The Search for A New Deal without defaulting on the Old Deal? An Analysis of Intergroup Contact among Malaysians

This post is dedicated to the Clueless Idiots pushing for 1Malaysia and all the other various permutation of the same bullshit.

Let us deconstruct this "issue"...... understand its fundamental variables and perhaps reflect on ourselves what is this shit they are trying to sell.....and under what condition can it work

To begin let us examine some basic literature on the Contact Hypothesis formulated by Gordon Allport in 1954. In his seminal work The Nature of Prejudice, Allport put forward an idea that greater Inter-group contact would reduce bias.

To be maximally effective, contact and acquaintance programs should lead to a sense of equality in social status, should occur in ordinary purposeful pursuits, avoid artificiality, and if possible enjoy the sanction of the community in which they occur.The deeper and more genuine the association, the greater its effect. While it may help somewhat to place members of different ethnic groups side by side on a job, the gain is greater if these members regard themselves as part of a team. (Allport, 1958,p. 454, original italics)

Allport’s Contact hypothesis defines four prerequisite features for contact to be successful at reducing intergroup conflict and achieving intergroup harmony. These four features are

1. Equal status within the contact situation;
2. Intergroup cooperation;
3. Common goals; and
4. Support of authorities, law, or custom

There are many preceding works on the subject before Allport's

Although Allport (1954, 1958) is commonly credited with introducing the Contact Hypothesis in his classic book, The Nature of Prejudice, the idea that intergroup contact could reduce bias was already in the literature by the mid-1930s.Zeligs and Hendrickson (1933) explored the relationship between several individual difference factors, including self-reported degree of acquaintance, and attitudes toward 39 different racial groups. The authors noted that the ‘most significant factor related to social tolerance was the degree to which children claimed acquaintanceship with the various races’, but they added that the ‘relationship was high for all races except the Negro’ (p. 26). Horowitz (1936)compared the racial attitudes of White children in segregated and integrated schools, but similarly found no differences in their racial attitudes.

By the mid-1940s, however, more attention was being devoted to the nature and context of interracial contact. F. Tredwell Smith’s (1943)book, An Experiment in Modifying Attitudes Toward the Negro, described a program in which White Columbia University students had a series of positive weekend interracial social and intellectual contacts with Black leaders in Harlem. Students who experienced this form of inter racial contact demonstrated significant improvements in their attitudes toward ‘Negroes’, changes that were not obtained among students in a control group who did not experience interracial contact.

Other works pointing to similar conclusions,often drawing on systematic studies and analyses of the experiences of American soldiers, were published soon after World War II. The battlefield offered a natural laboratory. Although segregation of Black and White units was the formal policy of the US Army during the war, combat conditions often necessitated racial integration among combat troops. One significant consequence was that White soldiers who had integrated combat experiences had more positive racial attitudes than did those who did not have this contact (Singer, 1948; Stouffer, 1949). In addition, in the Merchant Marines, the more voyages White seamen took with Black seamen,under conditions of mutual interdependence,the more positive their interracial attitudes became (Brophy, 1946).

These observations were being drawn into general principles soon after. Lett (1945) observed, in a paper presented at a conference jointly sponsored by the University of Chicago and the American Council on Race Relations, ‘To achieve any kind of mutual understanding and regard, people must share experiences which permit the interplay of character and personality. They must share a common objective’(p. 35). Bramfield (1946), in his work on race relations in public schools concluded that ‘where people of various cultures and races freely and genuinely associate, there tensions and difficulties, prejudices and confusions, dissolve; where they do not associate, where they are isolated from one another, there prejudice and conflict grow like a disease’ (p. 245; see also Long, 1949).

Intergroup Contact Past Present and Future : Dovidio, Gaertner & Kawakami

There are two more additional variables identified, intimate interaction (Amir, 1976) and friendships (Pettigrew 1997)

Sekarang jom kita analyse the First Variable in the Context of Malaya and Malaysia

EQUAL STATUS WITHIN CONTACT SITUATION

Can this condition be a realistic condition in Malaya(then) and Malaysia(now)?

