I would like to offer a new perspective of moving forward with regards to Asli's report on bumiputera equity; without diminishing the integrity of either EPU and Asli's hard work. It is possible that both the 18.9% and the 45% figures are valid within their own logic and universe. However, we, as a nation need to decide which set of logic is more relevant for our purpose of national development today.

Or perhaps this episode should spur us to look other ways, even a third, fourth or fifth way of measuring wealth and success, if that's our goal. There is no reason why we have to restrict ourselves to the official EPU methodology or even Asli's.

I am not a social scientist but saying that par value is a good way to measure equity distribution is like saying owning five lots of blue chip shares like Tenaga Nasional is the same as owning five lots of shares in a PN4 company. Surely, just based on this alone, EPU should be open to alternatives.

The point is that if we are serious in pushing for national development and ensuring that all segments of society benefit from development, then we have to be open to all possibilities. Also, we must seriously consider who owns the equity or wealth whether it is 18.9% or 45%.

What good does it do to have bumiputeras own 45% of the corporate equity, if, say, 35% is concentrated in the hands of a few people, and the remaining 10% is distributed amongst the rest of the 15 million or more population?

I am all for the 'reward-risks-hard work' equation but if we are looking at social engineering and poverty eradication, we have to seriously consider who owns the wealth. There are many ways to define wealth or success of a particular race, if race categorisation should at all be used for national development. But assuming that we want to use race, and since Malaysia is all about race-based politics, let's go on this path for now.

My first question then is whether corporate equity is the only measure of wealth. Secondly, is wealth the only measure of success? Is intellectual development a measure of success? Is leadership equity a measure of success? Are we trying to ultimately measure success or only wealth?

What about leadership equity at the executive level, amongst ministers and senior civil servants like heads of ministries, government departments and statutory bodies? What about leadership equity in the legislative, who are sitting in the parliament, and in the parliament bureaucracy? What about leadership in the judiciary? Who are the judges? Is this not a measure of success?

What about equity leadership amongst professionals like accountants, lawyers and doctors? What about leadership amongst thinkers and academics? Who are heading universities and think-tanks? What about leadership equity in the police and the military?

What about leadership equity in successful companies and corporations? Who sits on the boards and in top management? What about leadership equity in NGOs like Mercy Malaysia, and many other groups? Why are these equities taken for granted? Why are these equities not measured to show how far we have all come?

If leadership equity is not important, why is Umno is hogging the leadership posts in the states? If leadership equity is not important, why is Koh Tsu Koon determined that a Chinese must head Penang?

What law says that the menteri besar or a council president must be a Malay? We are not talking about the prime minister or ministers of certain so-called sensitive portfolios yet. And if they are Malays, why is this not measured? Are not such equities important? After all, look at what power one wields just by being a council member in the Klang Municipal Council!

I am not saying what race should hold what post, because it should not matter if the person is capable and has integrity. What I am saying is since we are all so race-obsessed, why are we not measuring race leadership equity as a measure of success?

I am concerned about intentions because Umno, and to a certain extent Barisan Nasional, have not expressed shame and regret that they failed to bring the bumi corporate equity up to the desired level after 30-plus years. If KPIs (key performance indicators) were imposed, Umno would have failed miserably.

Could it be that Umno and Barisan Nasional (as collective entities) are not ashamed and are not sorry of their failure? Could it be because the status quo benefits many who hold power? Could it be the sense of shame is overwhelmed by, perhaps, greed by some? For champions of race (for that's what race-based political parties are about) surely pride and shame should be high.

If shame is not there, why not? Ironically, many jumped to defend the the government's 18.9% (which is a mark of failure) figure as though it is a crown of glory. Or are there hands that purposely keep the figure seemingly low so that benefits can continue to be accrued by a select group?

Before we try to woo brains back to the country with all kinds of promises, let's first open our minds to new ways of doing things. A knowledge-based society, which we say we are, is constantly striving to better itself. The good is often said to be a huge barrier to being great.