I refer to Baki Minuddin's letter ' British against idea of Malay traders '.

I agree that the Malays were once a great people in the Nusantara, as articulated in one of my letters to malaysiakini in late September last year. Even the Ming emperor, arguably the most powerful man in the world at the time who could have taken the port of Malacca by force, offered a princess to the Sultan of Malacca to establish a diplomatic relationship.

In return, Chinese traders were granted permission to trade at Malacca, and at a preferential tax rate set by the Sultan to boot!

The Malays did put up a fight when it came to the Portuguese and the Dutch taking their land by force, but we all know what the outcome will be in a battle of cannons versus keris and lembing.

The British, on the other hand, promised that they would 'work' the Sultans' land and pay them an annual allowance, with the result of the Sultans happily gave up their positions of power, retaining only the powers pertaining to the affairs of Islam and Malay culture.

It is easy to blame the British for colonising us, but if the Sultans of the time did not allow their kingdoms to become British protectorates, they would have had more control over the fate of their kingdoms, including in affairs of immigration.

The British were only concerned about how best to use Malaya to generate wealth. Their priorities were to get manpower to work the mines and toil in the plantations, and what cheaper way than to rely on local labour? If the Malays were willing to work the British would not have had to rely on migrant labour. Perhaps the Malays were not willing to work for the British as a sign of a silent but respectful protest against their Sultans who sold out their nation.

In a time when political correctness did not exist and racial stereotypes were acceptable, the Malays were quickly branded as lazy and unentrepreneurial. The closest viable source of labour was from British India, while Chinese towkays were encouraged to bring in peasants who were willing to work as coolies in Malaya . It should be noted that China was not a communist state at the time and there were indeed many rich towkays who exploited Chinese peasants desperate to provide a better life for their families.

While these towkays had it easy in Malaya, the coolies didn't as opposed to the writer's view that the Chinese always had it good here apart from the time of the Japanese occupation. Even today the vast majority of Chinese Malaysians are middle-class citizens who work hard to make a living, from the ah-sohs who get up at 4am to prepare their stall for selling won ton mee and Penang char kuey teow to the professionals who work their 9-5 jobs every weekday.

I do not know of instances when the British discriminated against the Malays. The Malays who were willing to work as 'clerks, soldiers and policemen' were indeed properly trained for the job and were paid fairly, and these professions were indeed proud and honourable ones at the time, unlike how our clerks, soldiers and police are poorly paid now, resulting in these jobs being scoffed at by many Malaysians.

The British have also always recognised the Malays as the original political masters of Malaya (note that the Orang Asli have never set up systematic governments here). They built schools to educate them and their brightest were encouraged to study in England. When the time came for independence, the British stressed that the Malays must never be marginalised in their own nation-state, albeit without compromising the rights of the immigrant population which had come to recognise Malaya as their homeland and had contributed significantly to its political, economic and cultural landscape and were willing to come together to fight for independence.

On the issue of the PAP in Singapore, the writer should note that it has moved away from communal politics a long time ago and asking it to do so would be taking a step backwards.

And whilst Singaporean elections aren't the most hotly contested in the world, the writer should note that Lee Kuan Yew is not in the business of giving away seats in Parliament, it is Singaporean voters who decide which MPs would best represent their interests, regardless of ethnicity (if the seat is not a walkover that is!).

As for Singapore's cabinet ministers , which the Singapore government will reiterate are appointed based on meritocracy, it should be noted that 14 are ethnic Chinese, three ethnic Indian and one ethnic Malay. It means that the Chinese are well represented, the Indians over-represented and the Malays under-represented, based on Singapore's ethnic makeup of 77 percent Chinese, 14 percent Malay and 8 percent Indian.

What this means in the context of how meritocracy is practised in Singapore might be a subject of intense debate, and one which I wish to avoid today for not wanting to digress from the subject matter of this letter.

Finally, I wish to congratulate the writer for realising that ethnic cleansing is never the way forward. Indeed the Malays are too kind and civilised for this sort of behaviour.