Travel with me now into the 1940's as we look at some of the Colonial Office Communication with regards to  the initial discussion among the "policy makers" on the Special Position of the Malays

In August 1942, the expression in a joint British Colonial Office-Foreign Office policy paper of a “legitimate fear of the Malays” vis-à-vis other peoples in the peninsula, in combination with a British intention post-war to integrate the various political components into a political union. In respect of the Borneo territories, it was intended that: “Sarawak and Brunei would continue to be independent states under His Majesty’s protection by treaty, but if some form of Malayan union was developed, it would be appropriate that Brunei at least and possibly Sarawak should be associated with that union.” Regarding North Borneo: “An opportunity will arise for proposing the direct assumption by the British government of administrative responsibility for North Borneo…and the state of North Borneo might also be associated with the Malayan Union.” [3]

Soon thereafter, however, even before the end of 1942, the British, concerned about maintaining their post-war power in Asia, decided that Singapore should not be included in the post-War union. In a report by Sir W. Battershill, G.E.J. Gent and W.L. Rolleston on lessons from Hong Kong and Malaya, it was noted: “It is therefore suggested that the island [Singapore] should be excluded from any federation and/or customs union that may be established in the rest of the peninsula.” [4]

At the same time, the political ramifications of the proposed union were being discussed in war-time Whitehall. There was concern that in the Malay states it had not been possible to “establish the status of Chinese born in a Malay State as British protected persons.” This was important as “the Malay rulers have never been ready to recognise Chinese, however long established in their states, as being nationals of those states. It is desirable, even at this stage, that the formal status of ‘British protected persons’ should be given to those Chinese who are domiciled in the Malay States.” [5] How to deal with the sultans was a key issue discussed. Lord Hailey who headed the Colonial research Committee tasked with investigating post-war arrangements in British colonies averred: “The treatment of the rest of Malaya is our most difficult problem. There is, on the one hand, the obligation of honour to replace the sultans in the position which our Treaties have assigned to them; there is, on the other hand, the need to take account of our announced policy of promoting self-governance in the colonies. It is obvious that there are many advantages in the existing system which is practically one of direct official rule, under the façade of ‘advice’ to the Malayan rulers!” [6] The dilemma was expressed by Lord Hailey thus: “Actually, the greater part of the administration is carried out, in the Federated Malay States at all events, by officers or departments acting under direct orders of the Governor. Sooner or later we will have to face squarely the question whether we are to allow the façade of Sultan-rule to persist, with all the difficulties which it which it presents to the attainment of any form of self-government, or to build up a constitution on the basis of realities.” [7] While exploring this, he saw that Britain “shall be obliged to face two questions, first, whether the system is capable of being adjusted to the promotion of self-governing institutions, and secondly whether it will enable a suitable status to be given to those Chinese and Indian immigrants who may acquire a permanent interest in the country.” [8] His major concern was “autocratic rule in the hands of the sultans and their Malay advisers.”

By May 1943, the Colonial Office was stressing the ethnicity variable in any possible post-war arrangements: While opposing any rule by autocratic sultans, “at the other extreme it was important to ensure that self-government did not rest on the numerical counting of heads which would mean the swamping of the permanent resident communities (especially the Malays) by immigrants without a lasting interest in the country.” [9] The declaration of our purpose in carrying through the policy (the implementation of which would have to be studied on the spot) would be that Malay interests must be recognised as paramount in carrying through such a scheme, but that other communities with permanent interests in the country must be given their due opportunity to share in an advance towards self-government.” [10]

Here is a very clear statement by Colonial Office officials in 1943 that “Malay interests must be recognised as paramount” and that the idea of all individuals within Malaya having the right to equal representation would be a threat to such aim. No basis for such aspirations was openly stated. In the same year a Malayan Planning Unit was established to make arrangements for post-war Malaya, headed by a military official Major-General H.R. Hone, who opined that “One can see at once that from the point of view of administrative economy and convenience there can be no question but that we should establish a single protectorate over the whole of the mainland of the Malay peninsula, and set up a single government for it.” [11] By 1944, it was becoming increasingly clear that the British wished to retain absolute control over Singapore, and in a Colonial Office memo to the War Cabinet Committee on Malaya and Borneo, the following outline for the other parts of Malaya was set down:

