While the Malay Agenda will top the discussions, non-Malays will also be following the event closely. 

As a communal-based party, it is understandable that Umno would debate issues affecting the Malays.  

Defending the rights of the community is the crux of the party's philosophy and there is absolutely no reason for Umno to be apologetic over this. 

The fact is that Umno calls the shots in this country and that is a political reality that Malaysians must live with, whether they like it or not.  

No other party, whether in the Government or Opposition, can come close to Umno's strength. 

Speakers at the 57th general assembly can be expected to talk about protecting the rights of the Malays on economics, race, religion and language, which will receive both national and international attention. 

There are bound to be some muscle-flexing among the speakers, to project themselves as defenders of the community.  

Even at the annual meetings of the MCA and MIC, there have been such familiar tones. 

But Umno leaders must also realise that they are also Malaysian leaders.  

Malaysians look upon them to steer the country's course in their capacities as Cabinet ministers and mentris besar. 

While their executive positions are dependent on their performances at party levels, they must never forget that they have been elected as members of Parliament and state assemblymen with the support of the other races. 

It is commendable that Umno deputy president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has advised delegates to be sensitive to the feelings of non-Malays in Malaysia's multiracial society. 

Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein also asked younger leaders of the Youth wings of BN component parties to build trust among themselves and work towards a joint destiny. 

He said there were those who had been tempted to look at issues purely based on their racial group to gain temporary popularity with their own race, adding that in the long run that would not be beneficial to the party nor the individual. 

The Education Minister said that approach had been proven in history to be not acceptable by the majority of Malaysians. He said one of the issues Umno Youth would be discussing at the assembly would be its relationship with the Youth wings of the BN component parties. 

The assurances of these two senior Umno leaders are important in the run-up to the Umno general assembly, particularly when race relations in Malaysia had been tested in recent months. 

From the question of bumiputra equity to Bangsa Malaysia and the alleged baptism of Muslims, the issues have caused uneasiness among many Malaysians, and invoked sharp responses from some people who do not grasp the meaning of moderation and compromise. 

Knee-jerk reactions often lead to emotional responses which we often regret later.  

One example is the SMS rumours of the alleged baptism of a group of Muslims in a Perak church which were false, but thankfully fair-minded leaders like Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his deputy put their foot down on such irresponsibility. 

Moderate leaders like Abdullah and other Umno leaders reassured Malaysians, especially non-Malays, that they have a place in a plural society and that fanaticism will not be tolerated here. 

That aside, Umno speakers especially the younger ones, and with the general election expected in 2008, must bear in mind that even as they speak up for their community, they must not forget their fellow Malaysians who are not Malays. 

Over the next few days, as Malaysians shift their attention to the Putra World Trade Centre, they must include other important issues confronting the nation in an increasingly competitive world. 

In a flattening world where trade barriers and old rules have been dismantled, Malaysians would want to hear how Umno intends to put up new models in a new economy so that Malaysia can climb up in the ranks of the global economy report.  

It is essential that bumiputras, who form the majority of this country's population, play a pivotal role in what Najib has dubbed the globalised bumiputras. 

The competitors of the bumiputras are not their fellow Malaysians, regardless of their races, but the educated and skilled workforce in Bangalore, India, and in China's Beijing, Shenzhen, Dalian and Shanghai, not to forget the fast growing economies of Vietnam and Indonesia. 

Malaysians trust that Umno leaders would not just talk about how the size of the economic cake should be cut but more importantly focus their mind on how to expand the cake.  

Abu Bakar's warped logic is that the sexy dresses of the women reporters are to be blamed for the action of the Peeping Tom.  

There were no promises of a thorough investigation to bring the culprit to book and certainly no sympathy nor apology from him but a quick shift of the blame on the reporters doing their work.  

Abu Bakar's statement is bewildering and certainly he owes Penangites, not just the reporters, an apology for his remarks and we hope he will not claim that he has been misquoted, like many often do when they are pinned in a corner.  

It did not matter to him that the technician was supposed to record the proceedings of the council meeting. Nor was Abu Bakar perturbed that the safety and dignity of the reporters had been compromised. 

