Nazri says Mahathir -World’s most Bloody Racist, Utusan says DAP world’s most racist party

We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.The former Prime Minister is a master of using language he thinks supporters want to hear – but did he hear them?

 Malaysiaa whole, the land is soaked with religiousity and racism,  like the rest of the world, the land has been soaking in them for about 400 years. The result is that religion and racism are completely natural features in the landscape of public affairs – and that to notice would be like noticing the air you breath and the water you drink, and doing that is to stand outside of the normal patterns of political life.As such, they are like a thick mist lingering over a salt marsh obscuring the this journalist’s view,Eventually, voters, even the racist ones whom liberals love to hate, will stop allowing Gingrich to assume a shared culture, because a shared culture only gets you so far when you’re sick, out of work or struggling to build a better future for your children
The editorial went on to accuse Lim of pushing for “only the rights of the Chinese” and not for other races, and also took pot shots at the opposition party’s latest attempt to recruit more Malay members.
“What he (Lim) will not be able to do is repair DAP’s racist image which is becoming worse. The addition of Malays in the party will not change anything.”
Mahathir’s political career has come through a full circle. He had started as a racist politician, became a PM, promoted unity through Bangsa Malaysia and had gone back to his racist past by championing race supremacy and dominance. There is nothing wrong to defend his race. What is wrong is Mahathir had manipulated race to protect the interest of a few selected elites in the ruling regime.
Does Mahathir care about the poor Malay? If he was, why are Malays still form the largest percentage of the poorest in this country? Why was the government willing to waste billions on PKFZ, Bakun Dam, Cyberjaya, Putrajaya, corruption, wastage, new palaces, and a few newly proposed multi billions projects but peanuts for the poor?
If he was nasty, he would have done something terribly bad to Mahathir for bad mouthing him and plotted for his downfall. To him, Mahathir is simply a big bully. Mahathir was acting like a spoilt brat who had set Abdullah up for stealing the ice cream when he had actually ate it himself.
 Second, did Mahathir protect the interest of the poor Malays? Mahathir had created a new class of Malay cronies during his rule. His action had distorted the main focus of NEP from poverty alleviation to 30% equity. Would it be right if the 30% Bumiputera equity was held in the hands of a few super rich businessmen?Malays need a leader who can focus on a bottom’s up approach to socio-economic restructuring. No extremist would argue against the need to help the poor regardless of race. But Mahathir was more keen to protect the interest of super rich. Who created and promoted the APs, negotiated contracts, nepotism, corruption, money politics, racial politics and cronyism if not Mahathir?Who muzzled the judiciary and ripped the credibility of the once independent civil service and public institutions?Did Mahathir flip-flop on policies? Yes, many e.g. education, economics, NEP and many more. In fact, policy inconsistency was the main reason why investors avoided coming to Malaysia since the mid-90’s.Did Mahathir put any opposition members under ISA arrest? Truck loads of them. It is hilarious for him to accuse Abdullah for doing the same.

This statement is a completely untrue, false, malicious and a Seditious statement calculated to tarnish dap, cause disunity among the peaceful Chineseand Malay communities in Malaysia and to cause racial disharmony.Utusan Malaysia the paper of racism and religiousity has accused DAP of being the world’s most racist party following Lim Kit Siang’s recent call for Chinese voters to unite and ensure a change of government The DAP parliamentary leader had in a Chinese New Year message said that the Chinese community had managed to attain economic prosperity despite the failings of the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government, which has been mired in “corruption” and “abuses of power.”
“It is evident that Kit Siang cannot hide DAP’s true agenda in inciting the Chinese community ahead of the 13th general election. It shows the truth that DAP is not only the most racist party in Malaysia, it is the most racist party in the world,” said a Mingguan Malaysia editorial under the Awang Selamat pseudonym.
Lim’s remarks were in response to a statement made by MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who had called on Chinese voters not to “experiment” in the next general election, as Barisan Nasional’s leadership has continually allowed the nation to prosper.
Lim said Malaysians needed to vote the opposition into power as Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) suffered from an “incorrigible disease of denial complex” in refusing to admit the failures of government and nation-building.
In response, Utusan accused Lim of bringing up the issue of concentration of wealth among the Chinese, and that it was being used as a “political model” to win over votes.
“Kit Siang’s actions in bringing up the issue of wealth among races is dangerous. Everyone knows that the economy is controlled by the Chinese because of what the colonists had done in placing the race in cities, the business culture had been inherited a long time ago.”
Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has called Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad a “bloody racist” for defending the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses, and reasserted the Cabinet’s earlier decision to overhaul the programme.Nazri pointed out to reporters in Parliament today that patriotism was not meant only for the Malays but for all Malaysians.“He is a bloody racist. You must be a Malaysian whether you’re a minister or not. You must walk your talk. Don’t just because when you were PM, you wanted everyone to support you, you’re Malaysian and the moment you’re no longer PM, that’s it, only talk about the Malays so I cannot accept his comment.

