I refer to Salbiah Ahmad's [#1] Achieving equality [/#] (Feb 10) in which the special position of Malays was discussed interchangeably with affirmative action policies as if they were synonymous.

Affirmative action in Malaysia has always been justified on the basis of undoing a previous harm inflicted by historical colonial policies on Malay and indigenous communities and to prevent further harm from this previous harm by giving these communities special privileges ensconced in the constitution in respect to government licenses, employment, education and contracting awards and discounts in home ownership etc.

The primary object of affirmative action policies is to "level the playing field" so that the disadvantaged communities (that are, except in Malaysia, usually minorities) can, as what the writer said, "overcome obstacles to develop their capacities to the full and increase their participation" in the political and economic life of the nation.

Implemented in its most acceptable form, affirmative action means that when faced with two similarly qualified applicants, the one to whom affirmative policies are intended to favour will be chosen.

Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates or harm anyone through "reverse discrimination". This is however not the way it is understood to be nor implemented in this country. Between a less qualified Malay candidate and a more qualified non-Malay, the former still gets (say) the scholarship due to the quota.

The critics of this form of affirmative action policies however forget two things.

First, it is ever easier to criticise shortcomings of their implementation than how to rectify them. For example, it would be easy to say that quotas should be removed and that only "eligible and qualified" Malays should be given scholarship licenses and share allocations based on need and a certain level of merit without clarifying what precisely is that benchmark.

The present complaint is that the benchmark has been set too low to the extent that even the rich Malays get scholarships. There may well be many such examples but it does not change the fact that if the benchmark is raised, only very few Malays may qualify to access these privileges, and it is not easy to draw the line and establish with precision should that benchmark be.

Secondly, criticism of unjust "implementation" of the New Economic and Development policies arise because of the failure by critics to distinguish conceptually between objectives of affirmative policies and those of special position of the Malays ensconced in the constitution. They are not synonymous, as the writer seemed to suggest. Affirmative policies are but only a part of that constitutionally protected position of the Malays. If correcting the economic imbalance and levelling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots are the main object of Malay privileges, the constitution would have expressly stated so and subject them to review from time to time to ascertain the state of that imbalance and whether the level playing field has already been attained for the removal of that special position. This is however not the case. The privileges continue at the discretion of the rulers who constitutionally are the protectors of the Malays.

This means that the main thrust of these privileges is not so much as to just correct economic imbalance but to affirm ketuanan Melayu , that is, literally the "supremacy or dominance of the Malays" justified, as reader Mohd Iqbal puts it ([#2] 'Ketuanan Melayu' is historical [/#], Feb 8), on historical grounds of Malays acceding 43 years ago to share the country with non-Malays!

The national language is only in part to foster unity of the different races but the main object is to express this supremacy. Otherwise English could serve just as well. If supremacy were the true premise of the Malay special position, it should remain perpetually even when and after the Malays have caught up, nay, even surpass the political, economic and educational and social levels of other non-Malay citizens.

The observance of the so-called "social contract" of supremacy in exchange for citizenship entered four decades ago will not mean much to those non-Malays born and bred here and who know no other country of origin other than Malaysia to whom they owe allegiance. They wonder why they should be victimised by the contract entered into by their forefathers. After all, it is undeniable that all races helped build and develop the country for her to progress to what she is today.

And the under-privileged is not confined to only the Malays but count amongst all other races as well in differing proportions that have to fend for themselves without any help even when they all equally pay taxes and carry responsibilities of citizenship. There is to them a real distinction between an affirmative programme in (say) the United States to promote equality by protecting the disadvantaged non-whites against the dominance of the white majority, and our affirmative programme to uphold and perpetuate Malay supremacy based on the historical "social contract".

Where Chinese lobby group [#3] Suqiu [/#] may have stirred the hornet's nest by appealing for review of the Bumiputra/non-Bumiputra distinction is that it forgot that only the Malays who are the beneficiary of special privileges are entitled to question, review, modify or remove their own privileges if such are perceived to their benefit - and not by others who would otherwise be perceived as attempting to wrest away their pre-existing constitutional position.

The fact that Suqiu raised the sensitive points in the form of "appeals" and not demands showed that it recognised the aforesaid realities that it has no such right to demand. However, the fact that it chose to raise them at a time just before the last election when Barisan Nasional was under pressure to garner non-Malay votes would give the impression that it (correctly or otherwise) used BN's vulnerability as leverage. It is also a fact that if the government acquiesced with these appeals under pressure of circumstances, it does not mean that it had necessarily accepted or fully embraced them. Besides, the acceptance of these appeals in entirety would be viewed as diametrically opposed to Malays' interest and position, the upholding of which is Umno's raison d'etre . It is not hard to understand Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's criticisms of and reversal of stance against Suqiu from these perspectives.

Returning to the point that only Malays have the right to question their own constitutional privileges, it is noteworthy that a few Malays have begun to re-examine and question afresh these privileges, and one may wonder why this is so when the privileges are ostensibly intended for their benefit.

Aside from abstract notions of equality and fairness to other Malaysians so as to conduce national unity and nationhood, the key question remains whether the continuance of ketuanan Melayu and the implementation of the privileges are to the benefit of the Malays or in fact counterproductive.

The most immediate grouse is that the benefit of the privileges has not been equally and fairly distributed amongst those entitled and instead has been monopolised by those close to the ruling elite.

The second grouse is in giving fish rather than teaching a person how to fish, the privileges are counterproductive to undermine self-reliance on the part of their intended beneficiaries and ill-prepare them for the Information and Globalisation Age.

For example, the promotion of the national language at the expense of English has been disadvantageous to Malays not proficient in English in the private sector and in the world of Internet based primarily on English. As many including ex-deputy premier Ghafar Baba have pointed out, the continuance of privileges even after four decades may reinforce the erroneous perception that Malays are handicapped and this, if believed by Malays themselves, may make them diffident even in spite of their qualifications. To the extent that the affirmative action policies perpetrate reverse psychological discrimination against the Malays, they become counterproductive.

Another example is that to accelerate meeting the 30 percent corporate ownership, Malays have been given special Bumiputra share allocation in newly public-listed companies financed by the banks. This "artificial" way of paper wealth creation based on gearing made Malays vulnerable to the harshest brunt of a stock market crash (caused by exit of foreign funds) as the events of 1997 proved.

It is a reflection of the growing maturity of Malaysians to be able to openly and objectively engage in public discourse of the aforesaid issues without acrimony as the many letters on this subject published in malaysiakini evinced. Ironically, Suqiu's intentions of broaching the sensitive points of Malay position for public discourse and review appear to be assisted more by its appeals' retraction than inception.