He seems to be more interested in looking for a scapegoat and has chosen the reporters.  

New Straits Times reporter Melissa Darlyne Chow, who has maintained that she was merely wearing normal office attire, has ended up becoming the issue of the incident now.  

Like the others, she has every reason to be upset with Abu Bakar's sexist remarks. He is no different from the likes of PAS leaders who blame rape victims for their dressing instead of the lust of the predators.  

For simplistic-minded people, it has never occurred to them that even the tudung-clad in rural areas, including grandmothers, have become rape victims. Blaming the way women dress seems to be their argument, no matter how unconvincing it sounds.  

In Abu Bakar's own words – "The issue is the sexy dress of the journalist. If it was not sexy, it would not have happened." Sir, you have got it all wrong.  

The issue is what are you going to do with the Peeping Tom and what follow-up action would you take to make sure this does not happen again.  

The issue also is whether you, on behalf of the council, would have the decency to apologise to the women reporters who have become victims of the technician.  

Instead of spending taxpayers' money and time drawing up dress rules and codes, it might be better for the council to draw up rules to prevent such incidents from happening again.  

State Local Government committee chairman Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan has taken an impartial position by asking for everyone to keep an open mind as he awaits the council report.  

Dr Teng has said that no one was sure it was done on purpose and whether the CCTV was faulty.  

I am sure the reporters are prepared to accept what Dr Teng has proposed but Abu Bakar's immediate finger-pointing, or rather fault-finding, is perplexing. Abu Bakar ought to be aware that he is not merely serving the council but serving ratepayers as well. Penangites, who are known to be open-minded and progressive, must find his remarks hard to accept. 

Neither are there many Malaysian leaders who can emulate first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, the late Deputy Prime Minister Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, oppositionist Dr Tan Chee Khoon, the Seenivasagam brothers, socialist councillor C.Y. Choy and Penang's first Chief Minister Wong Pow Nee. These were names synonymous with integrity and ethics. 

Except for the Tunku, few Malaysians would be familiar with the other names. This is most unfortunate because their contributions have been tremendous. 

They led simple lives and in many instances forbade their children from telling their friends who their fathers were. Certainly, they never had mansions with 17 rooms built without approval. 

Despite the Tunku's aristocratic background and free nature, he understood the strengths of compromise and his moderate ways kept the country together, ensuring that all communities felt secure. 

Dr Tan, a religious man, was not charismatic and certainly was never known for delivering fiery speeches but the opposition figure of the 1970s understood one of the most critical traits of a leader: humility. 

Writing on leadership in Time magazine recently, Sherren Watkins noted that a humble leader listens to others and is prepared to hear the truth, even if it is bad news. More important, humility is marked by an ability to admit mistakes. 

How many of our elected representatives – or even appointed leaders – are prepared to take responsibility for their fallacies and admit their mistakes? Not many are prepared to step down even when their abuse of power and disregard for the law have been exposed. 

And even when they do admit to making a mistake, it tends to come across as a political tactic rather than a genuine act of repentance. 

They claim to be passionate about working for the people but ignore public views at the same time. These people of power have become so accustomed to the privileges, perks and applause of their followers that they find it hard to let go. 

They cling on to their positions, hoping to be rescued by their political patrons. If they succeed, they hope all will be forgiven as the media moves on to other concerns. In most instances, such strategies often work. 

Tracing the failures of the Enron leaders, Watkins, who lectures on leadership and ethics, asked whether society was cultivating humility as much as we ought to if we wish to produce God-fearing leaders. 

Enron Corporation was an American energy company that went bankrupt, causing 21,000 people to lose their jobs. It has since become a symbol of corporate fraud and corruption. 

Last week, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals Ted Haggard was forced to quit after being accused of seeking the services of a male prostitute and buying drugs from him.  

Haggard was considered one of the most influential men in the US because he had direct links to President George Bush and the Republican Party. 

Writing in the Leadership magazine, editor Gordon MacDonald asked: "Why are some men and women in all kinds of leadership getting themselves into trouble, whether the issues be moral, financial or the abuse of power and ego?" 

