Having just had a quick read of M Bakri Musa's exhaustive treatise o­n the subject, I wish to comment o­n some inaccuracies in what is otherwise a very informative article.

For ease of reference sections headings are used.

Resentment:

It is not correct to say there was "minimal resentment" of the quota system. Resentment was high amongst the poor of the non-Malay youth who felt deprived of higher education in sixth form and local universities. Affirmative action would be more palatable if discrimination favoured the economically disadvantaged irrespective of race. In many cases, Malays from affluent families were favoured over better qualified non-Malays from poor families. This was clearly not the case with Malaysia, where discrimination was purely o­n racial (and in some cases, religious) grounds.

Nationalistic phase:

Based o­n the gradual phase-in of Malay as the sole medium of instruction in public schools contained in the Razak Report, the change-over would have "arrived" in 1983 for year o­ne students of local universities (the first batch of primary o­ne students with Malay as the sole medium of instruction having commenced school in 1970)

By some madness that I have never understood (and which the government has never explained), year o­ne students in local universities were, from 1974 without notice, required to attend classes in Malay.

Most of the lecturers were not even proficient in Malay and had to resorted to reading from translations when delivering lectures. Half the time, the lecturers did not know what they were reading and skipped whole paragraphs without realising it, to the amusement and derision of some students. Indonesian lecturers were employed but their accent and terminology were alien even to Malay students, let alone the non-Malay students. So much for academic excellence!

Many of the leaders in government today were lecturers in Universiti Malaya at that time (eg Rafidah Aziz, Ghani Othman , Fong Chan o­nn etc) and they would have personal experience of the scene then.

The education minister who presided over this farce was the late Abdul Rahman Yaacob who was perceived by many as an "ultra-Malay nationalist". Shortly after this incomprehensible policy was implemented (ie in the same year), o­ne Dr Mahathir took over as education minister. Following him in this important position were successive Umno bright stars in the likes of Anwar Ibrahim, Najib Razak, Abdullah Badawi - not o­ne of whom, when they were education minister apparently thought the language policy should be reviewed.

Fast forward to 2002 and hey presto, Dr Mahathir suddenly realises, more than 30 years later, that bilingualism is the way to go. Note that as far back as the mid-1970s, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman and the late Dr Tan Chee Khoon among other, spoke up publicly for the return of English as the medium of instruction, at least in the maths and sciences, but to no avail.

Most non-Malays of that era believed that the irrational hastening of the use of Malay in the universities was but a further measure to impede their academic progress - notwithstanding the quota system which ensured that every Malay who met the barest minimum of the entry qualifications, irrespective of economic background, was not o­nly guaranteed a place (at the expense of much better qualified and poorer non-Malays) but a government scholarship to boot.

To add insult to injury, this privilege was extended to Malays from neighbouring countries especially Singapore when these persons were not even Malaysian citizens. Is it humanly possible that any person who was directly affected by such a policy not feel resentful?

In the late 60s, the efforts of the Chinese community to establish a private university (the Merdeka University) to meet the increasing demand for tertiary education was met with a firm "No" o­n the grounds that the law then did not allow the establishment of private universities.

Rude awakening:

The jury is still out o­n the May 13 'incident' (that was the nonchalant way the government of the day describe an event in which hundreds of innocent citizens were killed or injured by frenzied mobs.)

While economic inequities are always convenient excuses, please note that following the May 1969 elections, the Umno-dominated Alliance (the fore-runner of the Barisan Nasional) had just lost Penang and Kelantan to the opposition and were in imminent danger of losing Perak and Selangor as well.

The Alliance obtained less than 50 percent of the national vote and also lost the all-important "two-thirds" majority in Parliament (Dewan Rakyat).

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the forces at play then.

The May 13 incident immediately brought about the suspension of Parliament, and Malaysia was ruled by decree under the National Operations Council for more than two years, during which time the New Economic Policy and the Sedition Act were refined and institutionalised. Sadly, until the day Malaysians are free to seek out the unsanitised truth, May 13 will continue to be a an unexorcised ghost in our midst.

The purpose of my comments are not to take issue with M Bakri Musa. Indeed I commend his intellectual honesty clearly evident in the fabric of his writings but perspectives will always differ and time tends to blur images and recollections.

Therein lies the importance of open and frank public debate which in Malaysia, is unfortunately confined to the coffee shops and cyber-space, but thank God for little mercies.