-operatives but after World War II, improved transportation, processing technologies and energy systems led to a trend of consolidation, where the co-operatives merged and became larger and fewer in number. By the end of the 1990s, there were only four co-operatives nationwide: the Waikato-based New Zealand Dairy Group, the Taranaki-based Kiwi Co-operative Dairies, Westland Milk Products, and Tatua Co-operative Dairy Company.

Fonterra was formed in 2001 from the merger of the two largest co-operatives, New Zealand Dairy Group and Kiwi Co-operative Dairies, together with the New Zealand Dairy Board, which had been the marketing and export agent for all the co-operatives. Fonterra effectively has monopsony control of the New Zealand domestic and export dairy industry. The merger was initially turned down by the New Zealand Commerce Commission, but later approved by the New Zealand Government, with subsequent legislation deregulating the dairy industry, allowing for the export of dairy products to be undertaken by any company. The two smaller co-operatives, Tatua and Westland (which would later be acquired by Yili Group in 2019), did not join Fonterra, instead remaining independent.

The company has an annual revenue of around NZ$23 billion. Its core business consists of exporting dairy products under the NZMP brand (95% of its New Zealand production is exported). It also operates a fast-moving consumer goods business for dairy products, Fonterra Brands. Fonterra has a number of subsidiaries and joint-venture companies operating in markets around the world.

In 2005, the company purchased a large factory in Dennington, Victoria, Australia, from Nestlé, after they moved out of the collection of milk from farmers and the manufacture of powdered milk in Australia. Also in 2005 the company made moves towards purchasing Australian companies Dairy Farmers and National Foods. It also converted its 50 per cent stake in Victoria dairy producer Bonlac to full ownership. At this time $1 billion of Fonterra's revenue was from Australian sales, which was 14 per cent of the dairy products it sells around the world.

In June 2008, the company acquired the yoghurt and dairy dessert business of Nestlé Australia, which it on-sold to Parmalat Australia in December 2015.

In 2010, US embassy cables leaked by WikiLeaks suggested New Zealand had only sent troops to Iraq in 2003, following the initial invasion, so Fonterra would keep valuable Oil for Food contracts. New Zealand was not a member of the coalition which supported invasion of the country, but later sent combat engineers for mine clearance and other such tasks.

In 2019, the Tip Top ice cream brand was sold for NZ$380 million to Froneri, a global joint venture between Nestlé and PAI Partners.

In September 2019, Fonterra agreed to sell its 50% stake in DFE Pharma for NZ$633 million ($400.37 million).

In late February 2022, Fonterra suspended exports to Russia in protest of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The company had exported NZ$240 million worth of produce to Russia in 2021. On 21 March, Fonterra closed its office in Moscow and withdrew from its joint venture with Russian company Unifood.

Fonterra Research and Development Centre

In 1927 the New Zealand Dairy Research Institute (NZDRI) was founded in Palmerston North as part of the Department of Scientific Industrial Research, which was renamed to the Fonterra Research and Development Centre (FRDC) when Fonterra was formed in 2001. FRDC is purportedly one of the largest dairy research centres in the world, and as of 2019, it hosts several hundred engineers, scientists and researchers and holds 350 milk related patents. A large number of technologies involving whey, casein, lactoferrin, nisin, anhydrous milk fat, as well as cheesemaking and milk powder production have been developed at the centre.

FRDC has a substantial library of over 100,000 cheese starter cultures, which began in the 1930s under Hugh Whitehead. The centre has pioneered research on bacteriophages; in 1935 a bacteriophage was identified as the cause of failure in cheese starter isolates, and in 1992 the centre sequenced the genome of bacteriophage c2, which was the first whole genome to be sequenced in New Zealand.

Corporate structure

Governance
John Roadley was the inaugural chairman of Fonterra's board. He foreshadowed his resignation in August 2002 and was succeeded, after the next annual general meeting, by Henry van der Heyden. Van der Heyden held the chairmanship until December 2012. John Wilson succeeded van der Heyden and announced his resignation in July 2018 due to illness (he died in January 2019 aged 54). John Monaghan succeeded Wilson. He is the current chairperson and in March 2020, he foreshadowed that he would step down in November 2020. In June 2020, Peter McBride was announced as Monaghan's successor.

Subsidiaries
 Fonterra Brands – consumer goods business
 NZMP Ingredients – global ingredients business
 Fonterra Global Dairy Trade – dairy ingredients supplier to the globally traded market
 Anchor Food Professionals – foodservices supplies
Fonterra Group Manufacturing – food processing and manufacturing operations
Fonterra Milk Supply – collection and distribution of milk from farms
Shared Services – finance, communications, M&D, human resources, strategy and information services
Farm Source (formerly RD1) – is a wholly owned rural retail and farmer support supplier. RD1 was formed at the end of 2001 through the merger of RD1.com and the Town & Country Agri-centres, Fonterra's two rural supply companies. In 2014, Farm Source was launched as a new brand platform for RD1 and provides retail benefits including Farm Source Rewards. Farm Source is also the farmer support business unit, with Area Managers, Sustainable Dairying Advisors and Technical Sales Representatives providing on-farm tools and advice for farmers, such as Farm Environment Plans. Farm Source is New Zealand's largest retailer of agricultural supplies to dairy farmers. There are 66 Farm Source stores across New Zealand as well an online ecommerce offer.

Changes to capital structure

In November 2007, the board of directors announced a two-year consultation programme regarding their preferred capital re-structuring option: putting the business operations in a separate publicly listed company, with the co-operative maintaining a controlling interest. The aim was to give more access to funds for global growth.

Praised by some as a bold move which would allow better access to outside capital, the proposals encountered significant opposition from both farmer shareholders and the government (who would be required to pass enabling legislation). Despite including a range of safeguards, farmers were clearly concerned at the risk of losing control; in what was sometimes described as a demutualization.

The board responded in 2008 by shelving the November 2007 proposal and continuing consultation and discussion with farmer shareholders. In September 2009, the board announced a three-step process to revamp Fonterra's capital structure. The new approach abandoned thoughts of a public listing of Fonterra shares and retained 100% farmer control and ownership of the co-operative.

A key goal of the capital structure changes was to stop large amounts of money washing in and out of Fonterra's balance sheet each year as milk production fluctuates. Under the previous structure, farmers matched their shareholding with their milk production by owning one co-operative share for each kilogram of milksolids (kgMS) produced annually. If their milk production dropped in any season, they could redeem shares back to the co-operative, which was required to buy the shares back off them. Consequently, Fonterra faced the risk of losing large amounts of share capital through redemptions during times of declining milk production. For instance, after milk production fell during the 2007/08 drought, Fonterra had to pay out $742 million of share capital to farmers via redemptions.

The capital structure changes also sought to provide greater incentives for farmers to increase their investment in Fonterra shares, helping ensure Fonterra has sufficient share capital to fund profitable business opportunities and drive a higher payout to dairy farmers.

The first two steps of capital structure change received good support from farmer shareholders at Fonterra's annual meeting in November 2009. The first step allowed farmers to hold shares above their level of annual milk production; farmers could now own an additional 20% of "dry" shares (i.e. up to a maximum of 1.2 shares per kgMS). There were also enhanced incentives for farmers to hold shares even if their production falls. The rules about the pricing of end of season share transactions were also tidied up.

The second step changed the way Fonterra shares were valued to reflect that share ownership is restricted to farmers only. Previously, Fonterra shares were valued on a theoretical basis as if the shares were freely traded like a public share. An independent valuator subsequently assessed that the restricted market value should be at a 25% discount to the freely traded value.

The third step, titled "Trading Among Farmers", involves more far-reaching change to Fonterra's capital structure. The co-operative would no longer be obliged to issue or redeem shares at a price established via an independent valuation process. Instead, farmers would buy or sell shares among themselves at market prices through a farmer-only share trading market. This would have the effect of making Fonterra shares permanent capital, providing the co-operative with more confidence to invest in long-term projects without fear that some of its share capital might be needed to fund redemptions in future years.

As part of the changes, farmers would have greater flexibility with their Fonterra shareholding. The maximum shareholding would be 2 times production (up from the 1.2 times approved in step one) and farmers would have up to three years to comply with shareholding rules when entering/exiting the co-operative or increasing/decreasing their milk production.

