MCA Wanita chief Yu Chok Tow bares fangs at the FT minister’s cheapening of women as valued only for their cosmetic beauty like old prostitute with alot cosmatic Najib will not dare touch him. His balls are tiny, low-class, ill-bred people, apologising is an unknown act, and making of infantile, crude comments such as statements that degrade members of the fair sex is natural to them. What this bastard tengku is saying that he prefers his wife to put up make up the whole day so that she look sexy said Yu Chok Tow Not all women are like Rosmah’s high maintenance. Goes to show how superficial our FT Minister’s think is ….
Most Malaysian Chinese will only make noise for all the things that they do not have while never even for once mention all the things that they have already had ?
Some may give example of how a Black American like Barrack Obama can be the President of the United States without knowing the facts that it take US 446 years of democratic electoral system to have Black American President compare to our Malaysian democratic electoral system that not yet even reach 60 years . Even that do u know how tight is the US President security system to prevent the Skin Head plan to assassinate and kill Obama because of his skin colour ?
We will complaint about Ali Baba policy and yet accused it benefit entirely only the Malays community but do you know how many Chinese Malaysian became a Millionaire out of this Ali Baba system ?
We talk about corruption but do you all know behind every single so ‘called’ racist UMNO politician there do have their own Chinese businessman as their proxy and crony?
Corruption is wrong. But the issue here that I am trying to convey is about racism. If it is really about race then why should the so called Racist UMNO Malays even have their crony from the Chinese race instead of their own races entirely ?
If the Malays in Malaysia is really racist then are we the Malaysian Chinese not racist as well ? Whenever we uses the word Chinese , Chinese , Chinese ? We must have a Chinese Prime Minister and etc ? If we are truly colour blind then the demand should be what type and quality of PM we should have and not what race should or should not be the head.
When our civil servant got more than 80% of the Malays , we claimed that the Government is racist but then in reality it was the Chinese who choose to work in the private sector than the public sector. Why should we blame others for something that we ourselves do not want to be part of it ?
Most Malays are easily contented with the pay in the public sector while most Malaysian Chinese will never wanted to have that type of pay. So when you all do not want it and others want it and when it happen you all blame the government of being racist when most of the Malays are in the Army and Police sector ?
Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said
racism
Dr Lim Mah HuiSenior Fellow of Socio-economic and Environment Research Instute Lim Mah Hui is at brink of bring labelled as being defined as a racist, bigot or liar. He should explain on his statement debunking Minister in-charge of Economic Planning in Prime Minister’s Department Dato’ Ser
Abdul Wahid Omar’s stance for lack of opportunity is the culprit for lesser Malays in corporate sector instead of “Poor quality of workforce”.
There are evidently clear discriminatory practices against Malay graduates, job market candidates with experience, professionals or even top management aspirants.The Mole Chief Editor Shamsul Akmar Musa Kamal’s analysis on the New Sunday Times:
Discrimination in the private sector
CONTENTIOUS ARGUMENT: It’s highly presumptuous to claim the private sector’s refusal to employ Bumiputeras is because of their lack of quality
THERE are several ways for Malays/Bumiputeras to react to reports quoting economist Dr Lim Mah Hui as saying that the private sector had not been keen to employ them because they are not able and lacking in quality.
Lim, a member of the DAP-led Penang government think tank, reportedly said this when debunking Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar, who had contended that the private sector had not given much opportunity to Bumiputeras.
First, Bumiputeras can get all riled up, demand Lim to apologise and if he refuses, ostracise and label him with unsavoury tags. Or they can counter what he had said by pointing out that his statement is racist, condescending, stereotypical, a generalisation, unfounded and without basis, and unfitting to have been uttered by someone with academic credentials.
A report in an English daily on Sept 18 titled “Discrimination when hiring is rife, say job seekers” could shed light on the issue and provide points to ponder as to why Lim was so quick to conclude the issue with a condescending attitude towards Bumiputeras.
The report, among others, highlighted a study conducted by Universiti Malaya senior lecturer in development studies department Lee Hwok Aun and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia research fellow Muhammed Abdul Khalid, which showed that racial discrimination, at least, is very much prevalent in the private sector.
