LETTER | I wish to refer to the letter by Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli of Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, titled "Matriculation quota: Respect the Federal Constitution."

While not expressly stated, Hazmi suggests that any questioning of the 90 percent bumiputera quota in matriculation amounts to “questioning the sanctity of the Federal Constitution” and is an act of disrespect against it.

He does not seem to appreciate that Article 153(8A) of the Federal Constitution merely states that there can be "reservation of such proportion... as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable" for bumiputera spots in educational institutions, such as matriculation.

Article 153 has no percentage quota for bumiputera set in stone. On the contrary, it bestows judgment upon the government and citizenry of the day to determine what the reasonable percentage should be.

Pertinently, Paragraph 165 of the Reid Commission Report states that “the need for these preferences will gradually disappear” and “in due course the present preferences should be reduced, and should ultimately cease so that there should then be no discrimination between races or communities.”

The Reid Commission further recommends, in Paragraph 167, that there should be a review of such bumiputera preferences 15 years after 1957, and that the government should then table a report for Parliament to determine “either to retain or reduce any quota or to discontinue it entirely.”

So yes, Malaysians are perfectly entitled to a healthy and rational discourse on whether the 90 percent quota in matriculation is reasonable or otherwise.

The vast majority of Malaysians and non-bumiputera have not called for an elimination of bumiputera quotas in matriculation.

They are, at best, merely suggesting to recalibrate the quota to 70 to 80 percent to reflect the population percentage, and socioeconomic progression of the bumiputera after six decades of independence.

It is disingenuous to suggest that such discourse is disrespectful of the Federal Constitution. Or to make uncalled remarks that it is violating the third tenet of the Rukun Negara.

Article 153 itself and the drafters of this constitution envisaged this very discourse to take place.

LIM WEI JIET is a constitutional lawyer.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.