UMNO unable to refute EU envoy's criticisms of NEP

Thierry Rommel is currently UMNO enemy No. 1, for daring to suggest that the NEP is morally unfair, breeds corruption and an excuse for protectionism. Like Lim Teck Ghee (of the 46% Bumi share fame) - he's being viciously attacked for a blatant disregard for the protocols of ketuanan Melayu, rather than the substance of his claims.

And true to form, UMNO politicians have chosen the "don't meddle in our internal affairs" argument, rather than factually countering Rommel's claims.

1. It shows that UMNO leaders are intellectually incapable of rational debate, preferring instead to silence discourse by imposing self serving "rules of the game". Rules that outlaw the questioning of its policies (eg. sensitive issues, sovereignty, social contract and my personal favourite - 'don't force us to amok' etc).

They are harping on the argument that Rommel is a foreign envoy, and as such should be seen but not heard.

2. It shows the world that UMNO leaders and the Malaysian govt are hypocrites.

They had no trouble making all sorts of comments about Myanmar & Aung San Su Kyi; Thailand / Philippines & their Muslim minorities; Britain / France & their dress codes; Iraq & the US, Israel & its battle-won territories; Singapore & its Malays, and in complete irony, South Africa & Apartheid.

But they get into a diplomatic frenzy when an EU envoy merely comments on the NEP in the context of upcoming free trade discussions? How hypocritical is that?

3. At the end of the day, criticism is best countered by factual evidence to the contrary. Lim Teck Ghee (yup, that guy again) writes to Malaysiakini that the govt should instead rebut Rommel's criticism point by point. And I agree. Compared to saliva spitting rhetoric - a calculated response based on hard evidence would go much further to put the point across to Rommel and his EU bosses.

By not responding to the factual substance of Rommel's claims, the govt and UMNO confirms its veracity. But then again... I don't think they have the means to counter those claims even if they wanted to... given that hard evidence justifying the NEP is impossible to come by. Apart from a fraudulent social contract and calculated acts of deadly violence, that evidence simply doesn't exist.