Admitting his own failures and humiliation, he cautioned: "When people become leaders, when they become famous and their opinions are constantly sought by the media, we ought to be more cautious." 

The drive to achieve ambitious goals can sometimes stray us into areas of excitement and risks that can be dangerous and destructive, sometimes even unstoppable, he wrote.  

There are parallel situations in Malaysia. Politics, sex, greed and even religion are powerful combinations and, sometimes, can be deadly. 

We come across leaders who like to pass themselves off as pious with their ability to recite verses from holy books and seemingly choosy with their diet but are tainted with allegations of corruption. 

Then there are some who put on the cloak of religion but their ambitions and actions are identified by their desires for power and position rather than their commitment to God, irrespective of their faith. 

Malaysians cannot be blamed if they seem disillusioned with some of our leaders. They talk of the rich and powerful getting away with violations of the law; sometimes they express frustration over high-profile cases such as the death of 14-year-old Chinese national Xu Jian Huang who was found dead in a swimming pool of an Ampang bungalow, and the fatal shooting of 20-year-old Sabahan Anthony Chang Kim Hock. 

Certainly, they want justice for the victims and their families. They find it hard to understand why the killer or killers in these two cases remain at large and cast aspersions at the system when powerful figures are reportedly implicated. 

The lesson for leaders, whether businessmen or politicians, is that many of them claim to speak on behalf of us, even as they misspeak. How we wish that they listen to us more. 

On Thursday, Zakaria announced his decision to resign as a councillor of the local authority after the Umno supreme council ordered him to pull out from the swearing-in ceremony for the councillors on Wednesday. 

Despite the defiance put up by his supporters, the two-term elected representative must have got the message as he informed local reporters near midnight via SMS.  

He should be thankful. He is still keeping his other positions in the party and state government including the powerful Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor land committee, which handles land matters in Selangor. 

Zakaria continues to head the Port Klang Umno division. He is elected to the post and no one can take it away from him. The former railway gatekeeper and waiter appears to enjoy the support of his division and the supreme council is correct in keeping the status quo. 

Well-connected and powerful, the Klang strongman has plenty of clout, which explains why even some senior Umno leaders are reluctant to comment on the controversy. One minister made a statement but called the reporter back quickly to retract it. 

That is the perception of the political and media circles, but over the past 48 hours, Zakaria has made serious efforts to change his tough guy image. He has depicted himself as a caring politician with a heart of gold for the villagers. 

He has listed to the reporters the charitable work he has done and has dismissed suggestions that he is rude and arrogant, saying the constituents did not even address him as a Datuk but only as Abang Zak. 

He has profusely sought forgiveness, saying he has made mistakes, like all human beings, and hoped that he would be given a chance to rectify them. That included submitting plans for his mansion, which is still under construction, and to pay his assessment for 12 years. 

The beleaguered politician has blamed the opposition, his architects and other jealous politicians for the furore that has gripped the nation for the last one week. 

When he finally met the press, the former office boy read from a prepared text and refused to take difficult questions relating to his mansion, the DZ Satay House built illegally on state land, and other issues. 

The controversy would surely fizzle out over the next two weeks as the media move on to other issues. Zakaria certainly hopes that all would be forgotten soon. Malaysians easily forget, anyway. 

The Umno general assembly begins on Nov 13 and national attention would definitely shift to the Putra World Trade Centre, where more pressing national issues would be discussed. 

But for many Malaysians, the Zakaria episode is an example of how some politicians can abuse their powers and are able to get away with it. There seems to be different rules for different classes of power. How many of us would be able to escape paying assessment fees for 12 years without facing some form of action from the council? 

The poor satay man had his extension demolished while Zakaria's restaurant continued standing following a telephone call from a purported Datuk to the council. How many of us have that privilege?  

It is more than just Zakaria not paying his assessment fees and ignoring the law; the abuse of power and the flaunting of his wealth have also disgusted many Malaysians. It is his seeming disrespect to Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah and Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Khir Toyo that has put off the public. 

But much more important is the question of credibility, integrity and accountability. Malaysians are dismayed that some of our politicians are unable to discern truth, and simply refuse to take responsibility.  

