I refer to the letter Malay rights cannot be taken away .

It's clear that Malay special rights as provided in the Federal Constitution can only be removed if the majority of the Malay are for it. This is so since the Malays make up the majority of the population as well as the civil service, the police, the armed forces and other government agencies. Not to mention the Malay Rulers and their fiduciary duty to protect Malay rights.

However, the so -called ‘social contract’, which is supposed to represent the exchange of Malay special rights for the granting of citizenship to the pre-Merdeka non-Malay population had been unilaterally altered by Umno.

This is because after the May 13,1969 racial riots (which some academic and foreign intelligent sources opine was fermented by some elements in Umno) the party altered the constitution to make the provision of Malay special rights permanent and without any review. Prior to that, there existed this accountability clause which required the review of the special rights provision after 15 years of implementation.

From a historical hindsight, it is clear that the Malays would still need the special rights after 1972, the date of the original first review. However, at least the process of a review would force the government to account for any shortcomings in its policies and/or the implementation. The Malays would still have their special rights and the majority of the non-Malays would not have felt so discriminated against and marginalised then.

It can be inferred that Umno's insistence on using the concept of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ in its race relations with non-Malay Malaysians is to disguise its failure to help the majority of the Malays to compete on equal terms in this increasingly globalised economy.

A welfare state as practised in some Western nations is possible only if less than 30% of the population is on dole. The situation in Malaysia is, therefore, not sustainable unless reforms are introduced quickly to lessen the incidence of poverty with assistance being based on need rather than on race.

If the majority of the Malay are in need as claimed, then help should be given without having even to invoke the special rights provision. Fairness is served only if it is seen to be done without resorting to threats of violence.

The formation of Pakatan Rakyat and its call to replace Ketuanan Melayu with Ketuanan Rakyat - despite the sloganeering - is in the best interest for the future of Malaysia. The emergence of a two-party system of governance is in line with the development and maturity of democratic practices in Malaysia, though not as perfect as they could be.

There is, at least now, an active alternative to the BN form of governance. It is hoped that elections can be won based on issues and principles and not along racial lines, as practised over the last 50 years. The problems of corruption and abuse of power can then be election issues rather than that of ‘my rights versus yours’. The Malaysian voters can then all be the Tuan with honour, wih a BN or PR government answerable to them.