Thomas Sowell in his book Affirmative Action around the World lamented that although affirmative action programmes have been depicted by the framer as temporary when, in fact, these preferences turn out not only to persist but to grow.

Thus, it s not surprising and, in fact, I share Tan Keng Heng's belief that the government maybe secretly setting another hidden target of a 60% bumiputera equity and maybe has already started the new wave of affirmative action programmes without us knowing.

The government may say that it is wrong to include the GLCs in the bumiputera equity calculation, because their existence is for all Malaysians. But, I must say this is simply not true and it is a myth. The government's intention is for the GLCs to realise the Malay agenda.

Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak even pointed out that the chief executives of the GLCs should be serious and committed in ensuring the success of the Malay agenda. That Malay agenda is none other than to expand and achieve a higher bumiputera equity.

Thus, however, noble its original intention maybe, the NEP, after three decades of its implementation, has proven to be not so effective in eradicating hardcore Malay poverty. This is simply because the said programmess have been misused to benefit only a tiny section of Umno-connected individuals at the expense of the majority who really need such help.

Asli's Dr Lim Teck Ghee is right to say in his recent report that the incentives and privileges provided to the bumiputera, regardless of their level of income or volume of assets owned, is a flaw in the system that has historically been prone to abuse.

It would appear that the government's wealth redistribution measures are targeted at the middle and upper-class bumiputera. This type of targeting, even if it was not the intention of the government, has meant that the government has failed to use this delivery mechanism to address and alleviate the plight of the most disadvantaged bumiputera, a factor that has now also contributed to serious intra-bumiputera wealth disparities.

This is again confirmed by Thomas Sowell in the book mentioned earlier, in that compensation for the disadvantaged is an illusion because it often ignores the reality that those individuals most likely to be compensated are often those with the least disadvantages, even when the groups they come from may suffer misfortunes.

Conversely, those individuals who end up being sacrificed for the sake of symbolic expiation are likely to be the least advantaged of the non-preferred population, even if that population as a whole may be more fortunate than the group that has been given preferences.

Lim argued in Asli's report that 'economic policies based on race do not serve as an incentive to disadvantaged segments of society (middle to lower-class non-bumiputera and bumiputera) to participate in the economy. Equitable wealth distribution can only be achieved if the recipients are subjected to income and assets tests, regardless of race, a mechanism employed in countries that have adopted affirmative action.

Disadvantaged individuals should be given incentives to participate in the economy. If the government hopes to get a more objective picture of wealth distribution among ethnic groups, a better measure than the distribution of publicly-traded share capital would be volume of assets owned or income.

'The continued promotion of the NEP would only serve to raise antagonisms among the bumiputera in that some are more favoured than others, a problem that is now quite evident. This type of policy would serve to undermine genuine entrepreneurial spirit among the bumiputera.

The Malay Agenda has indeed put a majority of the bumiputera ahead of other Malaysians in more ways then one. For Malaysia to forge ahead in the future, a truly Malaysian Agenda would be the more logical approach, especially if the local economy is to survive the challenges of globalisation'.

After reading both Lim's report and Thomas Sowell's book, I cannot but be convinced that, indeed, the noble intention of the NEP has been hijacked to enrich only those who are well-connected. And I strongly feel that Lim is sincere in suggesting that what Malaysia needs currently is not more of a Malay-centric agenda but a Malaysian-centric economic agenda to really help those who are poor regardless of race. Ironically, this very objective of eradicating poverty regardless of race was the original intention of the NEP.

In my opinion, what Lim wanted was to promote a healthy debate on how to formulate a better policy to help the poor in our midst. But in the eyes of the Umno-controlled government, Lim has committed a cardinal sin in pointing out the weakness of the very tool that Umno uses to exact influence over the Malay masses. Perhaps, on the larger note, the affirmative action policy has become a convenience tool for the Umno ruling elite to prolong its political hegemony in the Malaysian political scene.

Indeed, the most crucial question that should be asked now is where are all the equities gone? The Umno politicians should themselves find out the answer if they are genuinely care and want to fight for the Malay people. Not by blaming other fellow Malaysians for their own failing policy.