The past five months have seen domestic economic circles trapped in a heated two-camp brawl on the country's property rights reform of State-owned enterprises (SOEs).

The country's "neo-left" and "neo-liberal" economists have been pointing fingers, accusing the other party of trying to derail SOE property reform -- currently on the fast track, or assist greedy corporate managers to grab public funds.

Without looking at the issue from both sides, we may not be able to grasp the full picture.

The to and fro started in early August, when Larry Lang, an economist from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, appeared in the media accusing some business owners of engaging in inappropriate corporate purchasing activities, which have caused a loss of State assets.

In late August, Zhang Weiying, a heavyweight domestic scholar known for his work on property rights theory, appealed to the public to "treat kindly those who have made contributions to society." Judging from his series of articles, Zhang was referring mainly to entrepreneurs and corporate managers. He argued China's entrepreneurs are facing the "worst" public opinion environment ever and the media is "demonizing" private business owners.

Domestic economists were then divided into two camps.

Interestingly enough, the overwhelming majority of Internet opinions support the neo-leftists headed by Lang.

Probing into the details of the two schools of thought, we find that Lang and Zhang should not have become so polarized. Both arguments hold water if seen from their different perspectives.

Lang claimed State assets are dwindling as the reform of property rights of SOEs, especially small enterprises, continues. Management buy-out, in which large shareholders or senior managers buy out the company, is the most disproved of method of reform.

China has been experimenting with SOE property rights reform in recent years. It advocates multiple methods -- merger, reorganization, sales, and shareholding co-operation -- be employed to diversify the ownership of State firms in competitive sectors to improve their efficiency.

In the process, unfortunately, the country has seen some of its State assets encroached upon in many opaque asset deals.

People have become incensed as they see part of the public bankroll they painfully accumulated over many years vanish into the hands of a small group of lawbreakers. The furious comments that follow web articles on corruption cases involving the loss of State assets often run for hundreds of pages.

On the other hand, those who support Zhang have mostly been advocates of China's economic reform in past decades. They focused on economic achievements as a result of market-oriented reform.

Fearing SOE reform may suffer setbacks, they tend to underplay its unpleasantness.

But even Zhang admits irregularities occur during SOE property rights reform.

In this sense, Zhang and Lang share similar views. Lang, nonetheless, did not label all entrepreneurs as "State asset vermin."

Given the transitional nature of Chinese society, irregularities are commonplace. Economists, on whichever side they fall, should join hands to improve the system in order to fix loopholes in the State asset management system and protect State assets.

In Zhang's opinion, entrepreneurs have made tremendous contributions to China's economic growth and social progress. As a whole, therefore, they should be respected and protected.

This is self-evident.

Everyone in society deserves respect and protection, no matter his or her status. This is the fundamental cornerstone of a civilized society.

In the past, the law forbade private enterprise. But two decades of market-oriented reform and opening up have seen private business owners climbing the social ladder.

What Zhang may be implying is that there are some entrepreneurs whose interests remain unprotected.

It is true. Private business owners are a very recent phenomenon given China's decades-long planned economy. They are yet to be fully recognized by society.

Sometimes, they are discriminated against. For example, private business owners have relatively limited access to bank loans, which are granted by State-owned commercial banks.

Zhang is right to make a stand for private enterprise.

However, entrepreneurs are not the only group that needs attention.

Farmers-turned migrant workers and those laid off from State firms deserve equal, if not more, focus.

There are more than 100 million migrant workers in China's cities. Scattered throughout various sectors, they work long hours and earn poor salaries. Some of them, such as construction workers, live in shabby temporary housing. Worse, their interests are not adequately cared for. Defaults on their payment are common.

The laid-off workers, who live on a meagre allowance, used to bolster the State economy. They were among the creators of the State's assets.

Both groups have made great contributions to the national economy.

It is hard to judge which group, the entrepreneurs or ordinary workers, have made the greater contribution. But it is meaningless to make such a comparison.

What is urgently needed is to strengthen the rules of the game, thus creating a level playing field.

Transactions involving State assets must be made transparent to prevent ill-willed business owners grabbing public funds. Meanwhile, private entrepreneurs and State investors must be put on an equal footing in the market economy. Discrimination must not be tolerated.

Policy-makers, at the same time, must take steps to protect the interests of ordinary workers to promote social equality.

(China Daily January 7, 2005)