Your Question – whether there is any concerned minister prepared to say “no” to racism- is only meaningful if they share the same understanding with you on the meaning of the word “racism”.

PM Najib in New Straits Times Sept 7th (page 4) gave a measure of the word’s especial meaning when he said that there were two ‘rules of the thumb’ not to disrupt racial harmony:

1. “To refrain from saying things that could hurt another race”;

2. Never to question what had been agreed upon by the country’s forefathers as encapsulated in the Constitution as well as what was stipulated in the Social Contract” (“Constitutional Privileges/Social Contract”).

This could be what “Zero Tolerance to Racism” ought, in context, to mean in the language of UMNOputras.

For racism – without caveat/qualification in 2. – will necessarily mean that the main communal parties of the ruling coalition canvassing votes based on communal appeal are also racist, and their politicians formed the government, the government too is racist, and hence have no business to lecture the people about not being racists.

If Ketuanan based on the Constitutional Privileges/Social Contract is the ideology of UMNO – and it is the reason for its very existence – then surely it cannot be defined as racist! Neither can one label race specific affirmative programmes like the NEP as racist: it may be race specific or race based or race focused or even race structured, yes it is all these, but racist definitely “no”!

However if one must insist otherwise, then Ok lah it’s, at best, legal and good institutionalized and constitutional racism to which all must not only tolerate but affirm and respect – as distinguished from other forms of racism, unsanctioned, illegal and unconstitutional to which we should all show zero tolerance!

The insertion of the caveat/qualification in 2. carries two implications:-

(a) whatever said in support, affirmation and defence of the Constitutional Privileges/Social Contract cannot be viewed “racist”, even though that which was said might have actually caused hurt and offence to persons of another race; and

(b) conversely whatever said by anyone who might be aggrieved by Constitutional Privileges/Social Contract which is negative of, contrary to or inconsistent with the spirit or letter of that Constitutional Privileges/Social Contract held sacrosanct may be construed as (the other way around) “hurting another race” sought to be protected by the Constitutional Privileges/Social Contract, thereby exposing the person saying it to being accused of being “racist” and even seditious, if it causes enough offence to persons or groups as evinced by their public protests or lodgment of police reports against.

Thus within this especial, if skewed, definition of what constitutes “racism” – which the rest of us may not share the same understanding of the meaning of the word “racism” – there is really no problem for any Minister, subject to the overriding caveat/qualification in 2. and its implications, to say with sincerity “No” to Racism!

The point is that if there were no meeting of minds and the questioner and the person from whom a response is sought do not even share the same language and understanding of the word like ‘racism” used, whats the point of even asking!