I read Claudia Theophilus' interview with Prof Mahmood Zuhdi Abdul Majid with interest. Here we have a view on a subject that doesn't seem to want to go away.

The worthy professor feels that Malays still harbour 'insecurity', and for this reason alone, two very current issues - racial integration and religious understanding - are not to be debated by us at all.

The connotation is that we have to live with the issues, but without discussing them, until such a time when the Malay has the confidence to debate them.

I feel that this phrase 'insecurity' is shamefully overused. The NEP, NDP and what have you, were all introduced and implemented to alleviate the insecurity of the Malay, as well as to improve his economic lot.

Yet, after nearly 40 years of such active government assistance - that's over a generation - the Malay still claims insecurity; and clamours for these programmes to continue in order to protect his sense of security.

The big question is why should it continue, when the entire government machinery is geared towards affirmative action programmes in education, government employment and licencing, and businesses?

The situation boggles the mind, especially when the Malays are still constantly harping on about the superiority of the Malay culture. Just where is the basis of protecting the 'maruah' (dignity) of the Malay race and culture when it has to depend on concerted government assistance to promote and prop up his 'Ketuanan Melayu'?

Where is the supremacy of Malay culture, when it comes in the form of government-sponsored big-fish-in-small-pond success stories? What maruah is there in demanding affirmative action as a birthright and entitlement well after its expiry date?

The whole scenario fits well into the law of unintended consequences.

The New Economic Policy (mooted in 1970) was conceptualised with the hope of Malay participation of significant proportions in the economic field. This 'social engineering' was to be implemented over a period of 20 years, according to the plan's founder and architect, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, the nation's second prime minister.

But by 1990, the end of the stipulated period, Malay participation in the economic sphere, despite the government's single-minded stance, was well below target.

The unintended consequences appeared in the form of the Malay becoming dependent on the opportunities and avenues provided by the government's affirmative action programmes, as opposed to becoming economically independent and productive, as intended.

Indeed, the initial privilege given to him has evolved into an expectation, amounting to a birth right. Any talk of re-evaluating this special right (which could tantamount to taking it away) is deemed to make the Malay feel insecure, as the worthy don has expressed.

I have to offer an explanation to this pathetic situation. The core of the matter is that Abdul Razak made a mistake, not in the concept of the NEP - for this has been pretty well accepted by the cosmopolitan populace - but in his assumption that Malay post-Independence backwardness had been due solely to his economic shortcomings.

Abdul Razak thought that 20 years of concerted affirmative action programmes would put the Malay on the right track for economic productivity and competitiveness.

The truth is that the Malay backwardness was more due to psychological hang-ups than economic shortcomings, which, in any case, the 20-year restructuring period has not succeeded in overcoming at all.

What is the psychological hang-up of the Malay?

The Malay is harbouring a way of thinking and learning that looks at past wisdom with great reverence. To him, the past has all of the answers to the world's problems, and these answers are the beacon of light for the present, as well as future generations. It is in the past that he finds meaning and purpose in life.

The past therefore has to be revered, and present-day life must try to approximate it. Any departure from it would tantamount to moving away from the ideal, thus the harbinger of chaos and decadence.

The main source of wisdom from the past is of course religion, in this case Islam.

Islam certainly stands for something worthy to be revered and sanctified. However, this is not the issue. At any rate, no one knows what that 'true' Islam really means, for it comes in many different versions, like 'Proto-Islam', Wahabbi Islam, Islam Hadhari, not to mention the versions of the Shiites, and the Ahmadiyyahs.

What does matter is that there was a time in Islamic history, at around the turn of the first millennium, when Islamic jurisprudence was codified by the four Imams - Shafie, Maliki, Hanafi and Hambali.

It was claimed that everything that was needed to be known by humankind about Islam (and by inference, about life) had by then been written down by these great Imams. Muslims of subsequent eras needed only to refer to the Imams' teachings and records to find all answers to all problems they would face in life.

Any change would be of a minor nature, to which religious authorities would need to only issue a fatwa to interpret and sort out.