“Our constitutional scheme should be designed, first and foremost, to provide for a union of all the Malay states and the settlements of Penang and Malacca. A central authority representing these States and Settlements should be created and at its head should be a Governor with an Executive and Legislative Council. The seat of Government of this Malayan Union would be conveniently at or near Kuala Lumpur.” [12]

As the Pacific War turned in the interests of the Allies through 1944, the War Cabinet was also involved in planning of the post-war Malaya, generally following Colonial Office recommendations. In the appendices to the War Cabinet memorandum on Policy in Regard to Malaya and Borneo, presented on 18 May 1944 to Clement Atlee, it was noted that: “The restoration of the pre-war constitutional and administrative system will be undesirable in the interests of efficiency and security and of our declared purpose of promoting self-government in Colonial territories. The first of these interests requires a closer union of territories comprising the relatively small area of the Malay Peninsula; and the second requires that self-government should not merely develop towards a system of autocratic rule by the Malay Rulers, but should provide for a growing participation in the Government by the people of all communities in Malaya, subject to a special recognition of the political, economic and social interests of the Malay race.” [13]

However, into these smooth Colonial Office preparations for a Malay-dominated post-war Union in Malaya stepped a problem. Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the South East Asia, based in Ceylon, began to engage himself in post-war planning. In terms of overall political power, he expressed opposition to the reinstatement of the Sultans: “I am not in favour of reinstating the Sultans even as constitutional rulers and certainly not as autocratic rulers…But we must be careful not to abolish the Sultans ruthlessly.”

But it was in respect of the Colonial Office’s desire to assign a special position to the Malays in the post-war administrative structure that drew most of his ire. In July 1944, responding to the Colonial Office memo to the War Office, Mountbatten was to note: “My second point refers to the sentence in Para 1 of the Directive which reads that ‘Participation in the Government by all the communities in Malaya is to be promoted, subject to a special recognition of the political, economic and social interests of the Malay race.’ I cannot help feeling that in the long run nothing could perhaps do more to perpetuate sectional antagonisms, to the risk of which you pointedly refer in your letter, than the giving of special recognition to one race.” “I feel that our objectives should be to break down racial sectionalism in every way open to us, politically, economically and socially, and to endeavour to substitute for it the idea of Malayan citizenship.” [15]

The Colonial Office mandarins obviously felt that Mountbatten did not really understand the exigencies of the situation in Malaya, and Mr Stanley of that office responded to the Supreme Commander’s concerns, informing him of the situation as their officers perceived it: “The Malays are, by general consent, not at present capable of competing on equal terms economically and educationally with the ‘immigrant races’ – Chinese and Indian. From the beginning of our relations with the States we have pursued in the Malay States the policy of taking positive measures to prevent the submergence of the Malays in the public services and in the ownership of land by the more energetic, competent and resourceful Chinese. The most damaging criticism of our new policy will be precisely on these grounds, since we are endeavouring to admit non-Malay communities to a political equality with the Malays in the State territories. We shall make certain of estranging the Malays unless we can assure them of measures not only in the political and social field, which will prevent such ‘equality’ inevitably resulting in their submergence, but also in such matters as the reservation of Malay lands, which otherwise will certainly pass into the hands of the ubiquitous Indian money-lender. Even Tan Cheng Lock, a leading Chinese of Malacca, admits this himself to a large extent.” [16] The letter concluded that: “..The social basis of Malayan society for some time to come cannot be expected to be other than communal, seeing that inter-marriage is virtually non-existent, and religion, language and domestic customs must be potent factors in maintaining the present distinctions.” Mountbatten was however unimpressed:

I fully appreciate that the social basis of Malayan society cannot for some time be other than communal, and that the fostering of the three peoples of Malaya of the conception that they are in fact Malayans, will be an uphill business. …Since I wrote to you, I have received from the War Office copies of the Directives on Chinese policy, and on the Creation of Malayan Union Citizenship. It is essential that the Chinese and Indian elements should be legally assimilated, and should be made to feel committed to local responsibility, instead of being merely a group of exploiters, or a source of cheap labour.