They call themselves the representatives of the people, claiming they want to serve the people, but humility seems to be a trait they do not know. Throwing crumbs to their constituents seems to be their notion of dedication to the people. 

The leadership risks sending the wrong message to the public with the light rap on the knuckle on Zakaria.  

No one disputes his divisional leadership qualities but the abuse of powers and disregard for the laws are surely serious enough for the leadership to ponder on, not forgetting the strong public sentiments on the issue. 

If there is anything to take comfort from the resistance put up by the councillors in refusing to step down from the MPK, it must be their passion to serve the ordinary people.  

Not many Malaysians would want to take up jobs that pay an allowance of only RM500 a month but politicians are fighting over each for other for these positions. We wonder why. 

After all, it was their first four-eyed meeting, but all hopes seem to be shattered now. 

While Malaysians expect some bits of information from the meeting, they
would have respected some form of confidentiality and discretion.
Certainly, Malaysians are realistic enough not to expect instant
results. 

The spirit of forgiveness during Hari Raya, however, spurred many of us
to believe that positive results, however little they may be, would
emerge from the meeting. 

Malaysians generally hoped for the best from Dr Mahathir and Abdullah, who are held in high esteem by many of us. 

We would like to see the spat between the two leaders end. Even as the
prospect of another meeting seems remote now, many still pray that the
feud would end. 

The criticism by Dr Mahathir so soon after the meeting must have caught
many by surprise. The follow-up criticisms stunned us further. 

It would not be wrong to say that Dr Mahathir, who has been consistent
in saying he could continue his criticism, could have waited at least
until the festival was over. 

Surely it would not be wrong to say that politics should be put aside as Malaysians celebrate the Hari Raya. 

But the mood has been dampened. The favourite topic of conversation at
many Hari Raya open houses, unfortunately, was the criticism by Dr
Mahathir. 

While the Prime Minister chose to remain silent on the first day of
Hari Raya, he subsequently rebuked Dr Mahathir, using strong language. 

Those who know Abdullah would testify that he is certainly one of the
nicest men around. Polite, soft-spoken and forgiving, he has seldom
flexed his muscles, even if he showed signs of losing his patience. 

Showing his frustration, Abdullah said he was "disappointed and sad"
over the row and blamed Dr Mahathir for continuing the dispute, saying
there were "heavy doses of venom". 

The message is clear – Abdullah is ready to act and talk tough. He is
in combative spirit. No one should even suggest that he is not in
control. He certainly is, no doubt about that. 

But the feud, where an angrier tone has emerged, has also worried
ordinary Malaysians. After six months, when emotions should have been
more controlled and even settled, it has entered into a somewhat ugly
phase. 

Even if the parties involved in the feud show no signs of losing steam, Malaysians are generally tired. 

Newspaper offices have been receiving telephone calls from readers
complaining that news of the political standoff has worn them down. 

For good or bad, the Prime Minister should be left to carry out what he
has been mandated to do. He is answerable to 25million people, not one
or two persons. 

His style of leadership may be different and some may even dislike it.
After all, we are used to Dr Mahathir's 22 years of fast-paced
administration.  

Dr Mahathir has said he has lost his patience, pointing out that the economy is not chugging fast enough. 

He has also said that he is speaking up on issues which many Umno
politicians dared not touch on, especially issues relating to
Abdullah's family members. He has managed to say what he had to say
directly to Abdullah. 

Dr Mahathir is entitled to his opinions and certainly there would be
Malaysians who share his views. His concerns surely deserve attention
and action. 

But others would also say that not enough credit has been given to the Prime Minister. 

There is certainly bigger democratic space and greater tolerance for
dissenting views. More space has surely been given to government
critics and not many share the view that Malaysia has become a police
state.  

At the international level, Abdullah has mended fences with countries
which had difficulties dealing with the previous administration. 

In short, it is only fair that the Prime Minister be allowed to carry on with his responsibilities. 

But after the series of strong words last week, many Malaysians cannot
be blamed if they have given up hope of any future peace talk. 

The doors may seem to be closed now. At this point, no one would even want to talk of another meeting. 

But as we approach a new year, a new beginning is what most Malaysians
would want to see. For sure, we do not want the same issue to drag on
into the new year.

