In a sense, reviving the NEP, in principle, should not be objectionable. Going back to the original wording of the NEP, as we briefly do below, we find a national development plan founded on principles that are holistic and forward-looking. Before leaping ahead to revive or re-introduce the NEP, it seems appropriate to recall its original meaning.

But there is another reason we need to go back to the letter of the NEP. This is for the sake of fairness. If Pemuda Umno wants its new national agenda is to be taken in its entirety and not be misrepresented (as I am sure they expect) then the NEP should also be recognised in entirety, not partially.

First, we can continue harping on 30 percent Malay equity ownership, and espouse the view that this is the summit to which all other programmes ascend. The NEP is all about arriving at this 30 percent. Of course, things need to happen along the way, such as better education, infrastructure, poverty alleviation, industrialisation, better governance institutions, expanding middle class. However, policy-making attention serves one purpose: 30 percent Malay ownership of share capital or more broadly, all assets.

Second, one can separate letter from spirit, and say, revive the spirit not the letter. Alas, this 'spirit of the NEP' has phantom-type properties, and can easily be conjured to one's side. To some, the spirit is the 30 percent threshold; to others, it is poverty alleviation or national unity. At best, this spirit is a rhetorical device; at worst, people may start believing that only one exists. In any case, as we shall soon see, the spirit of the NEP has been alive and well just taking on different names and forms.

Third, we can take the NEP for what it says simple as that. Its over-arching objective was national unity, held up by two tenets (pay attention to detail): poverty eradication irrespective of race; restructuring of society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function.

As Lee Ban Chen judiciously pointed out , the NEP was the first of a succession of long-term plans, or Outline Perspective Plans. The National Development Policy (NDP) (1991-2000), premised on 'growth with equity', succeeded the NEP; the National Vision Policy (NVP) (2001-2010) took the mantle at the turn of the century. We are in the middle of the NVP, which has another five years to run to completion in conjunction with the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

Obviously we may ask, whatever happened to the NVP? Perhaps it was too wide-ranging, ambitious, and non-committal, and thus never latched on to our imagination. But I thought it laid out in principle a rather comprehensive mandate for development, acknowledging some major flaws in our economy and governance system that the booming 1990s glossed over.

The NVP continued to emphasise national unity, and returned active poverty alleviation to the top of the policy agenda, after a period of relative neglect during the NDP. Interestingly, bumiputera minorities, the most needy group in this country, were regarded a 'policy dimension'. The NVP lists meeting the bumiputera equity ownership targets as its fifth policy dimension. It is there, though not at the top.

If anything, the NVP was a fuller revival of the NEP than the new national agenda, since it returned attention to the needs of the absolutely poor, regardless of ethnicity.

Is Pemuda Umno advocating that the National Vision Policy be replaced? Are parts of it objectionable to Pemuda, such as the de-emphasis of bumiputera-based policies? Or is it the order of priorities in the NVP that vexes Pemuda that is, putting the 30 percent as the fifth dimension? What is the message being sent here? that the NVP is irrelevant, or that policy is meaningless unless Umno drives it?

The new national agenda leaves many questions unanswered, most importantly, how it will promote national unity, enhance economic dynamism, and foster social and political progress.

Not a good start. Moreover, Pemuda chooses an exclusive political summit for its launching, then has the cheek to warn others against using this issue for political mileage.

Umno seems keen on foisting on the Malaysian people a new national agenda with selective NEP thrusts, when what we need is a deeper understanding of the NEP and probing new avenues towards a more vibrant and equitable economy, mature society, and effective and democratic governance. Instead of 'reviving the NEP', why not, on principles of equity and justice, shift towards needs-based affirmative action?

Pemuda Umno, of all party branches, should have the resolve, energy and courage to bring fresh ideas and new impetus. Having grown up in post-1969, restructured, developing and urbanising Malaysia, they should be able to look beyond ethnic categories and engage in more inclusive discourse before setting the agenda. If only they would.