As always, both sides of the debate have merit. I have a feeling that we were allowed to draw up the constitution in the first place because of the geopolitical climate in the 1950's. The CIA was more interested in keeping us on their side against the communists and the KGB didn't want to rock the boat.

Certainly national sovereignty and internal affairs were two keywords very much invoked in the last century.

In this century of the Internet and CNN, the climate is very much different. BlueRider needs to think what the international response would be if any country tried to draw up a constitution espousing separate privileges and rights based on ethnicity and religion.

Witness the Fijian affair where our leaders tried to export the concept of ethnic privileges to the then Fijian strongman. The response of the regional powers, Australia and New Zealand were unequivocal, to put it mildly.

Our constitution was a product of the times in which it was drawn up. I am not suggesting changing the constitution of course, but BlueRider needs to think what the response of the international community would be to his comments and the debate so far. What would be an impartial outsider's input be on this debate? What would Mandela say?

I take exception to BlueRider's veiled threats to the 'peace and stabilty equation. Countries, leaders and ethnic majority bullies cannot hide under the mantle of national sovereignty and internal affairs any more.

This was already clearly stated by Kofi Annan at the UN. The 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide was marked recently by the UN and the Balkans are still a boiling pot.

The message from the international community in this century is clear: if a country cannot guarantee the security of its citizens (of whatever ethnic group) the Blue Helmets will. Annan himself has taken a lot of criticism on his lack of action in Rwanda and has gone on record as saying that he will never allow a similar incident again.

I, like all Malaysians, have no wish to lose our sovereignty or our peace. At the same time, it is worth reminding the likes of BlueRider that their actions must not only follow the laws of this country, but increasingly, certain universal international laws.

The second reminder is that the UN is ready, able and willing to enforce these international laws. But let us not get to the stage where outsiders have to come in and protect us from our fellow countrymen.

To change the subject, increasingly, internal revenue is forming a large part of the government's budget. (I have always thought that the Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri is the one true meritocracy in Malaysia!)

The expenditure of tax dollars will be the focus of more and more attention as our oil reserves dwindle. Certainly BlueRider needs to appreciate that if the collection is done in an ethnically blind manner, so should the expenditure.

A system where one group is taxed for the benefit of another group will only work if the tax payers feel that the tax beneficiaries are selected on the basis of economic need, nothing else. As a proud tax payer, I know that taxation is necessary for the maintenance of the social contract.

The poor in Malaysia must be served but I am sure all taxpayers feel that this should be done in an manner which is blind to gender, age, ethnicity and religion. Does BlueRider agree to all four parameters or only two of them? What does he/she think Mandela would say?