Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute's Centre for Public Policy (CPPS) study on corporate equity ownership arrives at quite a timely moment, on the heels of two recent events.

Two weeks ago, the Malaysian Trade Unions Congress reminded the government to implement a minimum-wage law , the lack of which is one of the most chronically broken promises to the nation. On Sept 26, union leaders asked for a salary increase for 200,000 civil servants paid less than RM500 a month.

University student council polls concluded on Sept 21, tainted again with allegations of election irregularities, coercion of hostel members, and the imbecilic tribalism of Aspirasi legions versus whomever-does-not-conform. The BN back-slapped itself for seeing 'pro-government' candidates swept into the campus corridors of power. The government can now count on these mini-YBs to rule the universities and make sure the youth of the nation grow even more docile and servile.

Soon after the above two events, the CPPS study now offers us a timely and worthwhile window to discuss a matter of national importance. But we cannot make good of this opportunity until we adopt five basic, though thus far elusive, practices. We sometimes catch glimpses of one or two of these, but not enough and never altogether.

First, we need to engage in dialogue openly, respectfully and substantially. On other words, stop questioning motives, insinuating agendas on others and casually dismissing participants in this dialogue; start listening, reading and articulating reasoned and substantiated arguments.

Second, let us learn to distinguish this issue of equity ownership from other concerns of social justice, like poverty and wage inequality, and discuss them individually when necessary. These issues are no doubt inter-connected, but the question of equity ownership, especially regarding its estimation, is a specific subject that should be dealt with in objective and quantitative terms.

Third, it is high time to objectively scrutinise equity ownership. The numbers have been mired in ambiguity for too long. Let's just set the record as straight as possible.

Fourth, the government ought to release to the public the information that is rightfully ours. If Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wants us to work with him and tell him the truth, we need access to the data.

Fifth, let us review the New Economic Policy from the perspective of alternative policies that encompass the interests of all needy communities and the demands of global capitalism. No one has suggested replacing the current system of preferential treatment for the benefit of bumiputera with one that will harm the bumiputera community. Many have noted more general and pressing concerns, such as the continuous decline in education standards and the widening rich-poor and urban-rural disparities in Malaysian society.

I have not read the CPPS paper so I will not comment on it, except that it is an interesting and courageous work. I hope it will be accessible online soon [Editor's note: The report can now be downloaded from the CPPS website ]. I will, however, comment on the reactions reported in malaysiakini .

They come from individuals and communities that need to engage in dialogue with organisations like CPPS; their inputs are welcome. Indeed, their comments made some noteworthy side points.

Unfortunately, they prematurely dismiss the paper by questioning CPPS' motives, bringing up irrelevant (albeit important) issues, and falling back on an unreasoned refusal to give due consideration to the findings. Come on Malaysia, we can do better.

Let us not prejudge the motives of the CPPS but consider its mission statement to be "an independent and non-partisan public policy institute that aims at fostering open-minded dialogue, enlightened leadership and better governance. The belief underpinning the establishment of the CPPS is that the challenge of building a cohesive, competitive and successful multi-racial Malaysian society can best be met by open discussion buttressed by rigorous analytical work and a spirit of tolerance and respect for the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders in the country".

I hope the majority of Malaysians will agree with the desirability of open-minded dialogue. We may not be accustomed to rigorous analytical work, but we had better get used to it. That's what countries that aspire to develop socio-economically must do these days.

The CPPS paper aims to estimate ownership of shares listed on Bursa Malaysia. Responses should focus first and foremost on that.

At least Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia treasure general Zainol Abidin Abdul Hamid did focus on the quantitative side of the argument, although he brushed off the study's conclusion that bumiputera ownership may be as high as 45%, because the facts are incorrect. And they are incorrect for no other reason than the government says the number is 18-19%.

God, not the government, gave each of us a brain. Let us not deny ourselves the duty and pleasure of seeking truth.

Zainol Abidin noted that equity ownership does not depict the success of bumiputera businessmen. The president of Teras Pengupayaan Melayu, Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, also tries to refute the paper by cursory reference to almost every aspect of the economy in which disparities exist between bumiputera and non-bumiputera. Yes, those issues need our attention, but it is unfair to criticise CPPS for not delving into them, when it sets out to analyse something

else.

Mohd Azmi does not offer any opinion on the ownership of Bursa Malaysia shares. Pointing to higher levels of poverty among the bumiputera community, lack of representation in business and professional occupations, he asks, how can it be? Well, yes it absolutely can be. If there is a self-serving elite grabbing all the goodies at the top, it can be. Let us examine the data to find out

more.

They do bring up a good point that corporate equity is not everything. Truly, it is one of many types of assets, and one of various dimensions of inequality in Malaysia.

The response of Judhiana Abdul Ghani, an economics lecturer at Universiti Putra Malaysia, was rather curious. First she denied that up to 45% could be believable because most people have not tasted the benefit of share ownership. She then contradicted the previous sentence by acknowledging that it may be possible, but even if it is, the allocation is skewed to a small elite.

A better response would have been: I cannot comment until I have read the paper. But again, we should recognise her underlying concern for equitable distribution.

We also need to begin to look beyond ethnic categories. Solutions framed solely around ethnicity may fail to address more important causes of inequality, and are vulnerable to be exploited by already-rich opportunists playing the nationalist card.

I believe that the factors that disadvantage families and individuals are less to do with ethnicity than with the education they are provided, the opportunities they can afford, their capacity to bargain for higher wages and benefits. 200,000 civil servants receive pittance, surely this contributes to the gaping inequalities in society. The problem is not an ethnic one; it is a national one, pertaining to the allocation of public funds.

The graduate unemployment problem continues to plague us. The BN is happy that student councils are whipped in line, but refuses to face up to the reality that the constricted environment on campus is not cultivating the innovators, original thinkers and dynamic leaders we need.

Alas, any attempt to study the problem of graduate unemployment will be frustrated because the section of the labour force survey containing information on the state of graduates is suppressed because the data is 'sensitive'.

Numbers are not sensitive; people are. Let's become less sensitive, and more sensible.