The Sun reported and quoted Dr Toh Kim Woon, state executive councilor and Gerakan member that \”the government has rejected the Asli study and its findings.\” Really? I do not think so, as the leader of Gerakan Dr Lim Keng Yaik has now requested the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) to reveal the basis of its figures, and none other than the deputy premier said the EPU will make the figures and the methodology transparent. To me, the executive arm of the government means the cabinet, and I do not believe that the cabinet has discussed this issue or even seen the Asli study.

All I know from the media is that many of the Umno senior ministers have rejected the basis of the study using simple logic and rather unintelligent dismissive language like \”rubbish\” or words to that effect. And most recently Mirzan Mahathir, president of Asli also \”appears to have unilaterally dismissed the study stating that \”the study made some wrong assumptions.\”

He refers to having discussions with his colleagues in Asli. Obviously that must have not included the author. Consequently, the lead researcher and author of the report, Dr Lim Teck Ghee resigned from Asli, as a matter of principle, because he disagreed with the Asli hierarchy\’s conclusion on the matter, and especially the president\’s statement regarding the \”wrong assumptions\” of the study. After all, this is a matter of intellectual integrity for any serious researcher. Wrong assumptions relate to the theory-building.

Much earlier the president of Umno and prime minister also gave some reasons for his dismissal of the new figures, quoting the EPU logic and basis of its figures. Equally, many other scholars also questioned the EPU figures and what the Asli study tried to do was make the case for an alternative model and methodology of measure. The possibility that the EPU figures may in fact not be accurate was what motivated the study in the first place. The entire argument of Theck Ghee, as the first and only research director of the CPPS (Asli\’s Centre for Public Policy Study) study (as we should now call it since Asli has rejected the study), is that an alternative model may be needed to calculate the \”equity ownership of bumiputeras and non-bumiputeras.\” In newspapers and internet media columns many other researchers and writers have equally questioned the EPU method and figures. Both Aliran and Just have also made their statements public. This is not really a new issue, but one that has been contentious for a long time. We simply need to agree on using the right ruler.

Truth of the matter?

Therefore, how can ordinary Malaysians know the truth on this methodology and matter? Is not truth important in such an important matter? Or, is this also one of those subjects where truth can be \”swept under the carpet\” under some \”edict or directive?\” Can such a truth-search ever be mandated? Is not all truth always finally revealed and never mandated; either by the Almighty or even the human representatives? Does not God always give us choice and is not this element of human preference, as a matter of fact, the ultimate basis for all human judgment? Is it not also the basis of all intellectual honesty? It can never always be what my boss says, or what the authorities say, or even what my religion says? How then do we determine the truth of such a matter in Malaysia? Is such a truth determination important under Pak Lah\’s Islam Hadhari or can and should we always decree such \”truth-seeking\” as too \”sensitive and dismiss it under the carpet of ignorance\” until it is too late? And then finally, after the fact, the need to set up a Royal Commission on truth when the subject had become a major omission? Or, was it only an apology? Remember the IPCMC?

\"\"

This most recent controversy over the findings of the CPPS study is only the latest of a number of issues which had reached a level of interest wherein we could have had a chance to \”transcend our racial biases\” to speak objectively and professionally about it. But the Umno nay-sayers came in and summaratively dismissed the debate or discourse for some unknown but predicable reasons. Truth can very often hurt and maybe the truth of this matter can cause a lot of hurt; especially if there is truth that 45% of all Malaysian equity was in fact given to the Malays and other bumiputeras over the New Economic Policy (NEP) years (even until today) but where has all that wealth gone?

Neither can every thing be blamed on the 1998/99 financial crisis. Most bumiputeras may want to know especially if they never saw this wealth, or whether the core problem has really been in the methodology of distribution of the wealth. Maybe, in fact, the same wealth may have gone unintentionally into the wrong hands of only the \”puteras\” – whether Umnoputeras, Tengku Wongs or even simply the Raja Puteras? This then could therefore easily become a \’bumi versus putera\’ spilt; which was the central thesis of the socialist and leftist arguments during the 70s. For that very reason, maybe it is in fact the right time for some serious soul-searching!

In my memory there are two other recent matters of national interest that have had the same treatment but let me caution that \”sweeping them under the carpet\” did not help resolve the \”truth of such a subject matter.\” It only postponed discussion to a later stage, when it became too emotive. And rather unfortunately, there already appears to be a racial divide in how the problem is defined and the subsequent debate being handled. The so-called Barisan Nasional coalition seems to be breaking down on such a foundational subject matter already agreed to under the original Social Contract after 49 years of rule. And Umno favors the historicity of the geography and continued Malay domination of all dialogue with the exclusion of the other equally important voices from within the family. The first controversial case was the M Moorthy tragedy which denied a Malaysian citizen her legal and legitimate rights of redress. Subsequently, the PM also rejected the memorandum on the subject after 10 of his peers, as heads of their respective political parties and cabinet ministers, gave him a memorandum privately and \”outside the framework of the cabinet.\” (Please see my earlier article for the full argument).

