I refer to Feizal's letter in which he said Indian and Chinese Malaysians are merely immigrants and thus should be grateful for the kindness of the Malays, etc.

HardeHarHar (apropos Stephen King the writer.)

Though I find his comments patronising and offensive, yet I feel many Malay Malaysians will share his sentiments while the few who differ, would reserve their thoughts, perhaps thinking it would be characterised as "disloyalty to the race, religion and country".

The catchphrase is often mouthed by Umno leaders including, astonishingly, our beloved Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who is supposed to be leading this nation with nine million non-Muslim non-Malays.

The likes of Feizal keep alive a climate of fear, uncertainty and anxiety among the minority non-Malays.

Was that his intention? To harass non-Malays, to gempar them verbally, from time to time, keep them off balance, so that the present state of unstable equilibrium can be kept going as long as possible?

Reflecting on his unsavory words, I wondered why Malaysia, as an enlightened society with a world-class racialist system, however lacked any kind of specific laws against racial violence and harassment. Then I looked up the British Home Office webpage and, found the following information for general interest:

The Commission for Racial Equality works in partnership with individuals and organisations for a fair and just society which values diversity and gives everyone an equal chance to work, learn and live free from discrimination, prejudice and racism.

The Government introduced these new offences in order to deal with the problem of racist violence and harassment. The Government recognises that racist crime does not simply injure the victim or their property, it affects the whole family and it erodes the standards of decency of the wider community. Trust and understanding built up over many years between communities can be eroded by the climate of fear and anxiety which can surround a racist incident.

1.2 These offences are also designed to ensure that a higher priority is given to the identification of the racial element of the crime in the gathering of evidence, thus preventing the racial aspect from being overlooked.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) defines a racial incident as:

"Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person."

"Racial group" is, for the purposes of these offences, a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

Malaysians may like to know what the British define as racist crime.These include:

Racially aggravated malicious wounding or racially aggravated grievous bodily harm (equivalent to existing offences under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

Section 29(1)(b): Racially aggravated actual bodily harm (equivalent to section 47 of the 1861 Act).

Section 29(1)(c): Racially aggravated common assault.

Interestingly, in 1997 two new offences were identified:

8.1 Section 32 creates two new offences of racially aggravated harassment. These offences incorporate the existing offences in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

8.2 The new offences are:

Section 32(1)(a): Racially aggravated harassment. This is the racially aggravated equivalent to the existing basic harassment offence under section 2 of the 1997 Act. It requires a course of conduct (that is, at least two occasions) which amounts to harassment.

8.3 Section 32(1)(b): Racially aggravated, putting people in fear of violence. This is the racially aggravated version of the more serious harassment offence as contained in section 4 of the 1997 Act. It requires that the offender knows, or ought to know, that their course of conduct was likely to cause the victim to fear violence will be used against them.

Finally, sentencing for racially aggravated crimes is defined with increased sentences under the Crime and Disorder Act. For example, harassment under the Protection of Harassment Act carries a maximum penalty of six months jail and/or a fine of 5,000. But if such harassment was racially aggravated, then the maximum penalty is increased to two years and/or an unlimited fine.

So the British mandate heavier penalties if crimes were racially aggravated.

Now why doesn't de facto Law Minister Rais Yatim get cracking to bring in such much needed legislation in racially organised Malaysia where race is the number one issue? In Britain, the minority groups face the brunt of racially aggravated crime. Yet the sense of justice and fair play of the majority whites have brought such laws into being.

What is the use of the Malay Malaysians' kindness and consideration for the other races when they dare not give the law the teeth (as the Brits have done) to identify and bring severe penalties on those who think fit to unleash racially aggravated crime, harassment or fear of violence?

Fact is, there are well-known figures who often voice such inciting and intimidating utterances, with the intention to frighten the passive population with a subtle fear of violence. Cunningly, these statements are couched to make it seem like the feeble protests of dissenters are racially inspired i.e. to make it appear that the passive population themselves are the instigators of racism.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is hardly any legislation in our beloved RM (Racialistic Malaysia) to stamp out racially aggravated crime and harassment. There is no Race Relations Act. Why?

Of course.

Because such laws would eventually put certain well-fed and highflying fellows into jail, cause their cronies to crumble and soon bring the raison d'être of the whole petty game of racist politics to an end.

No, the heavy-handed 'one-size-fits-all' mentality of the dreaded ISA is, and continues to be good enough for us Malaysian mugs.