I wish to point out that the phrase 'affirmative action' is very much misused in Malaysia. Dr Mahathir Mohamad justified institutionalised racism by way 'analogy' with the practise of affirmative action in countries such as United States. This is a false and twisted 'they do it, therefore we can do it too' analogy.

The definition and practice of affirmative action in the US is radically different from the so-called 'affirmative action' in Malaysia.

First, affirmative action in the US is part of a much broader American value - equal opportunity. This means equal opportunity in terms of employment, education, promotion, business, contracts, etc. In practice, organisations try to practice a policy that gives gender-blind, race- or ethnic-blind, and other discriminatory-free opportunities in hiring, career advancements, business, or admission to universities.

Affirmative action is a government enforced programme to ensure that organisations, especially those receiving public funding, practise such equal opportunity policies satisfactorily.

In several rulings spanning many years, the US supreme court had made it clear that to implement affirmative action correctly, an organisation must not set quotas that is based solely on race (Regents of University of California vs Bakke [1978], and Grutter vs Bollinger et al [2003]).

For example, if an organisation, sets out, as a goal or in practice, to recruit and retain certain percentages of its employees or students based on their race, then the practice is not only illegal but also unconstitutional. In another word, an organisation cannot set quotas of, for example, 30 percent black, 10 percent Asians, and 60 percent White.

One very quickly realises the difference between this US quota prohibition and the Mahathir's government deliberate and pervasive use of race quota in everything. The Malaysian practice is exactly what US affirmative action is not, in spirit and in practice.

In addition, the US supreme court also made it clear that when an organisation needs to chose among candidates for a certain position, the person with the best qualification ought to be picked, regardless of his/her gender, race, religious beliefs or what not.

Equal opportunity policy and affirmative action do not mean that a lesser-qualified, whatever-race or whatever-gender, candidate has priority over the better-qualified candidate. When there is more than one candidate with similar qualifications, then the race of a person may be considered as a plus in addition to his/her other qualifications.

The reason is that diversity in either workplace or university is recognised as essential to state interest. But race alone cannot be the only reason under consideration. Contrast these with Malaysian practices: do organisations such as government agencies or universities pick the best qualified person or do they pick the lesser qualified person because of his/her race? Is diversity a virtue in Malaysia's government agencies, armed forces, universities, political parties, or is racial exclusivity more valued?

The Malaysian practice of racial exclusion and discrimination using race-based quotas is not affirmative action. It is simply racism; ugly and immoral.