The second was the edict to cease the Article 11 dialogue. Even this nationwide dialogue organised by the Article 11 coalition was slowly but surely gaining a level of logical and rational hearing and comprehension regarding the issues but soon enough the president of Umno gave the \”gag order\” after Umno-PAS supporters \”illegally protested\”. Subsequently all the media obliged on the matter after the PM promised to meet the Article 11 Coalition on the subject. But most non-Malay Malaysians I know, are not happy with the \”way the issue is being handled.\” In my favorite language, there appears to be a lack of integrity between the espoused theory rhetoric and the actual theory in use; or as we say in Malay, \” cakap tak serupa bikin .\” Political rhetoric and public emotional statements override both logic and rationality in favour of a kind of racial or authority-based hegemony of the power paradigm era.

Truth or lies with statistics

A malaysiakini writer gave a good overview about how anyone can lie or tell the truth with statistics. Statistics can tell us and teach us various things if handled appropriately. But it can also be used to lie or cover half-truths. What is interesting is that while the EPU figures are accepted \”unquestionably by the mainstream,\” the CPPS study is being questioned without even appreciating or understanding the underlying model of calculation.

In fact, one of the co-authors, Terence Gomez has tried to articulate the \”context of the CPPS study,\” for those interested in truth. According to Gomez, the original and only purpose of the study was to respond to a call by the PM for inputs into the 9th Malaysia Plan (9MP) process. The CPPS responded with the study. My question to the EPU, why was the CPPS not called up to discuss their findings or even methodology if this was not agreeable? This was also Shahrir Samad\’s question and advice to both groups. The study was done in good faith and should not the EPU have also responded in good faith after it was given in February and more importantly, if the inputs were used for the 9MP process? I wonder why is the EPU not responding to this issue when we, for the first time in a long time, have a dedicated minister fully and directly responsible for the EPU? Why was it so important for the PM and now his deputy to respond regarding this study, when in many other matters, the relevant ministers \”appear to have the authority to address relevant issues?\” Like for instance the issue of the 1988 judicial crisis review.

My null hypothesis therefore is that the EPU cannot rationally and intellectually dismiss the findings of the study and therefore did not call the CPPS into a dialogue (which historically and traditionally could always have been done under the Inter-Agency Planning Groups or IAPGs. If I am not further wrong, the minister in charge of the EPU could even have easily hosted a top-level NEAC meeting to seriously address this issue with the intellectual proponents of the study, while including all other interested scholars. Is that not the proper way of dialogue.

To my understanding one of the four objectives of the CPPS study was to build a model to calculate the real equity ownership of bumiputeras especially after the last Umno general assembly made a categorical decision to continue the NEP in its current form. With this issue being highlighted and in the timing of the 9MP, it allowed scholars and scientists who believed the PM and his election promises to take a serious look at the bumiputera equity issue from a truly nationalistic perspective and \”try to show a new way forward in how the NEP can and should be continued but in radically new ways and especially to eradicate absolute poverty.\” Please review the full Terence Gomez article in malaysiakini to fully appreciate this. I would like to call \”this new way,\” symbolically, as \”the bottom 30% strategy\” of the revised NEP targets.

\"\"

A revised NEP?

The NEP in its current form is based on the older definition of a \”rentier model\” which is really no longer relevant. There are umpteen examples of such irrelevancy. Ask a taxi driver in KL or PJ and he will tell you how he \”works hard so that the company owner, a Datuk, can earn and become rich.\” The older model assumes that the new information world is predictable and controllable. But the truth is that the borders are porous and governments are losing control of all the borders and boundaries. Today, competition is ensuring that by simply \”owning and controlling the gates\” one cannot control the real business flows. As illegal immigration demonstrates, all our borders are today perforated and \”legislation alone cannot control the loopholes.\” Or, as my good friend Shahir Samad put it, there is the serious problem with the leakages or with inefficiencies in our distribution or execution model. The truth of the matter is maybe that \”cronies\” are getting most of the bumiputera portion of the equity opportunities being distributed by the government. That core issue maybe the real source of our problems.

A true \”free market economist\” would argue that we should \”let the market determine the winners and losers.\” And, that the government has no business to govern the market. In Malaysia, like in Singapore also, we have allowed the \”government to define and determine the domestic market and opportunities,\” based on our model of developmental economics. The only real difference is: \”Who or how does one choose or determine the real winners?\” In the very clear case of Singapore, they have relied on their GLCs (government-linked companies) as trustees and stewards of the societal ownership of all national wealth and these are run with absolute and total professionalism.