…

I am sorry to see from your letter that the Malays should by general consent be found incapable of competing on equal terms, ‘economically and educationally’, with the Chinese and Indians. I have no reason to suppose that this opinion is not fully borne out; but it seems to me that indigenous peoples sometimes appear lazy and unambitious, largely because they are unwilling to compete with lower standards of living and wage conditions established by immigrants, who are without roots in the country, and cannot afford to turn down a standard of wages which those who have homes and relations on the spot are not forced to sink to. I do not suggest that the Malayan is at the mercy of cheap coolie labour from China; but it is so easy to give a dog a bad name that one is inclined to fear that an opinion of the natives’ qualities may become an idée fixe, which will militate against a proper appreciation of their potentialities under improved conditions. [17]

Thus, by August 1944, the lines were clearly drawn. On the one side was the Colonial Office arguing for a special protected position for the Malays, and on the other Admiral Mountbatten urging a general Malayan citizenship with all having equal rights and responsibilities. Refer here 

I would now like to take you to the Federation of Malaya Agreement in 1948, as we all know Only the representative of the Malay Rulers and the UMNO was present during its discussions unlike the Constitutional  Negotiations post Reid Report.

 In the report the committee understood the delicate balance that they need to achieve with regards to the Malays and the Pendatangs in Tanah Melayu

This is their initial tots on the Special Position Clause...

For the full document download here (Thank you SSS Admin for hosting the file!)

As you can see from the Colonial Communication documents and the Federation Agreement working committee reports....

The British was the one pushing for the Pendatangs to be included as Citizens, even the Sultans rejected them.

And if you have read the Federation 1948 Agreement, there is NO SUCH thing as Foreign Culture or Foreign Language provisions; even the proposed Citizenship requirement imposes a very strict condition on Malay and English proficiency for those who wants to become Naturalised Citizens

The pre-set conditions laid out in the 1948 agreement sets the tone for the 1950's Constitutional Discussion..

The Pendatangs knew that The Special Position was already enshrined in the 1948 Agreement clause 19 (d) and  they also knew that they can qualify as Federal Citizens via Naturalisation.......

What do you think becomes their primary concern now? .....

We shall investigate further as we do a deeper dive into the 1950's Alliance Discussion and its Memorandum to Reid, The Reid Commissions Activities, the Inter Communal Bargains that lead to the Final Formulation of the Constitution. (For this lu orang tunggu gua punye future post)

In the mean time let us examine the Contact Situation

How much contact do you think the various racial groups had in Malaya? 

Take into account the British ethnic division of labour and the massive flow of Immigrants who alienated themselves into the various ethnic enclaves in the country.........

Perhaps we can start with J.S Furnivall observations in Netherlands India founded upon earlier works Stanford Raffles in which he note

Each group holds by its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways. As Individuals they meet, but only in the market place, in buying and selling. There is a plural society, with different sections of the community living side by side but separately, within the same political unit. Even in economic sphere there is a division of labour along racial lines...... Go here

While historically there was little scope at the level of production relations for any significant class-based interaction and solidarity between Malay peasants and immigrant wage labor, at the level of exchange relations (i.e. the market), the interaction between Malays and non-Malays was instead an ethnic encounter between the peasantry and Chinese merchant capital. Here the indigenous peasantry (already neglected and insulated from the mainstream of development under colonial rule) was confronted by the relatively dominant position of those Chinese who had entrenched themselves, and were allowed to flourish in this circuit of capital as businessmen,traders, middlemen and shopkeepers.

It is here that Furnivall’s earlier analysis hits home, for it is in the domain of the “market place/relations” of the “plural society” where the social actors “meet,” that the economic inequalities appear to be based on ethnicity and are visible and emphasized as such in the daily life of the Malay peasantry. As Lim Mah Hui notes:

The Malay peasant producers come into contact with the non-Malay traders either as producers or consumers. At both levels, he(sic) is a price taker and exploited by traders who probably charge more for the consumer goods and intermediate inputs required and pay less for the agricultural products offered.