Regular visitors to Jakarta can feel the economic excitement as the government under Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono continues its pro-business approach by loosening its control in many areas. It doesn't come as a surprise that Indonesia has managed to overtake Malaysia in terms of foreign direct investments. 

The FDI in Malaysia, on the other hand, has dipped to RM14.69bil last year from RM17.09bil in 2004. For the first time since 1990, Indonesia has managed to overtake Malaysia – FDI to Indonesia surged by 117% to RM19.46bil last year. 

Indonesia may still have an image problem, particularly those relating to Islamic extremism, urban poverty and corruption, but the new administration's policy of economic self-discipline is beginning to pay off. It is the only country in the region that is cutting interest rates and revising its economic rate forecast upwards as consumption starts to move. Indonesia expects its GDP to be 5.9% this year from 5.6% last year. 

The Jakarta Stock Exchange is also one of the best-performing markets in the region over the past one year. 

It doesn't take an economist to notice Indonesia is giving Malaysia a serious run for the money. Unfortunately, many Malaysians still continue to treat our neighbour as a supplier of maids and other cheap labour. 

The tough times that the Indonesians have gone through have strengthened their resilience. In contrast, many of us are spoilt and have lost our competitive edge. The numbers and facts are there, but many prefer to believe the good times will roll on forever. 

Like it or not, Malaysia has fallen one notch in the latest Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) in the annual rankings published by the World Economic Forum. We are now ranked 26th.  

The only good news is that in Asia, Malaysia retained its sixth ranking, after Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. 

The rankings are based on nine areas – institutions, infrastructure, macro economy, health and primary education, higher education and training, market efficiency, technological readiness, business sophistication and innovation.  

No doubt there is no reason for us to be alarmed over the drop in FDI and ranking in the GCI, but it is still a wake-up call for us. 

Malaysia has strong points like a developed infrastructure, political stability and an educated workforce with the ability to use English, which put us ahead of our rivals, but we need to constantly improve ourselves. 

Many of the concerns have also been seriously addressed under the Ninth Malaysia Plan by Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. 

While the 30% requirement of bumiputra ownership equity for businesses continue to be debated by investors, the country's reputation has been generally positive. 

The best-selling book, The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, made over 15 references to Malaysia and they were all positive ones. 

The book, which focuses on the explosion of technology in doing businesses worldwide, should be compulsory reading for all Cabinet members and, for that matter, all senior government officials. Hopefully, it will jolt policy-makers in Malaysia who are still complacent, and those with the mistaken belief that Malaysia is way ahead, into action. 

There are reasons to be concerned, even worried, at what is taking place in Malaysia. We need to tone down on our political debates and certainly we need to exercise greater tolerance at dissenting views instead of just shutting down opinions we cannot accept. 

We need to look at the larger picture and to pull together our resources to compete in the international market. The fact is that the Malaysian market of 25 million people is just too small. The squabbling over the economic cake does not help one bit if we are not prepared to look for the cake elsewhere. 

Singaporeans have long looked outside their tiny nation for businesses and have put their money in key companies in neighbouring countries. 

The question is that, beyond the slogans and terms that politicians like to use at annual party meetings, what should Malaysians do to make ourselves sharp in a fast-paced global market? 

As Friedman says, the world has shrunk and the world is flattening as we become more connected. Malaysia needs to realise the forces at work because if we don't, we will be left behind. 

Dr Syed Ali, in a strong rebuttal, said Mohd Fauzi Mustaffa was not fit to hold the position at Takaful and that he should repent for his arrogance in thinking that he has knowledge on the matter.  

He agreed with Dr Abdullah that the ban imposed by Fauzi was his personal view and based on a narrow understanding of Islam. 

The clarification by Dr Abdullah and Dr Syed Ali, who are authorities on Islam, is important because not many people would want to challenge such a directive.  

If left unchallenged, the directive would eventually become a practice, which is surely unacceptable in a plural society like Malaysia. 

The term Deeparaya – to denote the proximity of the two festivals – appears to be less used this season, presumably because some Malaysians are not sure how to react to such joint celebrations and they do not want to be seen to have committed anything that is regarded as sinful. 

