YOURSAY 'I do not question the need to protect the less well-off. But I do question why after so many years of NEP, the disparity is still there and in fact worse?'

We don't need any Race Relations Act, claims Perkasa

Milosevic: Here I agree with the fascist Ibrahim Ali. The Race Relations Act will be a cover for the country's highly institutionalised system of discrimination.

Malaysian leaders want to look good on the surface and think they can hoodwink the world. They do not understand nor desire equality, pluralism and democracy in any deep sense, but like the rhetorical use of it.

This deep Malay feudal characteristic of looking good but devoid of firm underlying principles has always underpinned Umno. So until Malaysians understand and celebrate diversity and equality, it is a waste of time to go through the motions of the Race Relations Act.

The Act will not have the teeth of law and the philosophical basis to support the British model. If it is to regulate racial inequality in the Orwellian fashion, we already have many laws and policies for this.

Trumpet Call: It will be interesting to see how the new Act is going to be phrased in the backdrop of the privileges accorded to the Malays under the NEP (New Economic Policy).

If by just drawing reference to the implementation of Article 153 by a pastor is enough to ruffle the feathers of the ultras, including our own DPM, what more a piece of legislation that carries with it punitive powers.

Are they sure they have the political maturity to stomach such an Act? Unless, of course, it is so watered down that it is totally toothless.

David Dass: The Race Relations Act is meant for the protection of minorities. In any mature society, there must be an acknowledgment that minorities need protection not necessarily because of overt racism, but often because of covert racism and even subconscious bias.

How often I have heard my Chinese friends say that my people are more comfortable dealing with their own kind. Well, we must move on. Our own kind must be Malaysians of all stripes. I have heard my Malay friends talk of Malay nationalism.

Looking after your own kind leaves the minorities exposed and vulnerable. Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali as usual talks nonsense. Malay rights do not need further securing.

Anonymous_410a: Ibrahim Ali says, "... if everybody recognised the disparity of economic well-being between Malays and non-Malays, then there will be no need for any additional Act.".

My answer is, yes, we recognise the disparity of economic well-being between the races. I do not question the need to protect the less well-off. But I do question why after so many years of these affirmative action policies, the disparity is still there and in fact worse.

I also question why these policies result in the widening of the gap between the poor and the rich Malays. And I question if there is a need to review the policies so that it really protects the less fortunate.

There are many hardcore poor Indians and Chinese too. Who is helping them?

Sapphire: Ibrahim is right, we don't need any new Act. We non-Muslims have been very tolerant. Why can't Ibrahim and Perkasa be like us?

Gerard Samuel Vijayan: Does Islam condone discrimination and unfairness to minorities? Does Islam permit a Muslim to claim special rights and privileges simply based on his ethnicity?

The Race Relations Act can be enacted along the lines of Article 8 of the constitution that deals with equality and equal treatment under the law but with derogations to accommodate the provisions of Articles 3 and 153 of the constitution and exempting the Malay rulers from its provisions on matters of succession and inheritance.

Affirmative action under Article 153 must be fair, just and balanced as envisaged by the wording of the provision which suggests that it cannot override Article 8 of the constitution.

The founding fathers never intended a nation dominated by any single race simply on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, history and numbers.

Geronimo: Ibrahim said that if everybody behaved and not question Article 153, and that if everybody recognised the disparity of economic well-being between Malays and non-Malays, then there would be no need for any additional Act.

The point is every Malaysian behaves. It is only people like Ibrahim who don't and the Race Relations Act (if it ever come about) is to get them to toe the line.

Just because a Christian pastor expresses his point of view, you are already yelling blue murder for him to be charged under the Sedition Act. Don't you think you are inciting animosity between the Muslim and the Christian communities?

If you are truly a man of peace, which you are not, you would approach the Reverend and have the matter discussed amicably over a cup of tea. But no, you have to show who is the 'tuan' here.

Kgen: The notion of social contract is not grounded in history. The British only talked to the Malays when they drafted the constitution. The Chinese and Indians protested vigorously against the clauses which did not favour them, especially with regards to citizenship.

So what social contract are they talking about when people were protesting and demonstrating against the unfair clauses?

The term social contract was invented by Umno politicians in the 1980s, it was not heard of at independence.

Quigonbond: The sun would have risen from the West if Perkasa agreed to have Race Relations Act. The reason is simple. It'll put them out of commission.

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 .