YOURSAY | ‘Malays have long complained about being discriminated against by Chinese-owned companies.’

We don’t need any anti-racism law, says PM’s Dept

David Dass: Putrajaya has no plans to formulate an anti-racism or anti-discrimination act, as the government feels law enforcement will not be the best way to unite the nation’s multiracial community.

Actually, an anti-racism law will ensure that minorities are not discriminated against. Indians and other minorities have been subject to discrimination and even exclusion for a long time.

Those who hold the levers of power decide who they let in, who they employ and to whom they give aid, scholarships and other opportunities.

Before 1971, the system was a laissez-faire one. People did as they pleased. The Chinese were dominant in business and employed only Chinese. Even in other professions, it was the same.

As lawyers, Indians were “relegated” to court work, which was at the time generally perceived to be low-paying.

After 1971, the scene changed dramatically. Malays came in increasing numbers to the commercial sector. With Malays at the helm of many banks and financial institutions, opportunities also opened up for Indians. Indians owned banks and insurance companies then. No more now.

Government-linked companies began to play a bigger role in the private sector. Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) became a giant conglomerate giving opportunities for Malays in the corporate sector. Few considered or were mindful of the position of Indians and other minorities.

Today, the Malaysian Indian Blueprint, a document prepared by the Economic Planning Unit, shows the pathetic plight of the Indian community. Even with the expanded opportunities for higher education, Indians are grossly under-represented in colleges and universities.

Malay nationalism requires Malays to look after Malays. Biro Tatanegara (BTN) has done its work.

Chinese in the commercial sector show a marked preference to employ only Chinese, ostensibly because they speak Mandarin or other Chinese dialects, and also because of the relatively few Indians who graduate in finance or business studies.

Landlords prefer members of their own race, again, ostensibly because of religious or cultural reasons. The smell and stains of curry deter them from having Indian tenants.

Now laundries and barbershops have become an issue. Dark-skinned models are not wanted, and I suppose that means Indians. Indians are argumentative and quarrelsome and also possess some less savoury characteristics - or so we are told.

Misconceptions, myths, and stereotyping determine and dictate employment policies.

There is no law that requires anyone to assume responsibility for the employment of minorities but there are policies and regulations that ensure Malay employment.

Eurasians have migrated in the thousands, as have many others. Who will look after the minorities? And what is the real problem with having an anti-discrimination law?

Is it necessary to keep the minorities down so that others may come up?

Ace: How can we expect those who thrive on racism to enact an anti-racism law?

Tan Kim Keong: The purpose of an anti-racism law is not to enforce unity. It is to be used against those who perpetuate racism.

But we know the real reason why Najib does not want to have an anti-racism act. It is antithetical to his political strategy of playing the race card.

Anonymous: Najib is smart enough to avoid having an anti-racism law as this would prohibit Umno’s strategy of using race and religion to gain Malay support.

Najib kept quiet about the Muslim-only launderette issue until the Sultan of Johor put his foot down, and he still keeps quiet over preacher Zamihan Mat Zin’s outburst against the non-Muslims.

Apartheid is becoming the norm here but MCA, Gerakan, and MIC plus other East Malaysian parties have to keep their heads low, bowing to their Umno masters.

Since when did we last see Najib take the initiative to stop racial slurs against non-Malays? I can’t remember seeing him do so in recent years, but I remember the infamous “Apa lagi Cina mahu” headline after the 13th general election.

Not Convinced: The Malays have long complained about being discriminated against by Chinese-owned companies when it comes to employment. An anti-racism law will punish these errant companies.

For a party that claims to defend the Malays, Umno should back the anti-racism law. It will ensure Malays are fairly treated in the private sector.

The speaker has overstepped his role

Kim Quek: DAP MP Tony Pua claims parliamentary question time has become a “complete joke”, due to his questions on 1MDB being rejected by the parliamentary speaker on “untenable” grounds.

Is the Parliament speaker really endowed by law to wield such absolute power like an ancient monarch? If so, wouldn’t our Parliament be vulnerable to being reduced to a farce, and our parliamentary democracy at the mercy of one man?

Should we have a rogue speaker, whom our speaker seems to resemble? What about parliaments in other democracies? Is there any way by which we can seek judicial intervention?

Anonymous 2436471476414726: This is a perfectly legitimate question that was disallowed by the House speaker. For heaven’s sake, we the rakyat have the right to know how our tax monies are being expended.

Fair Play: Pua, by all account you are a very smart person. But you still don't get it, do you? The answer is really simple. That's why he (Pandikar Amin Mulia) is the House speaker.

You want real and complete change? The answer is also quite simple too. Just take over Putrajaya. I wish you the best of luck in the 14th general election.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.