1. In Malaysia anybody who speak openly about Malay will be easily labeled as racial prejudice.
2. For me, labeling a person as racial prejudice is a form of prejudice itself.
3. Whilst racial prejudice has various symptoms and manifestations which include fear, intolerance, separation, segregation, discrimination, and hatred, they won’t bother check if the symptom runs consistently before labeling such person occurs.
4. While all of these symptoms of racial prejudice may be manifest, the single underlying cause of racial prejudice is ignorance, still before such symptom where determined as consistently lies deep within the person, it’s easier to labeled them as racial prejudice and connected the cause directly to the person.
5. I believe that discussion about racial prejudice should be open and be debated publicly, but in a wider context.
6. It should be around the problem within a Nation not a race, cause if it focused mainly on a race, then the race (in this article Malays) were a victim to racial prejudice. In this context(Malay), the prejudice were risen due to a perception that only Malays inveterate such problem.
7. The action which laid form this basis will certainly deemed as biased due to the context which is proved wrong from the start.
8. But it shocked me as the action never be labeled bias but for some, it is perfectly ruled as a perfect action against corruption and iniquity.
9. If fight against racial prejudice were the common interest than it should occur that the context of races should be widen. It should also be about Chinese and Indian, and others like Kadazan, Iban, and Batak.
10. And the context of discussion too should be wider than just politics and NEP, it should also be an academic and political discussion about how culture effects racial issues. How housing and the composition of a neighbourhood, and how business runs in Malaysia, an how education, the syllabus, the school, all of this factor is crucial.
11. But when the issue were discuss only concerning political faction and agenda, then I’m purely skeptical about the true ‘maqasid’ of the discussion and where it leads, thus the intended ‘natijah’ is clear, the downfall of another party.
A downfall of another party is a downfall of another party, and a fight against is a fight against racism, the downfall of another party won’t secure a victory against racial prejudice but might also brings up another racial prejudice throughout the process, but using prejudice to fight racial prejudice clearly end’s up fighting a fight which is winning doesn’t solve the problem, let alone losing the battle.