Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi argued today that the New Economic Policy (NEP) ended in 1990 and that there was no extension of that policy.

"We are not carrying forward the policy. The NEP policy ended 20 years after its implementation, in 1990.

"In 1991, we brought in another policy, but what we have been talking about is [...] that the objectives are restructuring society and eradicating poverty," he said.

The premier said it was these two NEP objectives that the government was still pursuing.

"Twenty years has been the timeframe for the implementation of NEP. It was not possible to achieve everything within that timeframe."

Abdullah was speaking to a packed press conference after the end of the fourth day of proceedings at the 57th Umno general assembly, where he lectured journalists for about 15 minutes on the NEP.

On the racial debates by delegates over the past few days, Abdullah said that the delegates were merely reacting to the greater space given to them for discussions.

"I don't know if you say its too much of freedom, but I think they are reacting to the wider space that I have given for discussions or democratic discourse," he said.

It should end here

To a question, Abdullah hoped that the issues delegates raised against other Barisan Nasional component parties members would not be made again.

"They have spoken their minds on issues which has been of concern to them for a while. I hope that after this, (when) everyone has said what they need to say, we don't have to repeat (it) again, so we don't have to go through the same climate of unhappiness," Abdullah said.

Asked to comment on how both Umno and MCA used their general assemblies as a platform to criticise each other, Abdullah maintained that both parties were still good friends.

"I think friends must be sincere enough to talk about our differences and our concerns on many things. As long as we can talk, and make sure we don't cross the limit," added the premier.

The following is an abstract of the press conference:

Are you satisfied with the tone of the debate so far?

So far, okay. Acceptable. There are still many more speakers (to come).

Do you think the speakers are following your call for moderation?

They have differences of opinions. Put it this way. I do notice that some of them are very strong on certain issues but then, so far I can see they are confining themselves to the limitations. I think that's something that is acceptable. And I hope that tomorrow - the speeches that would be made tomorrow - will still be within the line. Issue of ugama (religion) has just been debated...

Is it true that the racial and religious tensions have reached a very worrying level?

Not a worrying level as far as I am concerned. But it is time to remind people to lay down the ground rules that I have said. If it comes to the level that you have just described, then it would very difficult to control.

Your speech yesterday, was it directed to your critics?

Well, the speech of the president is the speech of the president. It's the president of Umno who spoke, not Abdullah Badawi.

On racial tensions, do you think it is occurring because you give people too much freedom?

I don't want to say it's too much freedom, but I think people are reacting to the wider space that I have given for discussion, or what people call democratic discourse.

On Umno opposing any possible re-entry for Anwar

Tak timbul lah Datin Sri Wan Azizah dah kata dia tak minat, apa boleh yang dicakap. [That question doesn't arise. (Anwar's wife) Wan Azizah has already said that he was not interested. What else is there to say?]

Datuk Seri, those who have been charged today with the murder of the Mongolian model, including Razak Baginda...

So? What is there to comment? It's done within the law.

At the MCA assembly, Umno was the target of criticisms. At the Umno assembly, MCA became the target of criticisms. Is the BN model working?

Bukan. Kamu wakil DAP kah? (laughs). MCA and Umno are still good friends. I think good friends must be sincere enough to talk about our differences and our concerns on many things. We can talk and make sure that we don't go off the limits. I think that could be acceptable, but do be careful. That's what I've been saying.

Regarding NEP, it seems that bumiputeras want it to carry on, but it seems that the non-bumiputeras are objecting to it.

I think your question is wrong. I don't think you understand the concerns of the non-bumis and the bumis. We are not carrying forward the policy. The NEP policy ended 20 years after its implementation, in 1990. In 1991, we brought in another policy, but what we have been talking about is [...] that the objectives are restructuring society and eradicating poverty.

Twenty years has been the timeframe for the implementation of NEP. It was not possible to achieve everything within that timeframe. And these two targets were actually from the feelings of those involved in the National Consultative Council after May 13 (in 1969), that it was needed to be done.