Additionally, Fonterra would set up a special fund that would financially help farmers purchase shares (or retain shares they would otherwise have to sell). The fund would pay farmers for the right to receive dividends and the gain/loss from any changes in value of some of their shares, but the farmer would still be the owner of the shares. The fund would raise the money it needed to pay farmer shareholders by selling investment units to investors. Fonterra would require the fund to target "friendly" investors such as sharemilkers, retired farmers and offshore Fonterra suppliers, although the public and institutions would also be able to participate.

The "Trading Among Farmers" proposal went before a special meeting on 30 June 2010 and received 89% support from farmer shareholders voting, easily exceeding the 75% threshold required for a favourable vote.

In May 2021, Fonterra started a consultation process to seek farmer feedback on potential options to change its capital structure.

Based on farmer feedback over the consultation period as well as further expert advice, a proposal was put forward in September 2021 to move to a Flexible Shareholding structure, aimed at giving farmers more financial flexibility.

In December 2021, the new Flexible Shareholding structure received a strong mandate with [85.16%] of total farmer votes cast in support of the recommendation and [82.65%] participation based on milk solids voted.

Fonterra is continuing to work with the Government on how the Flexible Shareholding structure can be given effect under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, the legislation that enabled the formation of Fonterra back in 2001.

Brands

International

 Anchor (milk)
 Anlene
 Anmum
 Mainland (cheese, butter)
NZMP (ingredients)
Anchor Food Professionals (foodservice supplies)
 Nutiani

New Zealand

 Anchor (milk, cream, butter, yoghurt)
 Anchor CalciYum (flavoured milk, custard yoghurt, ice cream)
 Anchor Uno (Children's yoghurt)
 Anmum
 BioKodeLab
 Country Goodness (butter-margarine blend spread, cultured sour cream dips)
 De Winkel (yoghurt)
 Fresh 'n Fruity (yoghurt)
 Galaxy (speciality cheese)
 Kapiti (ice cream, speciality cheese, yoghurt)
 Mainland (cheese, butter)
 Mammoth Supply Co. (flavoured milk)
 Perfect Italiano (cheese)
 Primo (flavoured milk)
 Tip Top (ice cream) – Sold to Froneri in 2019

Australia

 Bonlac
 Anchor CalciYum
 Anchor (milk and cream)
 Mainland (cheese & butter)
 Mammoth Energy
 Munchables
 Perfect Italiano
 Western Star (butter)

Sri Lanka

 Ratthi (milk powder, yoghurt)
 Anchor Newdale (flavoured milk, yoghurt, drinking yoghurt)
Red Cow (2 in 1 milk powder)
anlene
Anchor (milk, milk powder, butter)
Anchor Family Pro +
Anchor Pediapro

Environmental performance

Initiatives
Dairying stock entering waterways due to lack of fencing and poor use of fertilisers are major contributors to water pollution in New Zealand. Fonterra's environmental policy states that "Fonterra shall demonstrate a global commitment to protecting the environment. Sustainability, good environmental practice and environmental improvement are cornerstones of Fonterra's environmental commitment." Fonterra claims to have a number of initiatives such as the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord, relating to environmental protection to achieve this policy. In December 2011, the Green Party questioned Fonterra's credibility and the effectiveness of the self-auditing approach given the wide discrepancy between Fonterra's claims and an independent audit of Dairying and Clean Streams Accord.

In 2003, Fonterra became a signatory to the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord, which sets a timeframe for the improvement of water quality on farms. Progress on the Accord goals is reported by the signatories in March of each year on the basis of data collected by Fonterra.  The integrity of this data was later questioned when a 2012 independent report commissioned by MAF indicated that while Fonterra's survey of farmers suggests that nationally 84% of properties have stock excluded from waterways, an independent audit by MAF revealed a position that only 42% of farms nationally had stock exclusion. The difference in Fonterra's results against those in an independent audit suggest further work is required by Fonterra to protect streams and that evaluating success in this area may be better carried out by an independent third party auditor.

In July 2007, the Green Party called on Fonterra to use financial penalties on its suppliers who were "dirty dairying", and to particularly penalise the 'recidivist polluters' the Crafar Farms. In 2010, Fonterra launched its every farm every year initiative. Fonterra plans to check every farm's effluent management infrastructure every year in a move to address non-compliance with regional council dairy effluent rules. The 2012 independent audit spurred further progress in this area with Fonterra announcing that suppliers will be required to complete fencing of Accord waterways by June 2013. Whether this will occur is yet to be seen.

In February 2008, the inaugural Fonterra Environmentalist of the Year was announced at the Beehive. The Award continues a partnership between Keep New Zealand Beautiful and Fonterra. Fonterra is also a Corporate Sponsor of the Society and each year teams of staff from the company's manufacturing sites participate in the Keep New Zealand Beautiful Clean Up Week campaign, clearing rubbish from around roadsides, sports fields, parks and beaches.  These activities have been criticised as token however as they have limited impacts on preventing stock from entering waterways and in assisting farmer to implement more effective fertiliser regimes that could cut farmers costs and improve water quality.

Biofuels
Fonterra is New Zealand's largest producer of biofuel, processing a waste stream from casein manufacture into bio-ethanol.  The company produces around 20 million litres of premium ethanol annually. Since 2004, Fonterra has produced ethanol from whey, a by-product of casein, in the Edgecumbe, Tirau and Reporoa plants. In 2008, Fonterra began supplying Gull Petroleum with ethanol from its Edgecumbe plant. The fuel has significant environmental benefits as it is renewable and biodegradable.

In July 2016, Fonterra announced that their tanker fleet was switching to ZBioD (Z Energy's biodiesel fuel) as a foundation customer. Chief Operating Officer Global Operations, Robert Spurway said "the move to biodiesel has the potential to reduce emissions for the tankers using it up to four per cent each year, and the partnership is an important milestone for Fonterra."

Manawatu River waste water
In 2006, Forest and Bird asked Fonterra to 'clean up its act', instead of obtaining consent to continue to discharge 8,500 cubic metres per day of wastewater into the Manawatu River.
Fonterra responded to Forest and Bird's request, agreeing to treat wastewater it discharges into the Manawatu River, greatly reducing its impact on the river. Treatment will be phased in so that by 2015 the discharge will be treated to a level where the water will be fit to swim in year-round.

In 2010, Fonterra signed a voluntary agreement with local councils and freezing works to clean up the river. Fonterra has since encouraged its farmers to clean up their waste and plant trees alongside waterways.

Deforestation allegations
In August 2009, Greenpeace claimed that Fonterra was implicated in the destruction of Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests, causing deaths of orangutans and increased global greenhouse gas emissions. In response, Federated Farmers said the use of palm kernel does not cause the destruction of tropical forests as it is a waste by-product with almost no commercial value. A spokesperson John Hartnell stated that "Not one millimetre of forest is being cleared just to feed dairy cows".

Fonterra says it shares community concern about tropical deforestation, "which in some cases has been driven by the establishment of palm oil plantations". Fonterra says it has been proactive in ensuring a sustainable supply of palm kernel "and ensuring we do not support deforestation, directly or indirectly."

Fonterra is a member of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil to ensure it was informed or sustainability issues in South-East Asia and "to actively contribute to more robust sustainability certification systems."

Fonterra was also the subject of Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand protests off the Port of Tauranga on 16 September 2009 and Port Taranaki on 5 February 2011, where Greenpeace activists invaded ships carrying palm kernel animal feed, destined for dairy farms.

Palm kernel imports went from 0.4 tonnes in 1999 to 455,000 tonnes in 2007 and then to 1.1 million tonnes in 2008, one quarter of the world's palm-based animal feed. Greenpeace says that deforestation for the production of palm products is a significant cause of climate change, and loss of bio-diversity.

Greenpeace campaign director Chris Harris said only 4 per cent of palm oil came from sustainable sites. Greenpeace stated that forests were being cleared for the planting of the trees that produce palm oil.