Such reluctance could be because of the call by the Ulama Conference just four months ago, through its working committee chief Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, urging the Government to review the Kongsi Raya and the National Open House festivals. 

This was made following the National Fatwa Council's decision that celebrating the festivals of other religions could erode the Muslims' faith and lead to blasphemy. 

In an almost similar tone in the e-mail to his colleagues, Mohd Fauzi said wishing Happy Durga Pooja, Happy Laskhmi Pooja and Happy Deepavali was deemed as expressing greetings to the Hindu gods Durga, Lakshmi and Krishna, which he viewed as going against the Islamic faith.  

Going by Mohd Fauzi's interpretation, his staff may be banned from wishing Christians Merry Christmas too, as that could have religious connotations. 

Kongsi Raya or Deeparaya celebrations are merely social gatherings. And even if they have religious significance, Malaysians have long regarded them as celebrations that unite rather than divide the people.  

Such gatherings are devoid of religious rituals and merely depict Malaysia's multi-racial society. In fact, Malaysians, especially the young, should be encouraged to visit one another for a better understanding of this nation of ours. 

There is also no reason why Malaysians should shy away from visiting the places of worship of other faiths. 

Irrespective of whether we are Muslims or non-Muslims, we have no qualms visiting temples, churches or mosques when we are overseas.  

But for some reason, not many of us would do the same at home.  

Have we come to the point where Malaysians have become so sensitive, even as we profess that we are strong in our faiths? 

I remember, as a student at St Xavier's Institution in Penang, how our teachers used to take us on the round-island bus trips where we had to stop at different places of worship as part of our education.  

I am not even sure whether schools organise such trips these days, but the fact is the multi-religious character of Malaysia is being challenged by a small group of people who want to assert their religious belief and identity on others. 

Is our faith in God so fundamentally fragile that, on the slightest pretext, it would erode if we wish our Muslim brothers Selamat Hari Raya or vice-versa on different festivals?  

In the words of my journalist friend Rose Ismail, "This is hurtful to those of us who remain solidly Muslims even as we listen to Christmas carols or indulge in mutton curry during Deepavali with friends of other faiths." 

The mark of a free and mature society is surely the ability to tolerate differences and dissent, whether politically, religiously or ethnically.  

We have done well in the past but there is a need to improve ourselves now. 

Malaysians should not be made to be insecure, intimidated or frightened because they hold different views or because they wish to practise their own religious beliefs. That is their right. 

More important, Malaysians must be prepared to speak up because they must never allow the minority to impose their views or will on the majority.  

There is no reason why we should not stand up and express what we feel is not right. 

Responding to the National Fatwa Council in July, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Kongsi Raya celebrations had become popular social events for Malaysians, and that they should continue as long as they were not religious gatherings. 

It is important that religious figures emphasise on the similarities of our religions, which is a very personal matter, instead of harping on trivial differences, which does no one any good. 

We may have different religious approaches but we share the same belief in promoting friendship, peace, respect and goodwill for one another, and surely that is more important. 

Whether we like it or not, there will be individuals or groups who want to chip away our multi-cultural national identity. More than ever, moderate Malaysians must be prepared to stand up to defend what we have.  

test

The Prime Minister said the report by the Asian
Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) was wrong as it was based on
incorrect information. 

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the information used by the
Economic Planning Unit involved 600,000 companies. Asli, on the other
hand, reportedly gathered its information from a sample of 1,000
companies listed on Bursa Malaysia. 

The Prime Minister reiterated that government-linked companies (GLCs)
are not bumiputra companies as the profits were given to the Treasury
and the funds used for the people and country. 

Asli had reported that the estimated amount of bumiputra equity
ownership was 45% of the RM715.4bil worth of stocks and had thus
exceeded the target of 30%. 

The think-tank, in its report, Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy, estimated that 70% ownership of GLCs was attributable to bumiputras. 

The NEP, born after the 1969 racial riots, is aimed at eradicating
poverty and restructuring society. Under the 9MP, the achievement of
the 30% target has been revised to the year 2020. 

