Letter writer RC is right about Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad being the principal apologist for ketuanan Melayu in his bid to ascend to where he is now in Umno, in Singing praises to hollow promises.

There is a difference between affirmative programmes justified on the 'weakness' of the group benefitted and affirmative programmes based on the 'supremacy' of the group benefitted. While the former can be dismantled when the programmes have rectified the weakness, the latter obviously cannot.

There however cannot be meritocracy and supremacy at the same time. One is a contradiction in terms of the other; the embrace of one implies the relinquishment of the other.

But ketuanan Melayu, being a mindset formed by decades of inculcation, is difficult to deconstruct. The reluctance to relinquish supremacy makes all attempts at meritocracy — to reap its benefits — half-hearted and farcical. Little wonder that so far the policies directed ostensibly with meritocracy in mind have turned out to be only a guise for supremacy.

It is however also a supreme irony that only merits and excellence establish genuine supremacy in the new order of globalisation and in the market place.

A supremacist ideology that ignores and contradicts meritocracy will widen the gap between aspiration for and attainment of genuine supremacy in the real world and the market place, and aggravate frustration for those affected.

If large sections of people psychologically and ideologically opposed to merits become irrelevant in the market place, they will only become angry because of the widening gap between their expectations and real achievements. The anger will be directed at the leaders. Or the anger may be channelled against another as the bogey, thereby causing public disorder.

This is the dilemma leaders are confronted with and have to resolve not only in the higher interest of the people led, and the nation, but also in preservation of their power and legitimacy to lead.

But how?