“I strongly feel the BTN courses must be in line with the 1 Malaysia slogan by the PM,” he said.

Dr Mahathir had said yesterday that there was no need to revamp BTN’s training modules in the current form and that it was suitable for instilling the patriotic spirit among Malaysians.

Nazri also slammed Umno’s Utusan Malaysia newspaper today, saying its “denial syndrome is making me laugh.” The minister in the prime minister’s department also repeated his stand “everybody knows what the BTN is,” so there was nothing to hide.

“I just want them to know, they should not go on a denial syndrome because their syllabus is known to everybody. Don’t think that people outside do not know about the syllabus based on patriotism for Malays. I just want to remind that the in the opposition, Hasan Ali was a former deputy director of BTN and Sungai Petani MP Johari Abdul was a BTN former director and Anwar Ibrahim’s father in law was involved with the BTN.

“They all know what the syllabus is all about so who are we to say that it did not happen? You want to lie? You make people laugh. I mean there are people who attended the courses who came out very angry. There were many instances of the use of words like Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy). It is ridiculous so I want them to tell me where did I go wrong in supporting the revamping of the BTN syllabus. Tell me where I went wrong?” He asked.

Nazri stressed that BTN is funded by public money and should be spent properly for the betterment of all communities.

“The BTN’s allocation is mentioned in the PM’s department’s budget. So it’s public money. So if it’s public money then we need to ensure that it is spent properly, not to have courses only to concentrate on one community in the country.

“You talk about patriotism, love for the country, patriotism is for all Malaysians regardless of race. Therefore, the money spent on BTN to have courses must reflect the 1Malaysia slogan by the PM. It should not only be to raise patriotism among the Malays. Malaysia is for all races so I disagree with any syllabus which only concentrates on patriotism just on one community, I disagree. If they have a problem with that, I want to know what is their problem,” he said.

Nazri questioned if Utusan Malaysia, which has been at the forefront of defending BTN courses, believes that Malaysia belongs only to the Malay community.

“Do they want to say that Malaysia belongs only to the Malays and the government is only a Malay government? Should only the Malays be given the spirit of patriotism? Other races are not patriotic about their country? So I want them to point out to me where is it that I’ve gone wrong If I disagree with the past syllabus,” He added.

Nazri also denied the claim made by Utusan that it was only him who wanted BTN to be revamped and not the Cabinet.

“The moment PM took over, when he introduced the 1 Malaysia slogan. It was soon after that because courses run by BTN using public funds must be used properly and it amounts to millions so if you want to talk about patriotism, patriotism for all, not just the Malays, for all Malaysians. It’s not because of the Selangor state government that we changed the syllabus so it’s long before that,” he said.

Nazri also questioned Utusan for deceiving Malaysians on BTN.

“You tell me, can I lie? I can’t. They must use their head lah. If they want to deny and all that, if the other side they do not know, it’s different but all these people were involved with BTN before. They were facilitators and directors so they know what’s going on.

“Come on lah, please, this is not 1961 or 1970s. information is freely available. I want them to get out of the denial syndrome, admit it and that’s in line with the PM’s slogan so why shouldn’t we change?” he asked.