In the Malaysian case, we had \”originally chosen to use the PNB and the SEDCs plus other trust agencies to define the bumiputera equity ownership model,\” based on the 1970s BCIC Report. That ICDAU Team defined that original model of equity ownership and distribution. But somehow, in the 1980s, the EPU took over leadership in defining and shaping \”equity ownership\” under the so-called privatisation model; which in hindsight we have come to know had become, rather unfortunately, the \”piratisation model.\”

Government-liked individuals have used their privilege and position to accumulate favorable decisions for such ownership and often squandered such opportunities on behalf of all other bumiputeras. Thereby, the NEP target of 30% ownership agenda shifted from \”corporate ownership via trust agencies towards private individual ownership under the privatisation framework.\” Singapore did not follow this privatisation model. Obviously, while both countries practiced the Eastern model of developmental economics which accepted the role of \”state ownership\” of business interests, Singapore did not buy into the thesis that \”selected individuals can become entrepreneurs and thereby capitalists.\” Singapore understood and accepted that real entrepreneurship is learned and acquired \”in the blood\” by acculturation through trial and error with one\’s own money but never by government edict or hand-outs!

Therefore, if the government is going to be honest, we must declare that we have \”failed with our privatisation model of handing over the bumiputera trust to individuals rather than agencies.\” To me, the CPPS study only begs this question and asks the nation to begin a serious review of the whole definition and clarify our understanding of the bumiputera equity issue. It was not an attempt to question the policy itself. I believe the policy is needed but for the bottom 30% of the people.

Resolving the issue

\"\"

Therefore, to my mind the difference between the EPU model and the CPPS model is not about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the study or even the measure but that we may be measuring the wrong indicators, or better still, we are simply exploring new and better methods of identifying real indicators of wealth ownership and distribution models. The CPPS study used the overall concept of wealth ownership in the stock market to base their figures, whereas the EPU appears to be using the individual Malay equity ownership model. Both are to me correct but the real issue is not who are at the top 30% of the pyramid but rather who are at the bottom 30%. That is the real issue and which should therefore be the focus of the EPU figures.

In fact, I am also aware that the current UNDP resident representative has made this an issue with the Malaysian government and used some independent measures to make his case. But rather unfortunately the EPU and the government appear to be turning a deaf ear to the issue and the real problem that the majority of the bottom 30% of the Malaysian society may in fact be found in the villages and hills of Malaysia (other than urban poor), not in the cities and town council jurisdictions! For all we know the majority may not even be the Malays per se (although I am sure there is a sizable number in Kelantan and Trengganu) but will also include all the indigenous peoples of Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.

The UNDP has in the last UN general assembly declared Malaysia as an outstanding success in terms of the Millennium Development Goals, especially with our own model of development planning and implementation. When I worked for Tun Razak, his entire focus then was on the Rural Economic Development (or what was called the Red Book system) of Malaysia. Over the last 20 years or so, we have however shifted the bumiputera equity issue from a community- based and grassroots solution of the \”spread of the ownership of wealth\” towards a more modern and individualistic perspective on the ownership of capital. Therefore we may have lost sight of the real NEP agenda ala the Tun Razak era.

The real NEP agenda has an overriding agenda of achieving national unity wherein it was agreed that unless there is absolute eradication of poverty and appropriate redistribution of equity ownership, we cannot realistically achieve and sustain national unity. In the new language of Vision 2020, the same unity agenda is restated as the Bangsa Malaysia Agenda to be realised by overcoming the stated nine challenges. The nine challenges do not state the goal of achieving the top 30% ownership as an issue but takes for granted that as long as the Malaysian cake is grown fast enough; there should be no problems of redistribution of the wealth so earned.

Nobody I know today is really and totally against the NEP or the original targets, but everyone I know who is rational and urbane about it would also agree that it is truly time to review. They also agree that unless we learn to take care of the bottom 30% of our economy, we can easily become the festering ground for all kinds of extremism, whether we call it racial or religious or even language-based ones.

So let us all tread on these issues very carefully without missing the trees for the woods. And, based on the optimism I always have, I have one suggestion to resolve this issue rationally and outside emotive public dialogue. Since most of the critical original Social Contract observers like Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Dr Ling Liong Sik, Keng Yaik, S Samy Velu, Joseph Pairin Kittingan, Taib Mahmud and Leo Moggie are still around, maybe it will be wise to use them all for one \”final national service.\”

Why not set up a Truth Commission to look into the real and serious socio-economic issues facing this nation; a kind of review of the original Social Contract and an honest performance review of the NEP targets before it is too late. We cannot simply allow the very modern values of truth and justice defined only in individualistic terms to become the lingua franca of our Bangsa Malaysia agenda.

God Bless our vision of a Bangsa Malaysia: Truly united, we can stand to excel!