The subsequent conciliatory letter

from Petrof contains several compliments of the achievements of Barisan Nasional which would have been more useful if highlighted in his controversial letter which resulted in the police raid of malaysiakini . o­ne valuable lesson I hope the writer of the controversial letter can learn from this incident is that a criticism should also reflect a fair and balanced view.

In retrospect, the Malay community was also a victim of manipulation and unfair treatment by the colonial powers who took advantage of their openness and warmth to admit foreigners to their land.

By large, the Malay community then with the influence of their earlier contacts with Arabs, Chinese and other traders were capable traders and sailors in their own right. As a trading community with thriving trading ports, the Malays instinctively were less suspicious of the colonial powers. Unfortunately, the foreigners came not o­nly with the intention of trade and commerce but to also control and colonise the resource-rich land for access to raw materials for their empire expansion and to satisfy demands back home.

During the colonial period, the divide and rule policy created a serious social demarcation among the communities. Economic activities were identified with race. The Malays were contained at farms and seas and later as civil administrators (low clerical and support staff) while the Indians were recruited for plantations and the Chinese were mainly small traders, miners or shopkeepers. Other big businesses of great economic importance were controlled by the colonial power.

Later, after the Independence, Malay Malaysians-dominated and -led elected Alliance government had sought to eliminate and reformulate the social landscape. In fact, economic inequalities and uneven distribution of wealth had created communal tension among the communities which led to bloody communal riots in 1969. The fact remained that the riots were motivated by economic reasons and class differences, not communal misunderstanding. However, it was the manipulation of communal politics which contributed to such misunderstanding.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in 1970 and various affirmative actions were implemented in the aftermath of the tragedy in order to close the economic gap between the communities and to redistribute wealth. However, the distribution of economic pie was again subjected to communal politicking rather than based o­n needs. As a result, while the intent of the NEP was to abolish the identification of race with profession, the policy has actually perpetuated what it sought out to abolish.

Moreover, there were also instances of political elites manipulating the policy for their own benefit. While the NEP's original aim was noble, such acts had tarnished its good intention and worth.

In order to maintain their electoral base and support, some politicians continue to manipulate the NEP and turned it into an ethno-centric policy used to hand out goodies to gain communal endorsement and control. The wayward implementation and definition of the policy is then made sacred and unquestionable because any attempt to question its implementation would amount to unmasking a vicious political gimmick which uses communalism for political advancement.

Hence, while the affirmative action is a fact of life, we should not put the blame o­n any community because a large proportion of the bumiputera community, especially the indigenous people and even the Malay Malaysians, were non-beneficiary of the policy.

Even until today, the Malays as a community in general, continue to hold an openness of the pre-colonial period because intrinsically they are cultured and able to lend their trust generously. Their openness and willingness to absorb values from other cultures are evident from the degree of foreign influence in their food, language and the adulation of Western-American cultures eg movies, music, and dressing among their youths.

The Malay political genius, flexibility, openness and social skills can be depended o­n to continue to provide leadership to our Malaysian society if the community can grapple with the issues and challenges of ethno-religious politics which are main cause of polarisation and disunity (including among the Malay community).

Furthermore, the position of the Malays vis-a-vis other communities is not a source of concern because their dominance and control are rock solid and should not be threatened or shaken by a mere "surat layang" (poison-pen letter) even though in this case the letter has proven to be unproductive to the spirit of unity and multiculturalism.

On the other hand, Umno Youth's knee-jerk reaction and their enthusiasm to champion the Malay rights may be seen in a positive light if the situation were 50 years ago. Nevertheless, such an act today can be seen as a manifestation of myopic leadership because Malay politics has changed especially when its position is seen in the context of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition. It is a precedent that Umno's top leaders will eventually become heads of the multiracial coalition.

As leaders of a multiracial coalition, Umno will have to also take into consideration the concerns, issues and needs of other communities who rendered them their support and legitimise their leadership. It is exemplary Umno Youth leaders, who will eventually become Umno leaders, to portray their ability to champion for the cause of all ethnic groups and mediate any differences in the society. This will differentiate them as national leaders and not o­nly as communal leaders who champion narrow-minded communal interests. Umno must lead in this noble attempt to eradicate the Malay and non-Malay (or worse the Muslim and non-Muslim) dichotomies which make national unity a mere dream.

As such the Umno Youth must also show consistency in opposing all forms of communal or religious motivated attacks and actions that can undermine the spirit of unity and societal integration. This includes taking a tough measure against their own kind who flaunted the rules of multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Perhaps this incident could provide a valuable lesson to all of us who are part of a multiracial society, i.e. to observe mutual respect and understanding. The second valuable lesson is that nothing is absolute, not even freedom of expression, if it is made and exercised without moral consciousness and responsibility.