– There are some days that will stain our collective conscience for generations to come.
April 22, 1993, was one of these. This was the day that black teenager Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death by a group of young white men in an act of racist abuse in Eltham, south London. The victim was 18.
January 3, 2011, was another of these days. Almost two decades after Lawrence was killed, 35-year-old David Norris and 36-year-old Gary Dobson were convicted of perpetrating his racially motivated murder, and later sentenced to a minimum of 14 years and 15 years respectively.
The verdicts may have been cathartic in the minds of some, a sense of relief that Britain and its attitudes toward race have come a long way since 1993. Stephen’s race-related murder, London’s Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) abysmal investigation of it and two failed prosecutions forced the country to take a long, hard look at itself. And we didn’t like what we saw. For when Stephen’s future was stolen from him, the UK was also robbed of the comfort blanket that it had cocooned itself in.
Living with illusions
We had been under an illusion that the days of widespread racism, of the National Front marches in the 1970s andBrixton race riots of 1981 had been consigned to history. This was a fact that many non-white people had long known: that certain elements within British society were still racist. And the myth that only white working-class youths were bigoted was exposed for what it was: a lie. Some in the middle classes and in our institutions – the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judicial system – the very people we, as Britons, turned to for justice, were also racists.
The publication of the Macpherson report in 1999 in the wake of Stephen’s death was seminal in modern British culture. The official inquiry catalogued a series of failures in the criminal justice system and the Metropolitan Police handling of the murder investigation. It branded the force, and British police in general, as “institutionally racist”. The findings shocked mainstream British society to the core.
In the weeks after Stephen’s murder, I recall my mother’s fears for my teenage brother’s safety. She urged him not to stay out late, for fear the next time she would see him would be in a hospital morgue. Many mothers, whose children were not white, also felt the same.
These anxieties are nestled alongside of childhood memories of having friends of various races. At school in London, my classes included children of many ethnic backgrounds, a diversity that I took for granted. But this was a childhood that was also punctuated by flashes of racism – of growing up on a council estate where being south Asian wasn’t acceptable to some.
“Why are you riding a bike when you should be on a camel or an elephant?” Or: “Paki, go home.” These would be among the insults my older brother and I would sometimes receive from white teenagers. When he was 11, I saw him take a beating from a much older white boy because of the colour of his skin. So when covert police surveillance footage of Dobson and Norris – in which they boasted of how they’d like to kill “coons” and “Pakis” – was made public, something hit home. Hard.
Britain has come a long way since then. Stephen’s death and the public outcry which followed forced a long period of introspection that led to procedural and institutional changes within law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
The Macpherson report prompted the Metropolitan Police to initiate reforms that vastly improved the ways victims of race crime were treated by officers. The force also worked towards recruiting more black and Asian officers. Today, almost ten per cent of the MPS’ approximately 32,000 officers are from ethnic minority backgrounds – almost three times the number a decade ago – though rising to a senior rank remains elusive to many.
Legislative reform also formed the backbone of Macpherson’s recommendations. England and Wales’ double jeopardy law – which meant a person could not be re-tried for an offence they had already been acquitted of – was amended in 2005. This meant that suspects could be re-tried if new evidence was discovered – a change that was instrumental in securing Dobson’s conviction, after he was acquitted of Stephen’s murder in 1996.
Courts also came under greater pressure to impose heavier sentences on racially motivated and faith-based crimes, and political pressure led to the extension of the Race Relations Act to legally require all public institutions to promote race equality.
Today, we can also see many more MPs of different ethnic backgrounds in parliament. This inclusive participation in the democratic process is a marked change that should be acknowledged. Recent official figures point to this heterogeneity – around 12 per cent of the 55 million people in England and Wales are not white.
Not enough
But though societal attitudes are changing, progress in addressing systematic institutional discrimination has been far too slow. Legislation is only as fair if it is correctly implemented. Nowhere is this more evident than in police stop and search figures, conviction rates and the sentencing of black and Asian people. These are controversial litmus tests against which the police, courts and broader criminal justice system continue to fall short.
Convicted blacks and Asians are more likely to be imprisoned than white people – around 27 per cent of all prisoners in Britain are non-white. Black people are also 27 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police under laws designed to tackle gun, drug and gang crime. This is an ugly reality that 19-year-old student Marc faces every day. The Computer Science undergraduate, from Brixton in south London, said the police often follow him.
“I would become a lawyer, but the police? You can’t the trust the police – especially when you are black – for the same reason, they always target you,” he said. “It’s not just the police, it’s everyone. If I’m standing at a bus stop, there will be an older woman and she will have a bag on the floor. She will see me and grab her bag. They either move away, or take their bag and hold it very tightly. They think you’re a thief.”