So much so that subsequent generations of Muslim philosophers saw no need for independent reasoning, or in the words of these philosophers, the 'gates of ijtihad ' were closed and the Islamic thinking norm did not have any avenue to explore new ideas.

Thus, Islamic thinking did not produce much originality, or independence of thought. This resulted in the rigidity and inflexibility of thinking within the Islamic community, coupled by a conservatism of spirit and pattern of behaviour.

In Malaysia, the problem began when the Malay got his political independence. When independence was secured from the British in 1957, the rein of governance came into Malay hands, or more specifically his head.

He had to come to terms with governing an infantile nation coming into the modern world, the world of the 20th, and now the 21st century.

His mentality still belonging to the anachronistic past, he has had to come to grips with the complex demands of the new modern world. The Malay is showing that his transition from the pre-modern past to the post-modern future has not been easy.

The crux of the matter is that since the closed doors of ijtihad , the world has moved on with electrifying speed, especially after the scientific era, followed by the Industrial Revolution at the last quarter of the last millennium.

Today's world is epitomised by modernisation and urbanisation, of fast travel and instant communication, of instant replays and instant noodles. It is no longer represented by a thinking norm based on transcendence and the supernatural.

The modern world is functioning and moving ahead on the basis of rationality and scientific thinking; of analysing the present to project the future.

In this modern world, life is no longer understood through myths, mysteries and rituals; on worship and prayer; on culture and tradition.

Life progresses on facts and figures, on tested and proven truth, on predictability and falsification of scientific facts. Life is dependent on scientific knowledge, and on the application of scientific knowledge, otherwise known as technology.

In other words, the intellectual scenario of human civilisation has changed, while that of the Malay is trapped in the anachronistic past.

Also, in the past, the Malay was a petty peasant, or a farmer living off the jungle fringes, not quite getting into the swing of the money economy. Life was basic, straightforward, and simple.

Today's Malay is no longer dependent on agricultural produce, but on the secular and money economy and on the individual economic productivity of each and every member of the population.

He has to play a very direct and active part in the modern and highly competitive economic environment. In another words, the economic scenario has changed as well.

More ominously, success is no longer dependent on past comforts and traditions, but on future challenges and possibilities. The progressive world thrives on going forward, so much so that looking backwards has very limited application and usefulness.

The progressive world thrives on original and independent thinking of it s citizens. Indeed, the Malay must develop his original and independent thinking, to adjust and begin looking into the future, no matter how uncomfortable and 'insecure' this premise can be.

It is on these new premises that the Malay mind is somewhat lacking, that Abdul Razak sadly overlooked. He is poor in his economic performance, he is poor in his intellectual performance, he is equally poor in his grasp of the secular nature of modern human civilisation.

A greater issue therefore would be this - if the Malay does not feel secure in debating these deficiencies now (and consequently gain a better understanding to his static philosophy of life), when would he ever in a state of readiness to do so (and to make bold attempts to change)?

At least one party is waiting anxiously for the day - the non-Malays, who have given their cooperation and support for the NEP since it was established in 1970.

The Malay failed to meet the deadline in the 1990. This failure mattered little to him, for he cajoled an obliging government into continuing with its affirmative action programmes, albeit under a modified label of National Development Policy, until 2020, the year the Malay has book-marked to be on equal standing with the rest of the developed world.

But I wonder whether the Malay will miss the 2020 date, for the international community does not care much for the NEP, NDP or any other equivalent plan. Should the Malay fail again, he will have to redefine the word maruah , and the phrase Ketuanan Melayu .

Claudia Theophilus might wish to ask the don if he has any inkling as to when, if ever, the Malay will be ready to confront these purported insecurities, be confident enough to throw away his security blanket, and break open his closed ijtihad door for open discussion.

The don might find comfort that many modern Malays are already talking about this need.

Recently Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, no less, articulated that the doors of ijtihad are not closed, when discussing Islam Hadhari to the population.

The don might give a helping hand to the PM to find ways and means to open it. An open debate on racial integration and religious understanding are two tantalising and timely subjects.