It is easy to define a bumiputera in Peninsula Malaysia because there are only three major races there. Bumiputera means invariably the Malays. But in the East Malaysia states of Sabah and Sarawak, the definition is not as clear cut.

In particular Sabah where there are numerous inter-marriages resulting in kaleidoscopic, phenotypic permutations. They may have Chinese-sounding names but their mothers, or grandparents may be Kadazans, Muruts, Bisayas, Bajau, Orang Sungei, etc.

Of late, there has been an increase in the Indian-Kadazan conjugation generating yet another sub-ethnic group whom one may call Indo-Kadazans.

There are more than 40 ethnic races in Sabah alone and just as many in Sarawak. One could imagine the complexity that might ensue as the result of such hybridisation. Where do these people stand in the context of the bumiputera-non-bumiputera polity?

Could they be considered as bumiputeras and enjoy the privileges of the Malays in the Peninsular? Even at the present time when there are allegations rife that some are 'more bumiputera' than others?

To get things into perspective it behoves us to understand the history of Malaysia. Malaya - not Malaysia - attained independence in 1957. Sabah and Sarawak never joined Malaysia.

The latter two together with Malaya and Singapore formed Malaysia under the aegis of the Malaysia Agreement which came together with 20 points. This took place on Sept 16,1963. The foursome constituted the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore left in 1965.

The context of the Malaysia Agreement should be understood in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Committee report, where the state lists and concurrent lists are spelt out. Sabah was actually declared independent on Aug 31, 1963, a good 16 days before the formation of Malaysia.

The position of the of the mixed races, the product of native and non-native marriages could probably be found there.

There is an urgent need to re-emphasise the status of these people so that they could enjoy their privileges as bumiputeras.