In August 2016, Fonterra announced a new palm products sourcing standard that was developed in consultation with key supply partners, and following discussions with Greenpeace that began in December 2015. "The new standard requires Fonterra to purchase on segregated supply palm oil by 2018, and to work with suppliers of palm products to ensure that plans are in place for full traceability to plantation by 2018", said Fonterra's director of social responsibility, Carolyn Mortland.

Lignite coal use protest
On 17 November 2009, Greenpeace members protested at Solid Energy's New Vale opencast lignite mine near Gore, New Zealand, by unfurling a 40 by 40-metre banner reading 'Fonterra Climate Crime'. Greenpeace was protesting about Fonterra's use of brown coal (lignite) at the nearby Edendale Fonterra plant. Greenpeace alleged that the Edendale plant will burn 179,000 tonnes of lignite, which will release over 250,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.

In response to the protest, Fonterra said, "We use 13.9 percent less energy to produce each tonne of export product than we did in 2003. That's equivalent to the energy required to power 100,000 homes and, relative to 2003, represents a 320,000 tonne reduction in CO2e greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.
We use the best mix of energy sources available to us at every one of our sites. We're continually looking for ways to be more energy efficient."

In late 2018, Fonterra's Brightwater milk-processing plant, in association with Azwood Energy, began burning wood biomass, alongside coal, to reduce carbon emissions. Fonterra's Stirling milk-processing plant will run solely on electricity.

In February 2019, 350 Aotearoa, the New Zealand arm of the international climate movement 350.org, produced a video entitled, "Coalterra, Dairy for Death" critical of Fonterra's coal use – estimated at half a million tonnes per year.

In July 2019, Fonterra announced it would install no new coal boilers. Coal Action Network Aotearoa welcomed the decision, but warned against utilising other fossil fuels, such as gas, in substitution, suggesting wood biomass, as a better alternative.

Pollution prosecution
In September 2010, Bay of Plenty Regional Council made a statement that it had prosecuted Fonterra for allowing nitric acid and a caustic cleaning agent from its Edgecumbe milk processing plant to spill into a storm water drain and into a water course. Fonterra was fined $24,000. The Dominion Post and The New Zealand Herald reported the prosecution.

Fonterra is currently educating its sites on the best way to reduce pollution.

Environmental Awards
In 2007, Fonterra won two awards in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, Energywise Awards:

 Transpower Project Innovation Award; Winner: Fonterra Co-operative Group – Whareroa heat recovery loop
 Contact Energy Management Award; Winner: Fonterra Co-operative Group – Energy efficient project management team Fonterra was also commended for its road to rail project by the EECA.

In 2008, Fonterra Edendale won the New Zealand Clean Air Society's annual Clean Air award, which recognises exceptional contributions by individuals and businesses to researching and improving the environment.

In 2009, Fonterra won the supreme prize at the Packaging Council of New Zealand's Environmental Packaging Awards for its introduction and promotion of a more environmentally sustainable packaging.

In 2012 Fonterra won the Export Category at the 2012 TVNZ New Zealand Marketing Awards for their Anchor Strong marketing to the Pacific, with designs by Dow Design.

In 2016, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) recognised Fonterra's Edendale Site as the most energy efficient dairy manufacturing site in New Zealand.

In 2019, Fonterra business, NZAgbiz were awarded finalists in the 'Going Circular' category.

In 2021, Fonterra received the Low Carbon Future Award for the conversion to renewable wood pallets at the Te Awamutu site. The Low Carbon Future Award recognises emission reduction initiative undertaken by the New Zealand energy sector.

In 2022, Fonerra's NZMP Organic Butter – Carbonzero Certified won the "Most Innovative Dairy Product Award" at the Gulfood Innovation Awards.

In 2022, Fonterra's Maungaturoto site was recognised at the Water New Zealand Excellence Award for the reduction of water usage by 25%.

Product issues

Sanlu milk scandal

In September 2008, one of the biggest dairy companies in China, the Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group, 43% owned by Fonterra, recalled more than 10,000 tonnes of infant formula after a food safety scandal involving the criminal contamination of its raw milk supply with melamine. Court papers showed the company first began receiving complaints of children becoming sick after drinking its milk in December 2007, but only stopped production when Fonterra blew the whistle in September 2008. After the initial focus on Sanlu, China's quality watchdog said that inspectors had also found the chemical melamine in baby formula produced by 22 companies nationwide. An estimated 300,000 Chinese babies were affected, and six died after developing kidney problems as a result of drinking formula containing melamine.

Fonterra first became aware of problems on 2 August 2008, when the Sanlu board, which had three Fonterra directors, was advised there was a problem with the contamination of infant formula. A trade recall began shortly after Fonterra was first notified. Prime Minister Helen Clark later said Fonterra had been lobbying for a public recall since 2 August, but that "local authorities in China would not do it. At a local level … I think the first inclination was to try and put a towel over it and deal with it without an official recall." Ms Clark said she first heard of the contamination on 5 September and three days later ordered that Beijing be told directly, bypassing local and provincial Chinese authorities.

On 21 September 2008, an editorial in The New Zealand Herald questioned the "moral courage and leadership" of Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier. Citing Fonterra's number one corporate value, the journal questioned why it took nearly a month after it had become aware of the contamination before it notified the government. It said Fonterra's press release had been "minutely scrutinised by lawyers and spin doctors, and that the company was far less interested in 'moral courage and leadership' than it was in preserving its own position." The next day, Helen Clark, agreed that the company had been too slow to speak out. Ferrier was also condemned by Business Day for his "silent hand-wringing", when he should have immediately blown the whistle. Ferrier denied Fonterra knew that Sanlu lied for eight months to hide complaints about its baby formula causing illness. However, Access Asia, a Shanghai-based consumer consultancy, said Fonterra was a classic example of western executives in China "believ[ing] advice in business books that they must avoid making their local partners 'lose face' at all costs." It suggested Fonterra paid a heavy price in write-offs, a wrecked business and public condemnation.

In a video press conference with reporters in September 2008, Ferrier said Sanlu's milk supply may have been sabotaged. He added the company did not come forward with the information earlier because it was waiting for the recall process to move through the Chinese system.

David Oliver, a New Zealander who works as a corporate advisor to companies in the Chinese agricultural industry, feels that while Fonterra had board representation in Sanlu, it is unlikely they had much influence within the company as they had only a minority stake.

Ferrier said, "I can look myself in the mirror and say Fonterra acted absolutely responsibly in this one. If you don't follow the rules of an individual market place then I think you are getting irresponsible." Ferrier later said the feedback he received from both government and business contacts in China was that Fonterra was seen to have acted with integrity.

In September 2008, Henry van der Heyden, chairman of the board, said "As a direct consequence of the criminal contamination of milk in China, Fonterra has recognised an impairment charge of $139 million against the carrying value of its investment in SanLu." "We've learnt an incredibly painful lesson through this and we will be much, much more suspicious worldwide on ensuring the safety and integrity of our supply chain everywhere in the world", said Ferrier. But he also pointed out that the company can never be 100% certain against a criminal contamination of the supply chain, which is what happened in this incident.

On 17 September 2008, Fran O'Sullivan noted that Fonterra had already set "up a 3000-head dairy farm in China itself to provide quality product and demonstrate best practice."

On 10 October 2008, Ferrier announced in Beijing that Fonterra will "donate NZ$8.4 million to the Soong Ching Ling Foundation over five years for a co-operative charity project to provide medical care and advice to pregnant women and the mothers of infants in rural communities." Andrew Ferrier said Fonterra was "shocked by the degree of tragedy" and the donated fund is set up to "help over the long-term in infants and maternal mother health." Andrew Ferrier said Chinese consumers have lost confidence in Sanlu, not Fonterra, and Fonterra is working towards rebuilding a safe supply chain of dairy products.

In April 2009, during a state visit by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key to Beijing, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao asked Prime Minister Key for help in developing food safety standards for China. Mr Key said the Chinese Premier considers 2008's contaminated milk scandal a one-off incident that can be put behind both countries. A report by Fran O'Sullivan in the New Zealand Herald said that Fonterra had learnt some heavy lessons from Sanlu and the company would have to have confidence in the safety of its milk supply chain in China before reinvesting significantly in the local production of dairy products.