The report stated they were only able to conduct the study in the private sector with Lee saying the results showing Chinese applicants had an upper hand, was expected.
“I wanted to step back and examine the issue empirically and credibly,” the report quoted Lee.
The study involved the distribution of resumes of fictitious Malay and Chinese candidates to real job advertisers and comparing the number of callbacks candidates of each race got.
In his analysis, Lee was quoted as saying: “The result of the experiment showed that in the private sector, race mattered. Chinese applicants are much more likely than Malay applicants to be called for an interview. Quality also matters, but much less so.”
There are a lot of other details in the report. Suffice to say Lee, in the report, pointedly said, “Quality also matters, but much less so.”
The academic, however, had a caveat: “We cannot confidently evaluate these arguments without further study. Emphatically, we must not be hasty to blame the discrimination we detect on malevolent motives and racial stereotyping, prejudice or bigotry.”
Based on the research Lee had done, it would have been highly presumptuous on the part of Lim to make such a sweeping conclusion that the refusal of the private sector to employ Bumiputeras is because of the community’s lack of quality.
Then what may have prompted Lim to say thus? Is it because he had done a study on the subject and the study is conclusive?
Lim may want to come out and prove that his remarks were not spawned from some deep-seated anti-Malay/Bumiputera sentiment but rather from his own findings that may help enlighten the lack in quality among the Bumiputeras, including the policy makers.
While he is at it, one thing seems to be conclusive, as all three — Lim, Wahid and Universiti Malaya’s Lee — agree there is a lack of Bumiputera participation in the private sector and it is not from the lack of want on the part of the community but rather the refusal of the private sector to take them.
In short, if, all this while, it is merely suspicions or conjectures when raising issues about the lack of Bumiputera participation in the private sector, especially when such opinions may have come from the Bumiputeras themselves, now that it had come from the likes of Lim, such views can be deemed as fact.
If that is a fact, the debate now is why (there is lack of Bumiputera participation) and how (to increase their participation). If Lim’s reason is the lack of quality, then the discrimination is not discrimination as merit is of essence. But the advocates of the New Economic Policy and affirmative action will argue that quality will be achieved with opportunities.
The argument put forth by Lim about quality is contentious, especially when he pointed his fingers at the civil servants, the majority being Bumiputeras, as examples of the lack in quality and incapability in producing results. Lest he forgets, the country enjoyed a double digit growth for almost a decade until the financial crisis of 1997/98.
In other words, the affirmative action was in full measure and the civil service shaped the nation’s economic policies. The majority of the civil servants then were still Bumiputeras. For that, there is no necessity for the Bumiputeras to be apologetic for the affirmative action to the likes of Lim and others.
Then again, there will be the Malay/Bumiputera apologists who will argue that they are not against the affirmative action but rather the implementation. Their arguments are ambiguous and at best apologetic, not wanting to put forth what they actually want. The easiest way out is to say that the affirmative action had benefited only the Umnoputras.
Without doubt Umno members, as other Bumiputeras, had benefitted from it. But so did the Malay/Bumiputera apologists.
In fact, if observed closely, these Malay/Bumiputera apologists are actually highly successful.
Their opinions and views are very much sought after by those anti-affirmative action non-Bumiputeras to lead in politics, non-governmental organisations, academic institutions and the media.
Or maybe, they are the ones Lim is referring to as lacking in quality. And wisdom is one quality stooges will never have.
**************
Lim skewed analysis should be seen as nothing but sinister. Never mind the fact that the think-tank he represent is backed by Chinese Chauvinist Penang DAP State Government.
The fact is that, none of the Chinese owned banks and top PLCs hired professional Malays as their CEO. The consideration is never about relevant experience, exposure, qualification or proven track record with industry recognition as the testimony. Even if when they the choice of international head hunters.
Obviously, personalities in the likes of Dato’ Seri Wahid himself have shown their mettle to lead and proven to deliver profitability and brought added value to the shareholders.