At that time, there was not much hindrance in the debate. The message was that we want to ensure that in future there be no more May 13. We want to ensure the country is politically stable.

Therefore, we have to think of the approaches that need to be taken on societal, economic development and so forth, so that in the future, the wealth and the opportunities to advance will be enjoy by everyone, so that there is no group that is marginalised. Until there are no longer feelings of marginalisation, until there are good inter-ethnic relations, because May 13 was sparked by the racial factor. We don't want it to happen again.

This is why we call this the New Economic Policy. It is not an extension of the old economy that existed before. If we examine things closely, the NEP has given a new foundation to develop the country and to develop the people of Malaysia.

In the past, Tunku (Abdul Rahman) had a very simple formula to keep Malaysians happy. The Chinese would be shopkeepers, the Indians provide the labour, the Malays would work on the farms to provide food and become soldiers, police, government officers and clerks.

Tunku had a very simple formula for Malaya, and later Malaysia - to be happy forever. And he wanted to be a happy prime minister and Tunku cried when May 13 occurred. So that was not the formula.

No way can we maintain a position that being a businessman is only for the Chinese, and that the Malays be contented working in the paddy fields and with being a minor official, a police or a soldier. I don't think anyone can accept that.
Twenty years is enough time to see to that.

So we have to change.

It remains a fact that I was involved in the discussions of Mapen 1 (National Economic Consultative Council). I was the chairman of the committee. We had tough arguments, very tough arguments. We had meetings that lasted until 3am in the morning. No press like you people around. But Mapen also retained that strategy, although not the policy.

That's why I said it was important that we must understand the spirit, the objective, the system behind the formulation of such a policy. That was also the strategy of the NEP, and later Mapen 1 and Mapen 2.

The process of restructuring has not yet achieved its target. Do you think in 20 years you can eradicate poverty that was 50-plus percent in 1970 when we launched the NEP? It's impossible. But we pursue, pursue and pursue. We pursue both strategies until today.

All these years we didn't have any problem, until (recently) we had some clever people who started questioning a lot of things.

On non-Malays feeling slighted by calls for Malay supremacy.

I think the non-Malays understand. How are we the 'tuan' (masters)? If we were the 'tuan', all chairmans and general managers would be Malay. Now that would be 'tuan'. But don't let it be that we take the 'tongkat' (walking stick) and chase people back (to their place of origin).

In this country, we have to be moderate and not reach the stage where we quarrel [] it is not an easy situation where we are in. In fact, in Umno, it has been a while since such talks of 'tuan' arose. This year, it surfaced again because of certain issues that has taken place, and such issues will definitely generate various reactions from several parties.

Sometimes it's just a simple argument, then it becomes a shouting match. Then they start throwing fists at each other. That is what we have to be careful of. That's why I talked about this in my (opening) speech. Even if you are good, it's good to remind yourself to be good.

When we achieve Vision 2020, will we still need the NEP?

There's no such thing as NEP. Why are we talking about NEP? There's no such thing as NEP. We are just having these two strategies which were part of the NEP before - because the two objectives are of vital importance for the development of the country.

In terms of eradicating poverty, we are the best in the world, we try reduce the high percentage of poverty to just 5.7 percent from what was 50 percent before.

For many people, who have a multiracial society - although not in the proportion that we have - is something they are fascinated at. They wonder, how the hell are we going to do this? It's not an easy job. They also question some of the policies that we have, they don't understand the background.

Everything has a reason ... some of you were not born at that time, you don't know, you are too small to understand was happening. I was very much part of it, and I was very much involved. And I know one thing, I live through the period of this policy being conceived and this policy being implemented. I'm both an implementer and now, a policy maker.

So let us not talk about the N - E - P. We are not having the New Economic Policy. It has become a name synonymous with restructuring society with the strategy to eradicate poverty. That's what it means. These two are the objectives of which we are still pursuing today.

(Later to reporters after the press conference)

You should be glad I gave you a lecture on the NEP for free.