The Asli report has come under fire from some businessmen and
academics, who point to the high level of poverty among bumiputras and
their lack of representation in business and professional occupations. 

The debate, if conducted in a rational and non-communal approach, is
good for the nation as all Malaysians would want to see the NEP
succeed. 

No one in his right mind would challenge the intention of the NEP as it seeks to bring about a more balanced society. 

The eradication of poverty and the creation of a bumiputra middle-class
are essential but certainly Malaysia must find out why after 37 years
of the NEP, the rural mass has not reaped the benefits of the country's
success. 

So much public funds have gone into restructuring and
poverty-eradication programmes but the targets are still not achieved.
If funds are not properly utilised, an important question is how to
plug the leaks. 

Academics, using the class framework in their thesis, have blamed this
situation on the powerful elite. It is the politicians and businessmen,
with their connections, who have benefited the most from the NEP, while
the status of the working class has remained much the same. 

For example, the predominantly Malay taxi drivers still have to rent
their vehicles and work long hours to earn a decent salary, while
Chinese traders must depend on their hard work and savings to survive
in hard times. They have no connections and certainly they are not part
of the corporate equity. 

The question for ordinary Malaysians is: Why should the wealthy, for
example, get discounts for expensive houses or golf club memberships?
Rightly or wrongly, they blame the politicians for perpetuating the
continued ethnic divisions for their own expediency. 

For some academics, the question of corporate equity, regardless of the
percentage, remains very much in the hands of the rich, whether they
are Malays, Chinese or Indians. 

The "haves" and "have-nots" are not peculiar to any one race but include all racial groups; and that is a fact.  

While we we cannot escape from the reality of the country's
ethnic-based political structure, we can still conduct a thorough
reappraisal of our policies to meet the challenges of a fast-changing
world and to ensure the NEP's success. 

There has to be a meeting point somewhere. It is good for the country
to have a solid Malay middle class as well as educated, confident and
successful Malay entrepreneurs. It is imperative that the bumiputras
are made to feel secure that their political and economic rights are
intact. 

Pak Lah must be commended for ensuring that the Indian community will
own at least 3% of total national wealth under the 9MP. In fact, the
sizeable community, which has lagged behind, deserves more. This would
ultimately lead to the partnership of the Malaysian team. 

And while there are negative connotations to the Ali-Baba business venture, it is not necessarily bad. 

Why shouldn't a Chinese businessman have a Malay partner and
vice-versa? Why must a Chinese businessman be excluded to favour a
Singaporean businessman, for example, because a foreign partner –
instead of a Malaysian Chinese or Indian – may make the clinching of a
deal easier? 

For the non-Malays, they should also be assured that they continue to
have a stake in the national economy and not get the perception that
government regulations have blocked them. 

Their participation in the civil service, universities, police and army
is essential and good for the nation, just as a bigger participation of
bumiputras in the private sector is important. 

Likewise, if the GLCs, which are funded by the public, are wrongly
regarded as bumiputra-owned, it is simply because they are almost
headed entirely by Malay bumiputras.  

Such perceptions and insecurities are real and Abdullah, as the leader
of all Malaysians, must understand the fears, concerns and frustrations
of all Malaysians. 

He has been patient and willing to listen to the views of every group
and I, for one, certainly have faith in the Prime Minister. Malaysians
believe he is a fair man. 

Make no mistake about it. A dynamic business community is essential to
drive the country's economy as protectionist walls are torn down in the
international market. 

If Malaysia wants to compete with the emerging economies in the region,
we need to loosen up our rules and not impose more rules on ourselves. 

The Chinese business community with their links to China and the Malay
businessmen with Islamic ties to the Middle East are advantages that we
should emphasise. 

To ensure that Malaysia still has a pie to share, Malaysians must hold
their hands tightly together to ensure we do not lose out on
opportunities in the global community. 

There is little point in fighting over the crumbs if the economic cake
is not enlarged and certainly no community should be made to feel that
they are losing out at the expense of another community. 

A Malaysian approach, with a more universal appeal, is certainly needed
if we wish to forge national unity and to make everyone feel that they
are not being left out as we develop our one and only tanah air.