The letter Defining bumiputera definitions is referred.

According to the writer, Indian Muslims are not recognised as bumiputera because many of them are 'actively preserving their culture and heritage'.

The first question I want to ask the writer is what type of culture and heritage are Indian Muslims in Malaysia actively preserving? Is it Indian Hindu or Indian Muslim culture and heritage?

Being an Indian does not necessarily mean being a Hindu. There are Indian Buddhists, Indian Christians, Westernised Indian nationalists, socialists and communists (the Indian communists are still ruling the West Bengal and Kerala states in India).

The writer must be more precise on his definition of the 'the culture and heritage Indian Muslims in Malaysia are actively preserving'.

If Indian Muslims are excluded from bumiputera category just because they are actively preserving Indian Muslim culture and heritage - not the Malay one - then the government's bumiputera policy has created two classes of Muslims according to ethnicity.

This certainly contradicts the Islamic injunction against 'assabiyah' or ethnic discrimination within the 'ummah'. Islam is not to be split or fragmented according to racial origin as the notion of unity of ummah will be lost.

Therefore, is it not true that dividing Muslims into Malays and Indians and according material privileges only to one group un-Islamic?

The writer also seems to reason that bumiputera-ism is more of a lingo-cultural concept rather than a religious one.

My question then is this - should a Westernised Malay Muslim who habitually speaks and writes in English, who always uses a forks and spoon for his meals and who never wears any traditional attire of the Malays be categorised as a bumiputera?

Put differently, why shouldn't a Nyonya or Baba in Malacca or Penang who habitually uses fluent Malay and eats and dresses like a traditional Malay be accepted as a bumiputera?