I refer to Ahmad Nazri comments in the Malaysiakini report Banning NST won't solve anything .

I would like to ask the writer specifically which aspects of Milton Yap's comments he agrees and disagrees with, as I personally don't think that his summation of the comments was a fair one.

The writer also said that he thinks Yap is ignorant of Malaysia's history and that he is ‘fed up’ with such people harping on bumputera ‘special rights’.

I put the words special rights in quotation marks because ‘rights’ refer to something that is universal, inalianable and fundamental - meaning that it cannot be granted or taken away.

When something applies to a certain group of people but not to others it is in fact a privilege and not a ‘right’.

The history of Malaysia did not stop at 1948 or 1957 or 1963. My point is this, how does the writer define ‘bumiputera’?

Two hundred years from now, assuming that our society remains as divided as it is now (I hope that will not be so!) will the writer still categorise the decendants of today's non-bumiputera as non-bumiputera?

How long must one have lived in this land to be counted as being among the 'native people who have lived here since time immemorial'?

Furthermore, the writer says that: ‘Actually, those who oppose bumiputera special rights are self -important, greedy and uncaring towards the plight of other communities or races’.

How is that any different from people who support bumiputera privileges? To be selfish is human nature. Even when we give to charity it is out of a personal desire to give.

Id like to pose this question to the writer - how can we truly be united when we divide up our society in to different bits and pieces?

To make assumptions and categorise people is human nature, however, how we choose to think, talk and act is what matters.

As long as we think of our society as consisting of Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans, and 'others' (a category which I find to be insulting) will we be able to be united?

The writer also cites the US as an example to illustrate his point. However, I believe that the writer is mistaken as the US - far from being an ideal example of democracy and freedom no matter how much Americans espouse it - does not have a national language!

English as a national language is as controversial as flag-burning, school prayer, the right to bear arms and a whole host of other US issues.

I do not question the writer's sincerity in wanting unity, merely his understanding of it, and what he expects of a unified Malaysia. I look forward to a debate as it is only through such healthy and non-judgmental discussions will Malaysians of all backgrounds be able to move forward.