I refer to the Malaysiakini report Shahrir: Reality behind 'Ketuanan Melayu' .

Shahrir Samad's analogy of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is poor concerning his reference on who are the masters and who are the slaves.

I have a better one. It relates to a patient and doctor relationship.

You pay your doctors but can you dictate what your doctor or surgeon does? Does it mean that you can tell him what he can do to you?

In theory you can. But in practice, a patient normally surrenders his body to his doctor to see what is best that he can do for him (the patient).

And when society is sick, and we appoint leaders, isn't it proper for the leaders to find ways they think are useful to heal society?

Otherwise, why have general elections in the first place if the voters continue to dictate terms to the leaders?

And coming back to ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is it nothing but an empty slogan to mean that Malaysia is a sultanate. It is also an Islamic and Melayu kingdom by virtue of it having a king.

So even though the Malaysian constitution does not say so and with many jumping up to say that the country is a secular one, don't they see the obvious that Malaysia is an Islamic kingdom and a Melayu country with some semblance of secularism?

If there is a 'debate' on this matter, it is purely academic in nature aimed at re-educating those who are not familiar with the facts.