On 24 November 2009 two Sanlu former workers Zhang Yujun and Geng Jinping were executed.

DCD contamination
In September 2012, traces of 2-Cyanoguanidine, a fertiliser commonly referred to as DCD that is used to slow down nitrate leaching, was found in some milk samples. Fonterra, Federated Farmers and the Government moved quickly to reassure the public and overseas buyers there was no risk to health. Fonterra has received praise for its handling of the DCD issue. The levels were very low and attempts were made to prevent the test results from being reported in the media.

On 16 August 2013 a Sri Lankan court banned the sale and advertising of all Fonterra products in Sri Lanka. The health ministry has said tests by Sri Lanka's Industrial Technology Institute found DCD in some Fonterra powdered milks and it had ordered their recall.

Botulism scare

On 3 August 2013, authorities in New Zealand announced a global recall of up to 1,000 tonnes of dairy products after tests identified a type of bacteria that could cause botulism. Products included were infant formula, sports drinks, protein drinks and other beverages. The countries affected were New Zealand, China, Australia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.

Fonterra's head of its milk products business, Gary Romano, resigned over the scandal on 14 August 2013.

In late August 2013 laboratory test results revealed that the bacteria found in the whey protein concentrate manufactured by Fonterra was not the botulism-causing Clostridium botulinum.

Legal issues

Court case of Fonterra vs Bega Cheese
Fonterra marketed and distributed the Bega Cheese brand, under an agreement established between the two companies in 1999. Fonterra later raised the issue of Bega otherwise using the Bega brand to market peanut butter. Bega themselves have since challenged this, accusing Fonterra of not living up to the agreement by not promoting the brand and therefore devaluing it. The case was ongoing in 2020.

See also
Dairy farming in New Zealand

References

External links

Fonterra
Fonterra Riverina Fresh
Fonterra Food Service Malaysia
RD1
GlobalDairyTrade

Agricultural cooperatives
Multinational dairy companies
Dairy cooperatives
Dairy products companies of New Zealand
2008 Chinese milk scandal
Dairy farming in New Zealand
Companies based in Auckland
New Zealand brands
Food and drink companies established in 2001
Companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange
New Zealand companies established in 2001
Science and technology in New Zealand

Fonterra


(4107) Rufino ist ein Hauptgürtelasteroid, der am 7. April 1989 von der US-amerikanischen Astronomin Eleanor Helin vom Palomar-Observatorium aus entdeckt wurde.

Der Asteroid wurde nach Rufus J. Walker, einem US-amerikanischen Arzt und Leiter des medizinischen Teams des Jet Propulsion Laboratory benannt.

Einzelnachweise

Weblinks

Hauptgürtelasteroid unter 50 km Durchmesser

(4107) Rufino


Clube Recreativo Atlético Campoverdense, mais conhecido como Atlético Campoverdense, é um clube brasileiro de futebol da cidade de Campo Verde que é uma cidade de Sulistas no estado de Mato Grosso.

História

Foi fundado por Sulistas no dia 19 de outubro de 2005. Suas cores são o azul, branco e o amarelo. No Mês de Janeiro de 2012, o clube mudou seu nome de Clube Recreativo Atlético Campoverdense (CRAC) para Clube Atlético Campoverdense, e passou a ser chamado de Atlético Campoverdense. Em 2011, ganhou a 2ª divisão do Campeonato Matogrossense de Futebol, que foi realizado pela FMF.

Títulos

Clubes de futebol de Mato Grosso
Clubes de futebol fundados em 2005
Campo Verde
Fundações em Mato Grosso em 2005

Clube Recreativo Atlético Campoverdense


Utrka s preprekama (engl. obstacle course racing (OCR)) je sport u kojem natjecatelj krećući se na nogama mora savladati razne fizičke izazove u formi prepreka. Utrke variraju u duljini, broju prepreka te udaljenosti između prepreka.

Povijest
Joe De Sena je osnivač Spartan utrke. U svojem životu je završio maratone, ultramaratone, ironmane i pustolovne utrke. 2007. je na svom imanju organizirao utrku pod imenom "Utrka Smrti" koju je završilo 3 od 8 njegovih prijatelja. Utrka, na kojoj osim što se trčalo, moralo se svladati razne prepreke. Već 2009. godine osnovao je Spartan Race. Spartan Race je brand koji organizira utrke s različitim brojem preprepreka i različitih udaljenosti. Prepreke s kojima se suočavaju natjecatelji su raznovrsne; preskakanje zidova različite visine, penjanje užetom na 5 m visine, puzanje ispod bodljikave žice, nošenje kanti ili vreća uzbrdo, bacanje koplja u metu, prelaženje prepreka držeći se samo rukama (karike, šipke,…), prelaženje blatnih rupa gdje se povremeno treba zagnjuriti u blatnu vodu i slično. Nemogućnost dovršavanja prepreke ili zadatka kažnjava se s 30 "marinaca" koji se moraju napraviti pred sucem nakon prepreke koja se ne može završiti.

Spartan utrke nisu prve utrke s preprekama. Utrka pod imenom "Tough Guy" održana je još 1987. Ima ih još nekoliko starijih pod imenom "Rugged Maniac", "Tough Mudder", "Warrior Dash" itd.

International Obstacle Race Federation koja okuplja utrke s preprekama, pustolovne utrke i ninja utrke osnovana je 2014.

U Hrvatskoj
"Combat Race" (hrvatski brand) je prvi put održan 2013. u Belom Manastiru.

"Mountain Madness" (hrvatski brand), prva planinska utrka s preprekama u Hrvatskoj, prvi put je održana 2015. u Ravnoj Gori.

Spartan utrka s preprekama prvi put je u Hrvatskoj održana 2023. u Svetoj Nedelji.

"Challenger Race" (hrvatski projekt) održan u Varaždinu 2023. je hibrid utrke s preprekama i CrossFita.

Vidi
Spartan utrke s preprekama u Hrvatskoj

Izvori

Atletske discipline

Utrka s preprekama


نادي الشباب لكرة القدم هو أحد الاندية البحرينية، ويلعب في الدوري البحرني الممتاز لكرة القدم. ويقع نادي الشباب في مدينة جدحفص بالبحرين.

التأسيس
اندمجت اندية كل من: (الدية) و (السنابس) و (جدحفص) و (النعيم) و (كرانة) و (السهلة) و (كرباباد)
مع نادي الشباب عام 2001

تاريخ نادي الشباب الرياضي

بعد سلسلة من اللقاءات والاجتماعات مصحوبة بالكثير من الجهود الدءوبة والمخلصة تمخضت عن أتفاق عددُ من أندية غرب العاصمة والمنطقة الشمالية بشارع البديع التي تمتد من النعيم شرقاً حتى كرانه غرباً وتم تسمية المولود الجديد بـ«نادي الشباب» وقد شملت كل من نادي النعيم، السنابس، الدية، جدحفص، كرباباد، السهلة، كرانه.

لقد راودت فكرة الدمج إدارات أندية الدية والسنابس وجدحفص منذ مايزيد على أكثر من عقد من الزمن وكانت هناك محاولات بين الحين والآخر بشكل ثنائي أحياناً وثلاثي حيناً آخر إلا إنها لم يكتب لها النجاح نتيجة لمجموعة من العوامل الذاتية منها الموضوعية.

لقد سبقت جهود هذه الأندية الثلاثة توجه المؤسسة العامة لتبني إستراتيجية لاندماج الأندية ضمن أندية نموذجية موزعة بشكل متوازنٍ على مناطق البحرين إيماناً من هذه الأندية بصواب هذا التوجه في سبيل معالجة الكثير من أوجه القصور التي كانت تعاني منها هذه الأندية لتحقيق الاستثمار الأمثل للموارد المالية والمصادر البشرية حيث كانت جميع هذه الأندية تعاني من شحة الموارد المالية وعزوف عن المشاركة الفعالة من قبل الأعضاء مما أثر سلبياً بشكل كبير على قدرة هذه الأندية على تطوير أوضاعها وتحقيق ما تصبوا إليه من أهداف ضمن المناطق التي تنتمي إليها بشكل خاص أو على صعيد المساهمة الإيجابية في دعم القطاع الرياضي في البحرين بشكل عام.

