I refer to the letter House ownership should be population percentage .

The NEP has been around since the day of my birth. Its intention was to narrow the income gap between each race. It is a noble concept which has failed. Even with rules and regulations in place to target a 30% bumiputera ownership of business, it in reality did not achieve this.

What the NEP has achieved is a generation of Malays living under the umbrella of protection from competition. This unfair advantage has led to a generation of Malays highly dependent on such treatment and they would have trouble living without it.

It was with cautious happiness that Najib, in an act to bring about more support for his government - announced recently the removal of the 30% rule. It not only symbolises the removal of unfair treatment but the move will also bring about much-needed competition for Malay society. The will benefit the Malays in the long-term.

While going through the March 8, 2008 election manifestoes, I read very much of Pakatan Rakyat’s agenda to remove the racial card from their programmes. Pakatan Rakyat would base their policies on meritocracy.

It is was thus to my horror that PAS Kedah picked up where BN left off with their 50% quota of Malay home ownership.

The argument of the writer in supporting such an act is that it ensures houses are cheaply available to the poor bumuputera Kedahans. Yet, the policy fails to answer one question - are there not poor non-Malays in Kedah too?

The above letter seems to portray that the Malays are the only poor ones in Kedah while ignoring that there are also poor Chinese and Indians in the state, not to mention the other minorities.

The 50% bumi housing quota cannot really be justified if it is not meant for all Kedahans but only for the bumi Kedahans. The letter further argues that the quota will ensure more of affordable housing and less luxury homes for the supr-rich.

This argument ignores that the state government has the power to determine the type of development on any plot of land they allocate to the developers. Therefore, they can decide how much percentage should be allocated for low-cost housing projects.

The writer further argued, asking why the poor Malay should be deprived of the ownership of their own homes. However, he failed to address the problem that such a quota will instead create the possibility of the poor Chinese and Indians being deprived of their chance.

Instead of coming up with such quota, wouldn't it be a fairer policy to instead set a quota based on income level and proof of being a Kedahan? A policy set along this criteria would truly satisfy the objective of home ownership for the Kedahan poor.

Lastly, the writer tried to re-use Singapore as an example in his argument. Should the writer know that the goal of the Singapore government is to ensure all Singaporeans own a home of their own, he would not have brought this up.

The policy set by PAS is an unfair treatment based on race and not the income gap. It will neither benefit the Malays nor the other races in the long run and if PAS Kedah has a genuine concern for the well-being of all Kedahans, this policy cannot be justified.