A historian, the late J. M. Gullick made a similar observation:

The Malay peasant feels a tie of common interest with the upper class of his own community, rather than say with the Chinese vegetable gardener. The latter in turn feels that he has more in common with the Chinese dealer who buys his produce, despite the conflict of economic interest, than the Malay peasant or Indian plantation worker. There is yet no sense of peasant and working-class solidarity. 

 Managing Ethnicity and Cultural Pluralism in Malaysia : Zawawi Ibrahim

Am I generalising?

Why don't we take some sample data on the Population...

Could the behaviour of 500,000 Chinese Squatters in the Federation be a significant statistical observation?

Go here for more

Bersepah-sepah lagi gua boleh bagi historical observations on the situation of our Inter-Group Contact but for what?

Just look at ourselves today, how much different are we compared to 50 odd years ago?

Lets look at another Theory called the Social Identity Theory...this may provide some insight for the lack of contact....

In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et al, 1987). Apart from the “level of self”, an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.

Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self-categorization and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. The examples (minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’.

Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable. Go here

In simple monkey terms it is US VS THEM Situation to the power of infinity....

I wrote about the impact in my Social Capital Post 


There are many variables such as Culture, language, Religion and Ethnicity that will affect our Inter-group Contact....each of them will require a dedicated post on its own........

But ask yourself the most primal of US Vs Them situation....

How can Article 8, Article 12 and Article 153 of our Constitution work hand in hand?

if this Condition precedent of Equal Status cannot be fulfilled and we as Malaysians actually have minimal genuine inter-group contact, how do we move forward?

On top of that consider the side effects of Vernacular Schools and the Affirmative Action policies which have also escalated the Negative Bias/Prejudices against the Bumiputra Community and the Non-Malays making the Inter-group Contact situation even worst........

The cold hard truth is.......... by agreeing to the Provisions of the Special Positions (this event happened when everyone became a Citizen of this nation just in case you're wondering), our collective fate is sealed, we must accept it and move forward to find a common area of genuine contact in which we can cooperate with common goals to build this beloved country of ours.

Let us now go back to Allports proposition.which imply that the increased knowledge resulting from increased contact will reduce prejudice levels......and here I'm inclined to go along with the thinking of Stephen,Walter and Stephen who put forward that the most significant negative contributing factor is fear....

Fear is a major cause of prejudice. In the case of the other, we have "a fear of the unknown, a fear of the unfamiliar. If fear is the father of prejudice, ignorance is its grandfather"  

An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice." Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination , 2000. Stephan, Walter G. and Cookie White Stephan. 

So how do we create this contact environment?

Is it in the Office Space? In the Shopping Malls? In our residential areas?

Look no further my fellow Malaysians...the answer is staring straight at your face.......

I believe we can create all the various preconditions in Allport hypothesis with one bold move of implementing the Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua.....

Let us see if the equation holds.

1. Every Child is Treated Equally, the Special Positions of the Malays is Not Enforced in any way
2. The Common Interaction facilitated by the National Languages will become fertile ground for genuine friendships without prejudice or mistrust.
3. High quality education with focus on increasing the inter-group interaction and greater cultural understanding among the various community guided by the National Cultural Policy...

And yet the Policy makers are scared shitless to eradicate this Illegal Institution which is the SINGLE LARGEST STUMBLING BLOCK for national unity

We must start somewhere........

At the same time to facilitate a better understanding on the issue of Equality within the Malaysian Context, the Special Position of the Malays MUST be defined in a granular manner and be implemented with the highest transparency.

I have called for a Royal Review of the Special Position, so that all of us can know more about the actual implementation of the Special Position of the Malays and the corresponding Affirmative Actions.

We need to know.

We also need to know the differences between Affirmative Actions policies and the Special Positions of the Malays and Bumiputras

Folks are very confused...