لقد كان تركيز نادي جدحفص على كرة القدم وعلى الرغم من حصوله على بطولة الدرجة الأولى وصعوده للممتاز عدة مرات إلا إنه لم يستطع البقاء لمدة طويلة وكان ذلك على حساب أنشطة أخرى مثل كرة اليد التي ألغيت وتنس الطاولة.

وكان وضع نادي الدية أصعب حيث لم يكن هناك مقراً للنادي وتم إلغاء عدة أنشطة مثل كرة القدم على الرغم من منافسته لمدة طويلة على بطولة الدرجة الثانية وتحقيقه عدة بطولات في تنس الطاولة وتكوين فرق كرة السلة وكرة الطائرة كونه من أقدم الأندية التي شاركت في نشاطات الاتحادات الرياضية وبقي نشاط كرة اليد وأستطاع الفريق الصعود للدرجة الأولى أكثر من مرة إلا إنه أيضاً لم يستطع البقاء لمدة طويلة.

وقد تميز نادي النعيم بوجود فريق كرة اليد إلا أنه لم يستطع الفريق الأول الحصول على أي بطولة في الدرجة الأولى رغم البقاء مدة طويلة ولم تكن هناك مشاركة في أنشطة أخرى باستثناء نشاط لعبة الشطرنج.

وفي نادي كرانه كان التركيز منصباً على لعبة كرة اليد وألعاب القوى التي أستطاعت أن تحقق بعض الإنجازات إلا أنها لم تستطع الاستمرار في تحقيق الأهداف المرجوة.

وفي نادي السنابس لم تكن الأمور أفضل حالاً من الأندية الأخرى حيث بقي فريق كرة القدم في الدرجة الأولى لمدة طويلة جداً دون أن يستطيع الصعود للممتاز ولو لمرة واحدة وتراجعت نتائج فرق تنس الطاولة الذي كان يمثل أحد أقوى الفرق لفترة ليست بالقصيرة.

أنصب نشاط نادي السهلة على لعبة كرة الطائرة إلا أنها أيضاً لم ترقَ لمستوى الطموحات حيث كان الفريق في الدرجة الثانية.

البطولات المحققة
دوري ابطال العرب 2006

كأس الاشبال لكرة القدم 2013

بطل دوري الشباب 2013

وصيف كأس الاتحاد البحريني لكرة اليد 2011

كأس الملك 2004

المركز الثاني كأس الملك 2005

المركز الثاني كأس ولي العهد

بطولة الكأس والدوري لفئة الشباب 2010

بطولة كأس الأشبال 2010

مجلس الإدارة الحالي

ميرزا أحمد علي رئيس مجلس الإدارة
أمين يوسف الوطني نائب الرئيس للشئون الإدارية والمالية ورئيس جهاز كرة اليد
حميد محسن الربيع نائب الرئيس للشئون الرياضية
عبد الله منصور المولاني أمين السر العام
علي محمد الغسرة أمين السر المساعد
محمد عبد العزيز الدقاق الأمين المالي
حسن سعيد حسن رئيس جهاز الكرة
صادق رضي الأسود مساعد رئيس جهاز الكرة
محمد عبد الله كاظم رئيس جهاز كرة الطائرة
فاضل عباس عيسى رئيس العلاقات العامة ومساعد رئيس كرة الطائرة
أحمد علي الأسود رئيس ألعاب القوى
عبد الرضا هيات رئيس جهاز تنس الطاولة
علي منصور علي عضو مجلس الإدارة

الألعاب الحالية الموجودة

هناك حالياً خمسة أنشطة رياضية تشمل جميع الفئات السنية وهي:

 كرة القدم: الدرجة الممتازة
 كرة الطائرة: الدرجة الأولى
 كرة اليد: الدرجة الأولى
 تنس الطاولة
 ألعاب القوى

الطواقم الفنية والإدارية
 عبد الله عبد النبي الفردان
 يوسف الساحلي
 هشام عبد الجليل
 هيثم عبد القادر

تشكيلة الفريق الأول بنادي الشباب

مراجع

أندية كرة قدم أسست في 2001
أندية كرة قدم في البحرين
تأسيسات سنة 2001 في البحرين

نادي الشباب (البحرين)


රංගනය
බන්දු සමරසිංහ - සනී
සංගීතා විරරත්න
ශ්‍රියානි අමරසේන - සනීගේ අම්මා
ක්ලීටස් මෙන්ඩිස්
රුවන්ති මංගලා
නිලන්ති ඩයස්
ජයන්ත බෝපේආරච්චි
ආනන්ද වික්‍රමගේ - දුම්රිය ස්ථානාධිපති
සුසිල් පෙරේරා
රොනී ලීච්
පුෂ්පා ගුණවර්ධන
නිරෝෂා හේරත්
එච්. ආර්. රත්නායක
මංගල ප්‍රේමරත්න
රජිත හිරාන් චාමිකර
දමයන්ත පෙරේරා
උපාලි කීර්තිසේන
මේබල් බ්ලයිත්
ටිරෝන් මයිකල්
ටෙඩී විද්‍යාංකාර
නදී සරත් කුමාර
රංජිත් සේනාධිපති

ගීතයන්

සංගීත අධ්‍යක්ෂණය - සරත් ද අල්විස් ගීත ප්‍රබන්ධය - හේමසිරි හල්පිට
ලස්සන සුන්දර ගම්මානේ - නුවන් ගුණවර්ධන ඒ. බී. සී. ඩී. - චම්පා කල්හාරි, සංගීත් වික්‍රමසිංහ, උරේෂා රවිහාරි
සොයා පියඹලා - චම්පා කල්හාරි, සංගීත් වික්‍රමසිංහ, උරේෂා රවිහාරි
අද දෙනවා - සංගීත් වික්‍රමසිංහ
යනවා කොළඹ - සංගීත් වික්‍රමසිංහ නළු නිළියන් -

නිෂ්පාදනය
සහාය අධ්‍යක්ෂණය - ඇන්ටන් කිංග්ස්ලි, සංජය ගුණවර්ධන
කැමරා සහාය - අනුර කොඩිතුවක්කු, සහේෂ් කුමාර, සරත් පල්ලේවල
සංස්කරණ මැදිරි පාලක- හැරිස් නන්දසිරි
අංග රචනය - ජනක රණසිංහ
සහාය නලින් ගජනායක
කලා අධ්‍යක්ෂණය - සුමිත් හිරාන් ප්‍රනාන්දු
සහාය - චින්තක සුදාරක
සටන් අධ්‍යක්ෂණය - ටෙඩී විද්‍යාලංකාර
නැටුම් අධ්‍යක්ෂණය - චන්දන වික්‍රමසිංහ
ශබ්ද පරිපාලනය - ලයනල් ගුණරත්න
ශබ්ද සහාය - ආර්. එම්. සිරිසේන, ජගත් චාමින්ද, සුසන්ත ධර්මප්‍රිය, කේ. වී. නන්ද කුමාර, ආනන්ද වික්‍රමරත්න
දෙබස් පටිගත කිරීම - සුසන්ත ධර්මප්‍රිය
සැකසුම - සරසවි චිත්‍රාගාරය
රසායනාගාර කටයුතු හා පිටපත් මුද්‍රණය - ප්‍රසාද් වර්ණ රසායනාගාරය, මදුරාසිය
ගීත පසුබිම් සංගීතය සැපයීම - කරුණාදාස පතිරත්න
ප්‍රධාන කාර්මික ශිල්පී - සුරේන්ද්‍ර කුමාර්, යූ. කේ. එල් ප්‍රේමලාල්, උපුල් වීරසිංහ, නිහාල් දාබරේ, ප්‍රේමසිරි
ගීත පටිගත කිරීම - ජනක ශාන්ත, නිෂූ ශබ්දාගාරය
කැමරා උපකරණ - ෆිල්ම් ලොකේෂන්
නිෂ්පාදන සැලසුම්කරණය - වසන්ත සේනානන්ද, මෙරිල් සොයිසා, එච්. ආර්. රත්නායක
සම්බන්ධීකරණය - බන්දු සමරසිංහ
නිෂ්පාදන කළමනාකරණය - වසන්ත සේනානන්ද
නිෂ්පාදන කෘත්‍යාධිකාරී - සුමනා අමරසිංහ
නාමාවලිය - සාලිය ඩයස්

සැපට දුකට සනී


The New Economic Policy (NEP) () was a social re-engineering and affirmative action program formulated by the National Operations Council (NOC) in the aftermath of 13 May Incident in Malaysia. This policy was adopted in 1971 for a period of 20 years and it was succeeded by the National Development Policy (NDP) in 1991. This article looks into the historical context that gave rise to the formulation of this policy, its objectives and implementation methods as well as its impact on the Malaysian economy in general.

