With reference to Gimfil James' NEP's plus points outweigh negative , there are a number of simplifications and other less than lucid arguments that lead to his point that the NEP's plus points outweigh the negative.

My own analysis leads me to believe that the best outcome is that we will never know the real effect of the New Economic Policy/New Development Policy.

The first mistake made by James is to assume that the cause of the NEP's resentment is about infringement of rights. But minorities in this country are overwhelmingly practical. They are more than willing to compromise on ideals for practical reasons. They are not willing to compromise if it is not practical.

Hence, the real source of their resentment towards the NEP is really about its effectiveness. This has been the argument against it from the beginning. The truth is that no one knows the effectiveness of the NEP and situation is made worse by government's refusal to allow debate on it.

Anyone asking for real statistics on the NEP/NDP will be sent off to prison under the ISA. The government's justification for not allowing a study on the NEP is that it is still too early. But now that 40 years have passed, it is just a refusal to look at the utterly unconscionable truth.

Much, no, almost all of the statistics being bandied about on the effectiveness of the NEP are superficial. They are not real. For example, has the government done a normal random sample of students to see the real differences between the races over time?

How about a normal random sample of proficiency among the professionals? Without real tests or conditions of open competition as in the real world, we do not know. What is important is a broad random sample of real subjects and not some elite sample or pre-selected group from a protected environment.

James is confused between making a difference and not letting things remain the same or become worse. He argues that the NEP transformed the bumiputera worker and the population i.e. with the large number of graduates, professionals and businessmen it produced.

The NEP definitely prevented further marginalisation of the bumiputera. However, the prevention of the same or worse fate is not an improvement.

For example, is the bumiputera son of a farmer who earns RM2,000 per month as a government civil servant better off than his father who used to earn RM500 per month 20 years ago? Well, if his non-bumi neighbour shopkeeper used to earn RM1,000 per month 20 years ago and his son earns RM2,000 per month as an engineer now, my argument is that the bumiputera son is actually worse off.

This is because the bumiputera father and son are engaged in protected economic roles while the non-bumiputera father and son are not only in open market roles but are discriminated against. Hence, the non-bumiputeras are still stronger economically.

The little statistics that are available (like household income of the major races) indicate that while the bumiputera role has changed, the real gap between the average bumiputera and his non-bumiputera counterpart has not only remained the same but actually widened in the real world context.

James also argues that what ails the bumiputera is his inferiority complex and hence, this justifies the continuation of the NEP. Again, this leap in logic is an assumption of the facts and effectiveness of the NEP. The answer, again, is that we do not really know.

Any policy has both its positive and negative influences. The question is how the positive and negative influences change over time. The positiveness of the NEP was better in the short run rather than the long run while its negativeness gets stronger and stronger over time.

What is worrying is that after 40 years, we have many indications that the NEP's negatives may have already overtaken the positives a long time ago. If after 40 years, say 20 percent of middle-income bumiputeras would be jobless in an unprotected market, then they are certainly in dire straits.

The truth is that the NEP/NDP policy has already been undertaken so it is pointless to argue whether its positive has outweighed its negative. The point is that even if this had been the case, it cannot go on indefinitely and that its removal must be the eventual outcome.

Real analysis leads us to believe that the final goal - eventual equality for all races - is most probably impossible with the NEP in place. The current prevalent thought that the NEP can only be removed when all the races are equal is not only misguided but also self-defeating.

If the NEP/NDP can run out of its usefulness, then the time must come to remove it whether there is equality or not. To assume that the policy will work continuously is not only arrogant but blatantly irresponsible to not only those it discriminates against but also to those it seeks to serve.

It was because the NEP effect could be negative over time that a limit of time of 30 years was originally put in place. When it was changed to the NDP, this idea was conveniently forgotten. Ask any government and management experts on protecting groups and few can quote even nominal success. Ask them if protection works perfectly or forever, an the unanimous answer is none.

So let's not argue if the NEP/NDP actually works. Instead, know that eventually it will not work and we must remove it. Imagine if the NEP/NDP became so cumbersome that it dragged this country into an irreversible situation.

Imagine the blame and distrust among groups and the opportunities for unscrupulous politicians to exploit that disaffection. The effect could be the end of the nation as we know it even on the superficial level.