COMMENT | Malaysiakini columnist Zan Azlee’s latest piece is a response to Hafidz Baharom’s letter – and the discourse surrounding the hypocrisy of supporting Icerd but justifying the overt racism of certain property-owners here in Malaysia.

Mind you, I do not think Zan understands the etymology of the term “institutional racism” (which I will leave to readers to discover and which is why I use the word “overt”) but I understand where he is coming from. What he means, I assume, are the pro-Malay racist policies that define the social, economic and political landscape of Malaysia.

Nor do I think that Zan was justifying racism but it sure as hell comes off that way when a couple with the means to pay for accommodation are rejected based on the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs. The last thing they would think is the landlord is “fussy” and I am sure if you told them that this landlord supports Icerd, they would burst out in laughter.

The idea that you can be in favour of something like Icerd yet still believe that individuals are perfectly within their rights to discriminate based on race or religion is exactly the kind of horse manure that infects this country and which helps the political class maintain power.

One “award-winning” journalist when interviewed on a radio station actually said that while racism is a problem, she did not believe the state had the right to legislate when it comes to personal property. She made the distinction between the “discrimination” of (and by) the state and babbled on about how education would slowly ameliorate individual racism.

Really? The state is always legislating when it comes to individual property. The state is always legislating when it comes to how we conduct business. This idea for anti-discrimination laws when it comes to tenancy agreements (for instance) and something the state should not get involved in, is complete horse manure.

The central theme of Icerd is eliminating all forms of racism and discrimination and while the legalese of this convention is contextualised in support of certain race-based agendas, at the heart of it, what its proponents hoped Icerd would do is put us on the road towards reforming a system which is mired in the kind of racism and bigotry detrimental to social and economic cohesion.

This really goes beyond to use Zan’s term “fussy” landlords but rather the poisoned racial discourse in this country where certain types of racism are accepted – nay, encouraged - but where people clamour for the state to get rid of its racist policies.

“Racial preference” is such a quaint term. It’s like saying some of my best friends are people in my non-preferred category but I just do not want to rent out to them. Landlords having specific criteria that anyone could theoretically fulfil is not racism. It becomes racism when the criterion is race, or bigotry when it comes to religion.

Of course, people are blind to some things in this country or worse, do not really care. This idea that the state was racist, which created a separate space for the non-Malays to compete, live and die in, has resulted in a discourse which not only alienates people but also encourages a siege mentality in the non-Malay community.

It like people who scream that there is no discrimination in the private sector and that the only discrimination that exists is the kind carried out by the state. Or when they claim that there is discrimination in the private sector but it is more important for the state to handle the discrimination it perpetuates.

Really dumb

What people fail to understand is that the political class in this country benefit when people condone certain forms of racism instead of rejecting them outright.

Racists will make all sort of justifications for their racism which will include prior experience with a specific race, falling back on racial stereotypes, deep-rooted anger for the systemic racism by the state or just plain, old-fashioned ignorance.

And the political class likes this state of play. Indeed, when mainstream politicians advocate some form of anti-discriminatory laws, what they are really doing is inviting the non-Malays especially to call out the racism of the state while defending the racial preference of the individual which is spun to look like the preference of the community even though many people would object to justifying racism in their name. Or at least, that’s what I hope.

Why do they do this? Because it helps their narrative that without the protection of preferential policies, they would be at the mercy of the minorities who have no problem – or so they claim – with preferential policies of their own.

They get to point to the hypocrisy of these people who clamour for something like Icerd but have no problem being “racists” when it comes to their interests.

This is why the majority need the protection of the state and why the minorities want to strip the majority of this protection or so the official mainstream goes. This whole idea that some pundits like to propagate that, “We are Malaysians, we are all racists” to support certain agendas while disavowing others is really dumb.

Whenever I hear this, I say, “Speak for yourself.” I am always questioning my ideas when it comes to race and religion. I support legalisation and ideas which address these issues and sometimes disagree with the solutions offered.

Imagine what would happen if a non-Malay politician said that he or she supports something like Icerd but also supports the right of landlords for racial preference. What signal would this send to the Malay community? So it’s easy under the cover of anonymity to promote a racist agenda but not so easy to justify such a stand either politically or morally when you are promoting a “new Malaysia”.

All this goes back to the Bangsa Malaysia Kool-Aid. That stupid idea that seeks to eliminate race from the discourse under certain - political expedient – conditions. This has made an honest conversation about race impossible. If people were seriously interested in reform, they would support something like Icerd and condemn the racism that is perpetrated through government policy as well as condemn racism carried out by some of the rakyat.

The political class is hypocritical and mendacious when they want to tackle racism in the property market (for instance) but ignore the racism in the government. However, the rakyat is hypocritical when they justify certain forms of racism, but demand that the government confronts the racism in the government.

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. A retired barrister-at-law, he is one of the founding members of Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan.

S Thayaparan

Click here to subscribe to our weekly newsletters in English and or French. You will receive one email every Monday containing links to all articles published in the last 7 days.