Policy overview
The New Economic Policy (NEP) which began with the Second Malaysia Plan (1971–1975) and lasted until the Fifth Malaysia Plan (1986–1990), had three main objectives, namely:
 To achieve national unity, harmony and integrity
 Through socio-economic restructuring (of the society)
 To minimize the level of poverty in the country (poverty eradication)

The NEP was conceived as a two-pronged strategy for eradicating poverty for all Malaysians as well as reducing and subsequently eliminating identification of race by economic function and geographical location. The Policy sought to achieve its objectives through rapid expansion of the economy over time and set its target of substantially reducing the incidence of absolute poverty by 1990. To achieve this, the Policy called for aggressive improvement of economic status and quality of life for all Malaysians through:
 Access to land
 Physical capital
 Training
 Public facilities

Concurrently, the Policy also called for fairer distribution of opportunities to participate in the widening range of economic activities. The Policy opined that the core problem that stood in the way of national unity was compartmentalisation of racial groups by economic function; particularly the association of Malay and other indigenous races with subsistence agriculture. To dissociate Malay and other indigenous races with traditional agriculture, the Policy called on the Malaysian Government to provide assistance to all Malaysians in:
 Finding employment
 Securing participation in economic activities
 Acquiring ownership in various economic sectors

As Malay and other indigenous races progressed in the modern economic sector, other Malaysians were encouraged to introduce modern agriculture to eliminate the identification of Malay and other indigenous races with subsistence agriculture.

The overarching principle of the Policy was the creation of "a socio-economic environment in which individual Malaysians find self-fulfilment within a system which provides for proportional participation, management and control in the economic life of the nation".

Policy Development Context

Colonial Period
During British colonial rule in Malaya, Malays had always been in close contact with British officials by virtue of being the subjects of the Sultan's Court. Administratively, Malays displayed a highly structured system, which enabled the British to embed themselves into the existing structure with ease. To communicate effectively with the Malay Rulers, Malays were employed by the British to work in Resident's Offices as clerical staff. However, Malays were mostly educated in Islamic madrasah, with little exposure to Western education. To ensure a competent administrative workforce, the British established Malay schools to teach to basic clerical knowledge.

The discovery of tin in Malaya in 1820s led to an influx of Chinese miners. This discovery led to disputes among the Malay Rulers, Chinese miners, affluent chieftains and villagers, resulting in formal British colonial rule in 1874. By 1885, Malaya became the largest tin producer in the world, accounting for 55% of global tin output. The prosperity brought about by tin mining was primarily shared between the British and the Chinese. As mining towns grew larger and became more economically important, urban infrastructure improved and these mining towns became the seat of administrative power for the British and traditional Malay capitals became insignificant.

In 1839, the vulcanisation technique was discovered by Charles Goodyear, which marked the beginning of the extensive use of rubber in industry. In Malaya, Henry Nicholas Ridley, Director of Singapore and Penang Botanical Gardens, introduced rubber plantations in the early 1890s when he managed to convince the Kinderly Brothers of Inch Kenneth Estate in Selangor and a Chinese tapioca planter, Tan Chay Yan in Malacca to adopt rubber plantations as a commercial enterprise. By 1911, labour imported from India involved in the rubber plantation sector totaled 126,665 people and Malaya became the world's largest producer of natural rubber. Educated Indians were employed in the estates' hospitals and clinics while the majority worked as rubber tappers.

Malaya's economy pre- and post-Independence
Before Independence in 1957, Malaya's economy was recovering from the destruction brought about by World War II, entailing huge reconstruction costs to the British colonisers. As the British sought to consolidate Malaya's economic policy between the Malay States, the Malayan Union was proposed to unify Federated and Unfederated Malay States into a single entity. This proposal was met with objection from the Malay community as they were angered by the way in which the Malay Rulers' assent was sought. Furthermore, there were concerns about citizenship and economic policies if the proposed union were to materialise.

After a short period of union, the British dissolved the Malayan Union and replaced it with the Federation of Malaya, with Tunku Abdul Rahman as its first Chief Minister. By that time, rubber and tin were the main source of income for the Federation and it was one of the more prosperous economies in the region. Its per capita income was ranked third in Asia, after Japan and Singapore.

British corporations dominated the lucrative rubber industry and large tracts of land were dominated by these British corporations such as Dunlop Plantation, Guthrie Plantation and Harrisons & Crossfield. However, the British agricultural policy during that period discouraged participation of indigenous communities in the export crop economy, despite interest in smallholding rubber plantations. This development left the indigenous population in subsistence agriculture producing largely for domestic production and consumption, while the British and other communities expanded their interest in commercial agricultural production and dominated the export crop economy.

After independence, the Federation of Malaya government pursued a diversification policy to promote other economic activities. The government also acknowledged that dependency on rubber and tin as the main contributors to the national income could not be immediately reduced. The poverty rate up to 1970 was high at 49%, with the indigenous communities holding less than 3% of the national economy.

Racial Riots of 1969

The racial riots of 1969 occurred against the backdrop of high poverty rates among the indigenous population and was compounded by communal political tension. Perceptions among the communities persisted and helped fuel mistrust, especially between the Malay and Chinese communities. At the more affluent neighbourhood of Petaling Jaya, it was evident that people with similar socioeconomic status were the least affected by the riots.

The precursor to the racial riots of 1969 occurred in Singapore in 1964, which led to the expulsion of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia. The main opposition party, People's Action Party (PAP), called for equality for all Malaysians and challenged the domination of the ruling Alliance coalition in the Federal Government election of 1964. This was known as the 'Malaysian Malaysia' campaign. As communal tension threatened to turn violent, the Federal Government decided to expel Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia.

Suspension of Parliament and formulation of the New Economic Policy
In the wake of the riots, the government declared a state of national emergency and Parliament was suspended. A caretaker government, the National Operations Council (NOC), was formed and chaired by Tun Abdul Razak. After restoring order and setting the constitutional framework, the New Economic Policy was announced in the Second Malaysia Plan. The socio-political justification for NEP was:

Policy benchmarks
The NEP had the stated goal of poverty eradication and economic restructuring so as to eliminate the identification of ethnicity with economic function. The initial target was to move the ratio of economic ownership in Malaysia from a 2.4:33:63 ratio of Bumiputra, Other Malaysian, Foreigner ownership to a 30:40:30 ratio. This was to be done by redistributing the wealth to increase the ownership of enterprise by Bumiputras from the then 2.4% to 30% of the share of national wealth. The 30% target for Bumiputra equity was proposed by Ismail Abdul Rahman after the government was unable to come to a consensus on an appropriate policy goal.

Alongside this redistribution of wealth was the goal of increased economic growth. This economic growth would allow the non-Bumiputra share of the economy to decrease, while permitting the growth of non-Bumiputra business interests in absolute terms. In some quarters, this was referred to as "expanding pie theory": the Bumiputra share of the pie would increase, without reducing the size of the non-Bumiputra slices of the pie. This theory was first enunciated in the Second Malaysia Plan.

In 1975 the government created incentives to expand large-scale manufacturing industries and energy-intensive industries, targeting these industries and building policies around them. The Heavy Industries Corporation of Malaysia (HICOM), for example, was formed to assist in the manufacture of pig-iron, aluminium die casting, pulp and paper, steel, cement, motorcycle and heavy engineering. At the same time, export incentives were initiated.

Implementation
The abstract policies and goals of the NEP were implemented by the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Malaysia Plans.

