It has been reported that a high-profile seminar held in Kuala Lumpur to assess the three-year performance of the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Administration and the future of the country, participants comprising of academics, thinkers and analysts have reached a broad consensus that while there are indeed problems in the 'delivery system' of the administration, the policies it has formulated so far are still "first-class".

The seminar was organised by the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Yayasan Strategik Social and Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli).

Although the seminar could be seen and felt by the opposition parties and their sympathizers to be a mere public relations exercise on the part of the PM's supporters, it is a still a positive change showing that the original strategy of 'elegant silence' has been abandoned.

Indeed, the very aristocratic notion of 'elegant silence' on the part of any ruling parties or elites has no place in an increasingly open society where the people, especially the urban segment, are now more empowered educationally and psychologically to position themselves in the polity as modern citizens, rather than feudal serfs.

Seen in this light, it could be argued that the efforts of the opposition and civil society groups have succeeded to make the PM and his supporters or sympathizers to be publicly accountable again.

However, whether the many problems, malaises and anomalies now confronting the country can be so neatly conveniently conceptualized or conveniently dichotomized as "first class policies but poor delivery" is open to further debate.

First and foremost is the argument that, under the parliamentary system, the PM and his cabinet is the executive in charge of implementation of policies approved by Parliament which is the ultimate formulator of policies and laws.

In other word, the PM and his cabinet are not policy formulators as such but the link or bridge between the policy-making Parliament and the public service which implements policies.

It logically follows that the PM and his cabinet are, in the final analysis, still politically responsible and accountable for the "poor delivery system".

Is the ideology faultless?

Seen in this light, the propagation of "first class policies but poor delivery" could be construed as a buck-passing exercise on the part of the PM, his cabinet and their supporters.

There is, of course, still the question of whether all the policies and their underlying ideology are faultless, perfect and unquestionable.

The very controversial race-based affirmation action programme or New Economic Policy (NEP) is a classic example.

For supporters of the policy, even if it has failed, the cause of its failure can only be attributed to the 'poor delivery system' because of corruption and malpractices of individuals in charge of its implementation.

However, for its critics, even if the policy has succeeded or is going to succeed, its political nature and ideological foundation are still questionable because it was formulated - and is also being implemented on discrimination based on race.

One school of thought among the critics argue that only the total abolition of any affirmative action programme to give way to a completely free market economy is the solution for the structural adjustment of the Malaysian economy in the face of globalization.

There is, however, another school of thought that while race-based affirmative action is wrong and detrimental to the economic health of the country, there is still a need to preserve an element of class-based affirmative action in any alternative policy so that underprivileged Malaysians of all races would not be marginalised in the globalizing world.

Whatever their differences in the conceptualization of alternative to the race-based affirmative action programme, the two schools of thought among NEP critics share the view that race-based economic policy is undesirable.

Above all, they question and challenge the policy and its underlying ideology itself, not merely its implementation or 'delivery system' as policies can also be faulty and undesirable just like their implementation and 'delivery system'.