And we cannot hope for some Stupid Cabinet Ministers who were appointed by their Boss to sit on A Bumiputra Development Council? Ini bodoh punye idea.....conflict of interest situation

What we need is A Team of Independent External Parties who report independently to the Majlis Raja-Raja, the Govt performance in implementing the Affirmative Action and upholding the Special Rights of the Malays and Bumiputras is the Object of their Annual Monitoring.

Proper Term of Reference MUST be clearly laid out and be presented to the Parliament.

Instead what we hear is the usual rhetorical bullshit from each side of the communal champions....with no clear direction of where this nation is heading......

Listen here folks.....

You are facing the most divided nation in the whole fucking planet and all you could think of is more this more that, protect this protect that, take away this take away that.....what the fuck are you all talking about?

Do you even know how the fuck you got here in the first place?

And yet today you try to sell to us the same bullshit.....

It's a country with a small domestic market equivalent to Jakarta, Bogor and Bandung la brader.....

Get your act together......

All of these discussion is meaning less and destructive to our inter-group harmony (or what ever is left of it).......what the other side should be discussing is

As to Article 153 of the Constitution, the Chinese and Indians should not be asking – and they can’t ask – for a negation or for the diminishing of special privileges to the Malays. They are not asking to be a slice in the cake. The Malays can, and should keep it, all of it.

Instead the other race groups want another cake, baked from the same ingredients, race and poverty. They are asking for the government to pursue and to fulfill its obligations under Article 8 and, in particular, Article 12.- Shuzheng A Malaysian Cake Baked by Race

Anyway back to the Intergroup Contact Situation.......

Further research looks at the feasibility of the Allport proposition...

Unfortunately, highly sophisticated preconditions to the processes that mediate contact and inter-group discrimination questioned the concept’s practicability and potential within societal realities. Formulating more and more constricting factors provoked that the contact hypothesis’ relevance has been seriously threatened, as “with added factors, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any situation can meet the specified conditions” (Pettigrew & Troop, 2000, p. 94). Contact between societal groups might often not take place because of segregation (Pettigrew, 1971), high costs (Trew, 1986) or inter-group anxiety (Stephan & Cookie, 2001). Is Contact Theory then condemned to artificially constructed realities of the psychological laboratory with no utilitarian value to practical societal reality? 

Media and the Contact Hypothesis-Junger and White 

Which now brings us to our actual Contact Situation that we Malaysians are having on a daily basis.....

The FUCKING CYBERSPACE.............

Our ParaSocial Interactions.....be it in the Comment section of Blogs, Facebooking, Tweetering dan yang sewaktu denganya......

Horton and Wohl are credited with introducing the concept of parasocialism in 1956. The authors' researched focused on the response of the audience when a television show host or other mediated character visually addresses an audience by looking directly into the camera. Horton and Strauss (1957) assert, Parasocial Interaction resembles personal interaction in that one party appears to address the others directly, adjusting his action to the latter's responses. They may experience this encounter as immediate, personal and reciprocal but these qualities are illusory and presumably not shared by the speaker, (pg. 580). -Davis Yolanda

For more on the Original Paper go here

How so?

Are we not the World Most Cyber-Sociable People on The Planet ?

This contact environment is raw......with no boundaries....for those who are anonymous.....

Guess what folks......our Government is Clueless on what to do and how to manage this Contact Situation......

They must understand how the Ecosytem works......instead they put a Jolobu bingai to be in charge

Take a moderated blog or News portal for instance.......the flow of discussion is controlled as to how the author or the Editor wants to shape the general discussion......

Very different than a No Holds Barred site like mine......come in at your own risk....and I don't give a shit about what you plan to say about me........and I can do that.....cause you don't know who I am.......and I have nothing to lose anyway......unless Jolobu Bingai wants to come after me....douws....

But for those who have a public face....especially those who are our elected representatives...it's a whole different ball game altogether........the interactions are REAL.....

This time around the interactions are straight in your face....

Actually I will stop here......as my thoughts on this matter is rather strategic and confidential......

In the mean time I hope that we can discuss about a possibility of an environment where genuine positive contact among the various ethnic groups in Malaysia can take shape taking into account the various variables I have identified in this post......