Some specific requirements were introduced to achieve the 30% Bumiputra equity target set by the NEP. Amongst these was a requirement that all initial public offerings (IPOs) set aside a 30% share for Bumiputra investors. These investors could be selected by the company being listed on the stock exchange, or the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which would normally recommend such state-owned trust agencies as Permodalan Nasional or the Armed Forces pension fund. These shares were initially heavily discounted, as IPO prices were often significantly lower than prices after the listing had taken place. However, this advantage has disappeared in recent years. Nevertheless, this regulation has been criticised, especially as the 30% target continues to apply after the IPO has occurred; if the Bumiputra investors divest their shares, the company must issue new shares to maintain the proportion of Bumiputra shares above 30%.

Results
Wealth in the hands of the bumiputras went from 4% in 1970 to about 20% in 1997. The overall wealth of the country as a whole also grew; per capita GNP went from RM1,142 in 1970 to RM12,102 in 1997. During the same period, absolute poverty in the population as a whole dropped from 50% to 6.8%. It is unclear what role the NEP played in these changes.

The effects of the NEP on wealth distribution are disputed. The Gini index declined from 51.3 in 1970 to 44.6 in 1997, and 1987 figures indicated the mean income of the Malays had improved relative to both the Chinese and Indian communities. However, some have used 1997 statistics with 70.2 percent of households in the bottom 40 percent income group as Bumiputra, and 62.7 percent of households in the top 20 percent income bracket as non-Bumiputra, to argue that inequities remain. The Gini index also began to increase in the 1990s, going from 44.6 to 46.4 between 1990 and 1995; meanwhile, 1997 figures indicated that Chinese incomes were increasing at a rate double that of Malays'. Intra-ethnic income differences also increased markedly, especially among Malays.

Bumiputra participation in the professions and private sector increased as well, although Bumiputras remain somewhat under-represented. Between 1970 and 1990, the Bumiputra share of accountants doubled from 7 to 14 per cent, engineers from 7 to 35 per cent, doctors from 4 per cent to 28 per cent, and architects from 4 to 24 per cent. The Bumiputra portion of the share market – a figure frequently cited as "a measurement of overall community wealth", despite claims that it was misleading – increased from 2 to 20 per cent over the same period according to one academic's measurements. The Chinese share also increased from 37 to 46 per cent, at the expense of foreign participation. Official Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange figures from 1998 were even more optimistic, indicating Bumiputra share ownership stood at 28.6% in 1990 and 36.7% in 1996.

The Chinese community in Malaysia accepted the NEP as a necessary evil to avoid Indonesian-style aggression, which the ruling party consistently instigate and deemed appropriate as their threat based policy. Furthermore, the Chinese community generally moved away from the public sector and set up businesses in the private sector, where the impact of the NEP was less pronounced.

In spite of the policies implemented under the NEP, the share of the national wealth owned by the non-Bumiputra races increased beyond the 40% mark. This figure, however, does not reflect that certain segments of the non-bumiputra population live in dire poverty. The Malaysian Indian and Orang Asli in particular form the lowest strata of the population in terms of economic ownership. The Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia are not considered Bumiputra under the Federal Constitution despite their indigenous status (see Bumiputra for further information).

Reimplementation
Officially the term of the NEP ended in 1990. However, much of it remained in effect through other governmental policies; the New Straits Times reported that this was because as of 2007, "the government believes the aim of having 30 per cent Bumiputera equity has yet to be achieved". In 2006, it was reported that the NEP would be reinstated under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, the ninth in a series of five-year economic plans. Originally, the NEP was replaced by the National Development Policy (NDP), which ran from 1990 to 2000. The NDP was supposed to have then been replaced by the National Vision Policy (NVP), which would reportedly have lessened the aggressive affirmative action of the NEP and NDP. However, UMNO later called for the NEP to be reinstated.

Criticism
In recent years, the NEP has come under attack as being an inefficient system that promotes a laid-back attitude among the Bumiputras; it is racial-based and not deprivation based. Several policies of the NEP which give economic advantage to the rich Bumiputras, such as Bumiputra quotas in ownership of public company stock, and housing being sold exclusively to Bumiputras, are viewed as discriminatory.

Many of the NEP policies strive for equality of results rather than equality of opportunity, with NEP proponents justifying the concentration on results rather than opportunity as by pointing out that measuring equality of opportunity is difficult or impossible. When the NEP was implemented, for example, it was announced that one of its goals was to have 30% of all equity in Bumiputra hands.

NEP critics have argued that setting a target of 30% of Bumiputras trained and certified to run companies would represent a better equality in terms of opportunity. Still others suggest this target may not work as training and certification does not necessarily guarantee equality of opportunity. Tun Abdul Razak's predecessor as Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, also opposed the 30% target, writing in the 1980s that "[a]n attempt was made to fill the target without thought for the ability and the capability of attaining it. ... Some became rich overnight while others became despicable Ali Babas and the country suffered economic setbacks".

The NEP is also criticised for not dealing directly with issues of wealth distribution and economic inequality; that it no longer helps the poor but is instead an institutionalised system of handouts for the largest ethnic community in Malaysia as the NEP does not discriminate based on economic class. Bumiputras of high and low economic standing are entitled to the same benefits. The statistical problems of categorising wealthy and disadvantaged Bumiputras in one group also meant that the NEP's goal of having 30% of the national wealth held by Bumiputras was not indicative of a median 60% of Bumiputras holding 28% of the national wealth, but could theoretically translate into one Bumiputra holding 29% of the national wealth, with the remaining Bumiputras sharing 1%. Some have alleged that because of this imbalance, some Malays remain economically marginalised. Criticisms also arose from the fact that there was no planned assistance for Malaysian Chinese and Indian communities to achieve their 40% goal during the actual implementation of the NEP.

The manufacturing sector is exempted from the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC) Guidelines, the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity and restrictions in market entry have been removed for all sub-sectors.(pdf)

Education
The education policy of the NEP is one of the plan's more controversial points.

Bumiputras were accorded quotas for admission to public universities until 2002. These quotas were fixed, however, and in later years meant that the Bumiputra were allotted a significantly lower percentage of places originally intended, as the population figures used to calculate the quotas were based on 1970s numbers. Despite this, the quotas were still considered by many non-Bumiputra as unfairly rewarding the Bumiputra. The government removed these quotas in 2003.

The removal of the quotas has done little to remedy the perceptions of Bumiputra bias in the public tertiary education system. Most Bumiputras opt to enter a one-year matriculation programme, which is considered by some to be less intensive than the two-year Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) or Malaysian High Certificate of Education, which is equivalent to the British A-levels. Although the 'grade' standards required for admission are the same for both programmes, there is no moderation to ensure the difficulty of achieving a grade standard is the same between both programmes. The Malaysian High Certificate of Education (STPM) is open to all races, but the Matriculation programme has a 10% quota for non-Bumiputras (meaning that 90% of students admitted must be Bumiputra). In practice significantly more Bumiputra enter the matriculation program, even after normalising for ethnic demographics.

These differences predate the removal of hard quotas. The difference in academic routes in fact begins in secondary school. Many Bumiputra enter public boarding secondary schools (sekolah asrama) whereas most non-Bumiputra remain in normal public secondary schools. The exams taken are the same until form 5 but then most Bumiputra go on to matriculation, whereas non-Bumiputra do STPM. However, even Bumiputra who remain in 'normal' secondary schools usually do matriculation instead of STPM. The lack of public transparency in grading of the papers contributed to this criticism.

The removal of quotas was largely reported to have resulted in an increase in the percentage of Bumiputra entering public universities. The perceived bias towards Bumiputras has meant that non-Bumiputra who can afford to do so choose to enter private colleges or to go overseas to further their education. There is a significant proportion of non-Bumiputra who do not enter into contention for admission to public universities. It is also alleged that during the marking of examination scripts in the Government exams, that Malay/Bumiputra students are given additional points even before the students sit for the exams. As a result, despite the removal of the Quota system, this alleged unfair advantage gives more places to undeserving students of Malay origin.

Critics argue that this policy of the NEP has also contributed to a brain drain. Others suggest that the NEP has contributed to racial polarisation and a feeling of marginalisation among the non-Malays.

