Sheriff Singh: “Is this the same Jamaluddin Jarjis ? It is. Education is no bar to a racist attitude but generally it does mitigate that trait.

Has the same Jamaluddin Jarjis made “totally uncalled-for racial insults” in relation to Sheena?

Maybe yes may be no (as Mr Godamn Singh above had felt about Sheena’s overreaction) but we cannot make a conclusive determination based alone on Sheena’s recitation of events repeated here in this Thread.

Why I say this is that what we say – and whether it reflects our racist attitude and constitute a racial insult – is determined by (1) the actual words uttered and (2) the context in which they were uttered combined with the motives and feelings of the person uttering them with (2) being more important where (1) do not conclusively evince racial slur.

When YB brought up in Parliament certain issues affecting rights of minorities, and was greeted with “Pendatang balik negeri” , that is a racist remark (as if this is not our negeri and we’re still emigrant). The words “bathe the keris in a certain community’s blood” are not only racist but seditious. Here the words are so obvious that they may be determined to be so in the context they were spoken. If my childhood Malay buddy were to tell me “Pendatang balik negeri” in front of common friends discussing politics, he is still pulling my leg of which no racism may be imputed because I know him.

Does Sheena know Jamaluddin Jarjis? Please don’t mistake that I am trying to defend him or against Sheena but what I am saying is that we cannot make a determination in an objective based on the words alone without knowing the context, motives and the emotive expression with which the words were conveyed.
If the other light skinned Malaysian Indian and (say) three other students present were to corroborate Sheen’s statement that they too had similar impression that he was singling her out for words laden with racial connotation, then she would have a more credible case!

I cannot speak Jamaluddin Jarjis. I don’t what he thinks. I can only speak for myself and put forward here a hypothetical situation.
Supposing I were the minister meeting Malaysian students in California and trying to engage in light banter with Malaysian students, trying to touch on common things Malaysians know about.

There amongst the students (mostly Malays) I see a rather sprightly and maybe attractive (at least to me) Malaysian Indian student standing out amongst others. So I engage in banter , “do you know Samy Vellu?” (We all know our political parties are delineated on ethnic lines. Had she been a Chinese, he would have said, do you know Ong Ka Ting?)

On the part of “buruh India” , this is historical fact – British estate owners often employed or directly contracted crimping agents (kangani) – of how Indian labour was brought into country by the British.

In Malaysia amongst friend and acquaintances, Chinese will call Malay lazy, and Malays, the Chinese, avaricious and so on and for so long it is light humoured banter, I’d like to think Malaysians can transcend without offense these historical stereotyping. The light skinned—dark skinned reference is a reference to the caste, which is also a cultural fact, at least in India.

Given the same words uttered, had Jamaluddin Jarjis said them in a utterly serious way with disdain written all over his face supported by h the tone and inflection of voice, the racial element would have been more prominent than say he were to say in a smiling or may be cheeky way to a lady he sees as quite attractive or standing out from the crowd.

Maybe Jamaludin Jarjis’ s mouth is little itchy. It gets him into trouble. Sheena’s complaint is picked up in many blogs. Since alleged racist remarks were uttered in California, complaints could be made to the Terminator – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Commission of Human Rights of USA etc.

We hear one side of the story. We don’t know Sheena. She is young – and in the US influenced by the values of what is politically correct there. Especially she does not like to be singled out amongst the crowd of Malaysian students whether based on race or gender , if race it implies racist, and if gender, the Minister is “gatal” a form of sexual harassment for which he has to be punished – and crucified!

What is politically correct in California and in Malaysia may be different : we have to look at the norm.

Like I said I wasn’t there, I am not trying to defend him for the sake of (as Endangered Hornbill once remarked) ‘devil advocacy’ .
It is the question of making a judgment (which so many here and in other blogs are conclusively making of the Minister – that he has made racial insults on her and judged her based on her skin colour (with all necessary connotation that he is racist and undeserving of the high post he holds), involving a big hullabaloo of complaining to the PM etc – when the words allegedly uttered by him as recited in her letter cannot alone be the determining criteria of that, without context, manner of they were said, and discernible motives being clear. There is also no corroboration of the allegation from other members of the audience – not even the other light skinned Malaysian Indian.

Interestingly little attention is focused on Sheena and whether she is over sensitive and making a mountain out of a mole hill.

