Tuesday, September 06, 2016

Security guards must be racially acceptable?

The DPM, also Home Minister, said that (read FMT) Security firms can employ non-Nepalese guards.

Previously only Nepalese can be employed as security guards. This change of policy has been due to a shortage of Nepalese guards with a military or police background in Nepal.

The Nepalese-only policy was enforced in 2006. But the DPM believes 'locals' should still be given priority over anyone, though he intends to examine two other sources, that is, other than Malaysians and Nepalese.

He hasn't identified the other two source countries yet.

FMT reported: Deputy Home Minister Nur Jazlan Mohamed had previously suggested looking at Sri Lanka as a source country for guards.

MIC Youth chief C Sivarraajh however immediately objected, saying any move to hire them must take into consideration the sensitivities of the Tamil community in the country.

In a statement he issued, he said Sri Lankan soldiers had a horrendous human rights record and the government must understand the feelings of Tamils in Malaysia.

What he was saying was that Sinhalese soldiers had probably committed war crimes against Sri Lanka Tamils in their civil war, so local Tamils would be mighty pissed off with such soldiers.

The principal issue is cost or low wages so it's unlikely we'll get security guards from rich countries like UK, USA, Oz, NZ, Fiji, Sings or Japan, etc. But the Malaysian racial wish has to be considered, wakakaka

So if MIC is against Sinhalese soldiers and policemen, and presumably UMNO is against Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans and Vietnamese guards (the last two look like Chinapeks) and MCA-Gerakan are against Indons, Thais, Khmers or Cambodians, Laotians, Pinoys, Pakis, Myanmars or Burmese and Bangladeshis soldiers, who should we employ as security guards?

What about Mongolians? Nah, too Chinapek-ish.

Who then?

No comments:

Post a Comment