Malaysia’s Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister has made the astounding revelation that he was defending the Chinese when he called earlier on the Malays to boycott Chinese businesses. (“Thank me for defending the Chinese, says Malaysian minister”; Feb 10)
By no stretch of the imagination could calling on Malays to boycott Chinese businesses have the same meaning as consumers boycotting all businesses that are inclined to profiteer.
The latter calls on consumers in general to withhold business, whereas the former calls on a specific race to not patronise the business of another specific race, which amounts to racial polarisation.
The minister is not defending the Chinese but is dangerously pitting two races against each other. This is not in Malaysia’s interests or in the interests of national solidarity.
In Singapore, we would not allow anyone, especially a minister, to rock the boat by inciting racial polarisation. We are also against profiteering, but playing the racial card is akin to killing a fly with a bomb.
The minister concerned wants to be thanked now for his faux pas. The wonders of how some use semantics never cease.
By no stretch of the imagination could calling on Malays to boycott Chinese businesses have the same meaning as consumers boycotting all businesses that are inclined to profiteer.
The latter calls on consumers in general to withhold business, whereas the former calls on a specific race to not patronise the business of another specific race, which amounts to racial polarisation.
The minister is not defending the Chinese but is dangerously pitting two races against each other. This is not in Malaysia’s interests or in the interests of national solidarity.
In Singapore, we would not allow anyone, especially a minister, to rock the boat by inciting racial polarisation. We are also against profiteering, but playing the racial card is akin to killing a fly with a bomb.
The minister concerned wants to be thanked now for his faux pas. The wonders of how some use semantics never cease.