That is perhaps attributable to our collective partisanship and bias against all Barisan ministers because of the racial architecture of this country that we blame is erected and defended by them that we suffer in our everyday life.

Until we determine the facts shall we just take political mileage out of sheena’s well publicised complaint to crucify that man?

I guess what I am saying is that, without knowing the context, and the way he said them, whether with disdain or with a leering look, we don’t really know or could conclude he has negative preconception of Indians as a racial group or quite the opposite, no negative perception, and in fact very positive perception of young pretty Indian ladies. Now whether a Minister should conduct himself in a public forum that way, whether there as propriety, that’s another issue which I am not so confident in.

“A new regulation by two major banks … requires law firms to have a minimum of three partners of which one must be Bumiputera with a minimum 50 per cent stake in the firm before they can do any business with the banks…”

It’s not a new regulation : its been there for some time, and in the case of the “most major bank”, unofficially, since 20 years ago. This may heightened further abuses of the Ali-Baba system. You have 2 young Bumi lawyers not very proficient in English, have no clientele and certainly know nothing of the law, you make them 2 partners and viola you have 100% bumi owned firm (with the partnership agreement to show too) to get the work from the two major banks. The one behind it is of course a senior streetwise legal wise non bumi lawyer who gets the work done, and although officially he is mere assistant employee of the 2 bumis, gets 90% of the spoils with 5% each to each of the Bumi. (Bumis themselves are grateful for that for otherwise they might not get even an employment with a salary more than the 5%). This is however exploitation of the Bumi because even anything goes wrong -and the firm gets sued for negligence (done by the non bumi) or sued by EPF (for non payment of EPF) (or by Inland Revenue for non payment of taxes), the Bumis who ostensibly present themselves as owners and partners would be hit and made bankrupt whilst the non bumi puppet master gets scot free to live another day, enter into another arrangement with another 2 unsuspecting young and inexperienced bumi solicitors and repeat the same thing. At the end of the day one has to contend with the market and has to hold one’s own or else if you depend on others who are competent, competitive and streetwise, to leverage and make use of your privileges (not backed by expertise), it is often the case that you who though privileged get exploited rather than them!

Very likely Sheena Moorthy is an attractive lady who stands out above the crowd who caught Jamaludin’s attention. Asking in incident 1 if she knew Samy Vellu, because he knew him, was just a conversational breaker. Mentioning incident 2 the historical fact of “buruh India” and looking at her and saying “that’s how we get Indians in Malaysia”, was to convey the message that she had his attention. In incident 3 the words “Oh, I am not going to help upper class Indians, I only help the lower class ones. They are the ones that need it” in the context of Sheena being the darker skinned of the two Malaysian Indians was a banter to hint that he was well predisposed towards her.

One can judge by the words and what Sheena alone interpreted them to determine that they were racially motivated. We were not there. If the fairer skinned Indian friend and three others students were to corroborate that the manner by and context in which the words were spoken came across as racial, then her interpretation would have been corroborated.

So far we only have her words for it. No doubt she was angry for being singled out by the Minister and must have been embarrassed. But the point here of debate is whether he was racist and should be reprimanded by his PM boss for it. Maybe he was just taken in by her presence. Like I said earlier the way the words were said is important. If a person said them with contempt and disdain, they might be racially motivated; if they were said with a fond or leering smile, they might suggest something else. Remember what Bigjoe said about his repute in posting May 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am.? Of course ether way the Minister might have saved himself more trouble by not acting in such a way.

Can we judge readily from what Sheena said that the Minister had a racial attitude against Indians? Without knowing the context and the way they were said, we won’t know. They are equally consistent with someone having racial bias not necessarily against but possibly could be much in favour especially of the female gender who is attractive. Let us not make a mountain out of a mole hill on Sheen’s so called over reaction as what Mr Godamn Singh said.

It can be wrong to assume and judge things on face value. Just like what thedoctor rebuked in his posting May 6th, 2007 at 7:02 am of another poster : “This is directed to Mr GoDamn Singh…well its Indians like you who bring shame to the Community”.

How do we know Mr Godamn Singh is an Indian or Singh behind his nick – for all we know Mr Godamn Singh could be an Americanised Malaysian Chinese – and are we going to assume that the man behind the nick thedoctor is really a doctor?