None of this helps to instil a greater sense of trust in the police, courts or judicial system in the minds of many young black and Asian people, making it increasingly difficult for police forces to recruit officers from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Though the discrepancy in sentencing rates between ethnic groups may the result of a variety of factors, it is hard to see how discrimination does not play a significant role.
Brian Paddick, former MPS Deputy Assistant Commissioner, said: “You are more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black. You are more likely to be sent to court, rather than cautioned, if you are black. You are more likely to be given a custodial sentence if you are black … Nobody has been able to provide me with a convincing alternative explanation [of why this is other than] that these sections, the police, racially stereotype black people as criminals and that prejudice exists at every level of the criminal justice system.”
Robin Richardson, former director of the race equality think-tank the Runnymede Trust, goes further. He said: “I think certain elements of British society, the criminal justice system, the judiciary, are institutionally racist, in the technical sense of the term – the institution produces racist effects and racist inequalities.”
Politicians and government departments deny these allegations but have vowed to do more. Prime Minister David Cameron, in a recent TV interview, said he believed the UK is “a less racist country” than it was in 1993, but admitted “there’s still a lot more to be done”. The Home Office is soon due to publish its new Hate Crime strategy. But whether the political will exists to traverse the thorny issue of racism in ways that lead to effective changes on the ground still remains to be seen.
On January 13, the MPS also announced it would reform part of its stop and search policy. But this change took place only after it became clear that the courts might rule that the police’s use of the power was unlawful. Officers will now carry out fewer stop and search operations, and the threshold for evidence needed to authorise these procedures will be raised.
A collective issue
But this is a collective issue, not one where we can apportion blame on the police, judges, lawyers and politicians from the safety of the sidelines. Juries and police forces are made up of ordinary people, and politicians listen to the demands of the electorate that votes them into power.
What about the subtler undercurrents of prejudice that fester unchecked on our streets and in our homes, which are harder to expose and fight? What about the fact that we may cross the street to avoid a group of black teenagers, eye with a suspicion a young Asian man with a beard carrying a rucksack on the Underground system, or fear a young white man with tattoos and a shaved head?
For British society to tackle ignorance and prejudice, we must grasp how complex racism is. We must also recognise how racial hatred has diversified to find new groups of people to demonise. You don’t have to look too far back in Britain’s history to see instances of open anti-Semitism. From the 1940s, growing immigration to the UK of people from the former British colonies of the Caribbean, south Asia and Africa meant these communities became the targets of racism at both the institutional and street levels.
Open racism predominantly against young Africans and Afro-Caribbeans followed. Now, after 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, people who may be Muslim – and often look or are south Asian or Arab – are also targeted disproportionately by police. Almost 20 per cent of those stopped and searched by police under anti-terror laws in Britain in 2010 and 2011 were Asian.
But overt forms of racism are not always by white people against ethnic minorities – vitriol about people of different ethnicities and faiths comes also from Asians and blacks. And it is not solely the institutional racism that reports such as Macpherson unveiled, or the undisguised bigotry shamelessly celebrated by men like Norris and Dobson, which we must face head on.
When you speak to police officers, lawyers and ordinary people, most would say they are not racist. And most probably they aren’t – at least not consciously. But what about the subtler undercurrents of prejudice that fester unchecked on our streets and in our homes, which are harder to expose and fight? What about the fact that we may cross the street to avoid a group of black teenagers, eye with a suspicion a young Asian man with a beard carrying a rucksack on the Underground system, or fear a young white man with tattoos and a shaved head?
These are mental calculations that take place all the time; they are an important part of the collective debate on race in Britain. Although this prejudice is markedly different from the “institutional racism” the MPS was charged with, the two are linked: Overt, violent racism and institutional racism can only thrive in a broader framework of covert forms of discrimination that are often overlooked.
What next?
None of us are naïve enough to think racism will ever disappear. Yet as migration and globalisation grow and Britain becomes increasingly diverse, these are challenges we will be forced to face as we continue to question ourselves, others, and society. If we fail to do so, public confidence in our institutions will be further undermined. Blacks, Asians and people of mixed backgrounds will continue to be jailed, attacked and killed because of their faith or ethnicity.
The colour of Stephen Lawrence’s skin cost him his life. His family’s relentless pursuit of the men responsible is a testament to their strength and conviction that Britain can surmount racism. But this is not a time for us to rest easy. Some of the men who murdered Stephen remain free and racially motivated crimes still blight our society. Almost 40,000 hate crimes were reported in the country in 2010. In December, Indian student Anuj Bidve was murdered in what appears to be a racially motivated attack in Salford. These are the benchmarks we must judge ourselves against in a country that has, in many ways, nurtured a strong tradition of diversity.
Perhaps, then, the final words here should be those of Stephen’s mother, Doreen Lawrence, who, after this month’s convictions, said: “The fact is that racism and racist attacks are still happening in this country and the police should not use my son’s name to say we can move on.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s