However, as of 2007, Chinese Malaysians dominate the professions of accountants, architects and engineers while Indian Malaysians dominate the professions of veterinarians, doctors, lawyers and dentists well exceeding their respective population ratios compared to Bumiputra.

Changing mindsets
Some Bumiputras have spoken of reducing or eliminating the NEP; for example, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his maiden speech as United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) president to the UMNO general assembly in 2004 stated "Let's not use the crutches for support all the time, the knee will become weak". Badawi went on to state that continued usage of crutches would eventually result in needing a wheelchair instead. As of October 2004, Badawi has not addressed any significant concerns about the NEP.

Not all Bumiputra political leaders shared Badawi's views. For example, Badruddin Amiruldin, who was elected as UMNO's Deputy Permanent chairman, waved a book about the 13 May incident at the assembly during his speech while declaring, "No other race has the right to question our privileges, our religion and our leader", continuing that any such action would be akin to "stirring up a hornet's nest". The following day, Dr. Pirdaus Ismail, a UMNO Youth Executive Committee member, stated, "Badruddin did not pose the question to all Chinese in the country. Those who are with us, who hold the same understanding as we do, were not our target. In defending Malay rights, we direct our voice at those who question them."

Agreement on the continued implementation (or reimplementation) is not always unanimous within the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition. In 2005, Khairy Jamaluddin, the UMNO deputy youth chief was debated by then MCA (the major Chinese component party of the ruling Barisan Nasional) vice-president Chua Jui Meng on a nationally televised debate – both leaders agreed to Chua's proposal to set up a national committee to review the NEP. However, as of 8 March 2008 general elections, this has yet to be implemented.

Because of the controversy over affirmative action policies in Malaysia, especially the NEP, it has been feared that the NEP may indirectly contribute to a decrease in foreign investment. In 2005, foreign investment fell by US$4 billion, or 14% – a decrease some commentators attributed to the controversy over the government's ethnic policies.

Equity calculation
The calculation of Bumiputra-held economic equity has been frequently disputed, with a number of allegations from some quarters that the government intentionally underestimated the share of Bumiputra equity to justify the NEP and its related policies. Although many affirmative action measures of the NEP were continued under the National Development Policy which ran from 1990 to 2000, and later by the National Vision Policy set to run from 2000 to 2010 – leading many Malaysians to refer to the NEP in the present tense – the official Bumiputra equity share remained less than the original 30% target.

In 2006, a major dispute arose when the Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) issued a report calculating Bumiputra-held equity at 45% – a stark difference from the official figure of 18.9%. The report's publication triggered a relatively vocal public debate about the status of the NEP and its related policies, with many from UMNO questioning the methodology used by ASLI. One strongly disputed issue was ASLI's decision to consider government-linked companies (GLCs) as Bumiputra-owned, inflating the calculated figure of Bumiputra equity. Although ASLI later withdrew the report, citing unspecified errors in its methodology, the debate did not die down. One political analyst suggested that "If Bumiputra equity is 45 per cent, then surely the next question is, why the need for Bumiputera rights? It has implications for government policy and it (removing indigenous rights) is one thing UMNO will never accept at present." Others have argued that the debate over inter-ethnic disparities has obscured intra-ethnic inequities, citing the increased Gini coefficient for Bumiputras (from 0.433 in 1999 to 0.452 in 2004), Chinese (0.434 to 0.446) and Indians (0.413 to 0.425).

A major point of dispute was the government's use of par value (as opposed to market value) of shares to calculate the equity held by Bumiputras. Many questioned the ASLI study on the basis that it had not used par value; conversely, others criticise the government for not using market value  . On another note, some critics later noted that a 1997 University of Malaya study had calculated the Bumiputra share of equity to stand at 33.7%, using par value.

UMNO critics contend that the official figure does not take into account the huge volume of shares, amounting to 7.9 percent in 1999, that is held by nominee companies. Independent studies have revealed that politicians and political parties, including UMNO, have resorted to using nominee companies to conceal their ownership of corporate equity from public scrutiny. Also, branded conglomerates like Proton and Petronas are not regarded by the government as Bumiputra companies. This approach tends to exaggerate non-Malay purchasing power. It is also not clear if the government calculations included the 2.7 million unincorporated businesses in the country.

At the UMNO General Assembly that year, Education Minister and UMNO Youth Chief Hishamuddin Hussein quoted a local study indicating that at current rates, it would take the Malays "120 years to achieve income parity". He also cited a 2004 statistic indicating that for every RM 1 earned by a Malay, a Chinese earned RM 1.64 as evidence that the income gap had not been eliminated. The Deputy Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, proposed increasing the target "quota" if non-Malays continued to allege that the 30% target had been met, as "By any yardstick, the Malays are still left behind".

Brain drain
See Brain Drain (Malaysia)

In simple words, a lot of non-Malays (Chinese, Indian) have left Malaysia to seek greener pastures (other developed countries) that does not practice policies that favors one race over the others in political, economical, and social context. This is believed to have led to the shortage of skilled workers, that directly causes the inability of Malaysia to pursue rapid economic development during the early 1960s until 1990s, during which the East Asian Tigers have done so.

Recent developments

NEP for the southern Thailand Muslims
The chief minister of Malaysia's Kelantan State also PAS (Islamic Party of Malaysia) spiritual leader Nik Aziz said that Thailand should consider introducing an affirmative action policy like Malaysia's to narrow the social and economic gap between the Muslims and non-Muslims and to put a plug to the surging violence in southern Thailand.

Poll shows most Malaysians want NEP to end
71% of Malaysians agree with the statement that Barisan Nasional's "race-based affirmative action policy is obsolete and must be replaced with a merit-based policy", the survey poll was conducted by the independent Merdeka Centre between 18 June 2008 and 29 July 2008, the result showed that up to 65 per cent of Malays who were asked the question agreed that race-based affirmative action should be done away, compared with 83 per cent of Chinese and 89 per cent of Indian respondents.

Najib ready to end special privileges for Malays
In October 2008, the deputy prime minister Najib Razak said "if we do not change, the people will change us". "In the not-too-distant future, we will see all the elements of the New Economic Policy being replaced." "It's a huge challenge," "There must be this political will and desire to change within UMNO. I don't think we can expect people to look at us in more favourable terms unless we change, unless we rectify our weaknesses."

See also
 Ali Baba (business)
 Buku Jingga
 Bumiputera (Malaysia)
 Economy of Malaysia
 Ketuanan Melayu
 New Economic Model
 Native Indonesians
 Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa

Notes and references

Other references
 Bennet, Abang (30 October 2005). " UMNO: A threat to national prosperity". Malaysia Today.
 Goh, Cheng Teik (1994). Malaysia: Beyond Communal Politics. Pelanduk Publications. .
 Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim. (2007). Fundamental of Development Administration. Selangor: Scholar Press.
 Musa, M. Bakri (1999). The Malay Dilemma Revisited. Merantau Publishers. .
 Ye, Lin-Sheng (2003). The Chinese Dilemma. East West Publishing. .
 James Chin (2009) James Chin. The Malaysian Chinese Dilemma: The Never Ending Policy (NEP), Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies, Volume 3, 2009, pp. 167–182
 Durrishah Idrus (2003). New Economic Policy and the Birth of Malaysia's Own Industrial Relations System. Jurnal Kemanusiaan .
 Just Faaland, Mukhriz Mahathir and Khairy Jamaluddin (2003). Malaysia's new economic policy: An overview. Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn Bhd.
James Chin (2021) Affirmative Action at 50 in Malaysia A brief history and evaluation of the NEP, the never-ending policy, Tablet, 25 May

External links
 TimeAsia's A Working Racial Bias published on 20 August 1990, asking about NEP For years, the rules favoured Malays. Should they continue?
 Malaysia's New Economic Policy and "National Unity" presented by Jomo K. Sundaram at UNRISD conference in Durban, South Africa, 3–5 September 2001.

Economic history of Malaysia
Affirmative action in Asia
New Economic Policy
Public policy in Malaysia
1971 establishments in Malaysia
1990 disestablishments in Malaysia
Racial and religious quotas in Malaysia

Malaysian New Economic Policy