Ketuanan Melayu is not Malay Suzerainty?

I am quite shy in using my Bahasa Malaysia when I converse as I don't have a strong command of it. It is not because I don't love the language of my nation, but rather, I lost my familiarity with it when I left my secondary school.

Unlike many who chose to pursue their higher education in local universities, I often felt with limited places accorded to non-Bumiputeras, I would not be able to compete with the smarter and deserving kids who decided to try their luck by pouring out their best to enter into the fray of intense competition. My SPM results was neither here nor there as it was a mixture of 3 As, 3 C3s and 3 C4s (Incidentally, I got C3 for BM). And no, I don't like extracurricular activities if it means marching like an idiot under the hot sun and being screamed at all in the name of building character (no offense intended to those who did it though).

Anyway, I chose to study my pre-university course in a private college and later went overseas to pursue my higher education. It was English the whole way through. On my return, I work in the private sector which of course use English as the main language of communication. BM was restricted to correspondence with the government agencies, like when I want to appeal for reduction in fines as well as the occasional ordering of food in mamak stalls.

Source: http://www.executedtoday.com/category/where/poland/

So when I hear Abdullah's explanation today as reported on the Star Online on what Ketuanan Melayu actually means, I am taken aback. Have my command of the language deteriorated to the extent that I must hide my SPM certificate lest any prospective employer becomes suspicious of my command of the language should they ask me what is the definition of Ketuanan Melayu?

I don't know about you but I never know we live in a world where there are only strictly masters and coolies. I always believe that it is better to serve than to be served and surely, we should not look down on those who serve as Jesus said, the least amongst us will be the greatest in His kingdom in direct reference to those who truly serve but gets little recognition for their job well done.

At different roles, which is interchangeable, we serve as well as be served. The problem is people often wants to be served but never to serve. The stigma we place on serving and attitude towards servants have certainly created a lopsided view of the world.

Anyway, by equating success and capability to suzerainty, while weakness and inability to slavery, wouldn't one infer that he is going a round about way to explain that ultimately, success and capabilities beget supremacy hence dominance since the other option is lack of control hence to be dominated?

To put it in another way, he gave the example of succeeding in many fields as an example of supremacy, not forcing or ruling over others. But the examples from history would clearly indicate that the successful ones often dictate the terms of the game and isn't this, dictating of terms, a sign of dominance? You don't have to force it on them, they can choose not to play. You know, like telling your opponents to balik kampung if they don't like it?

I am happy when the Malays succeed. Or the Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli and so on. It doesn't matter if it means as a whole we achieve Malaysian suzerainty as mentioned by Anwar on Black 14 where irrespective of race, religion, creed or political inclination, everyone has their share under the sun. But to emphasis on success of only one race with the clear exclusion of the rest, one must wonder, isn't this a clear promotion of racial suzerainty?

It is possible I don't understand the concept of Ketuanan Melayu. Would anyone care to explain to me then why I still feel so unhappy after Abdullah gave his version of it?