MALAY anger over a George Town Festival promotional video clip which excluded them is simmering and some felt that no amount of apology or regrets expressed by the organisers is acceptable and that, the proverbial heads must roll.

To them, it is a straightforward situation and if the Government’s concern about 3R (race, religion and royalty) is bona fide and not only a means to silence critics and subvert harsh truths, firm action against the festival’s organisers will be quite redeeming.

DAP’s Teo Ni Ching was quick to the draw, urging the public not to turn the issue racial. Such a flippant response to stop those provoked and insulted by the issue from responding and expressing their disgust.

As far as these Malays are concerned, the exclusion of Malay-Muslim heritage in the teaser was intentional, stemming from chauvinism and condescending attitude towards the Malay-Muslims despite their very significant population in Penang.

But some believe that the producers of the teaser had, out of ignorance, unintentionally excluded the Malay-Muslims and for that, they should be pardoned.

Actually, the second reason is much more horrifying and sinister than having to deal with the chauvinists and racial superiority.

If the video clip was a result of Chinese chauvinism, it can be dealt with directly, including as demanded by the Malay-Muslim community that someone must be held responsible and pay the price for such arrogance, provocation and anti-national act.

There are enough laws to punish and ensure such blatant provocation would not be repeated and if repeated, it would not go unpunished.

On the part of the Penang authorities, apart from the punishment, such an outfit would be dropped and stopped being considered for state contracts unless they had truly mended their ways.

That is if the content was fully the efforts of the production and that the Penang authorities had overlooked it and allowed the clip to be used.

But in most cases, contents prepared by the contractors would have to be tailored to the request of the organisers and it would be unfair, if not wrong, to blame the clip on the contractor.

If the contractors had done it intentionally and are chauvinistic, it is for the organisers to put a stop to it and reject the content and since the content had gone public, the organisers must be held responsible and punished accordingly.

Since the organiser is state-owned, it will have to explain how such a clip managed to be part of its promotional item and why it had allowed it.

The Penang Government on its part should sack those responsible so as not to tarnish the state administration.

All these are premised on the fact that the clip is a result of chauvinism and intentional provocation.

As pointed out earlier, if it was a result of ignorance and inadvertent, the problem is much more acute.

While ignorance is sometimes bliss and much as ignorance is not a defence, public opinion tended to be more sympathetic, ignoring the fact that in this case, it could be very well the unravelling of the nation.

Firstly, if any of the parties involved gave ignorance as an excuse, it meant that the subconscious mind did not recognise the existence of Malay Muslims or that it was the primary race.

And when confronted, remedial reactions taken merely affirmed that the Malay-Muslims’ presence are accidental.

The next question that arises is how could it come to this. Is it a result of indoctrination, a crafted exercise to deny the primacy of Malay Muslims on the peninsula and the Malaysian identity?

In fact, past experiences had shown how the Malays had been pushed to the wall so as not to be too vocal in declaring their primacy and presence in the whole equation.

A Malay leader when declaring he is Malay first ends up being questioned about his loyalty and commitment to Malaysia.

Such a question would not be posted to a Sabahan or a Sarawakian because it is an insult to them.

They understand the Malaysia Agreement 1963 or MA 63 very well in which, Malaysia is a result of the coming together of the Federation of Malay States (Persekutuan Tanah Melayu – all nine states agreed to collectively be placed under one entity), Singapore, Sabah (then North Borneo) and Sarawak.

Hence, the demand by Sabahans and Sarawakians to be treated as equal partners to the Federation (there was an attempt by an ignorant member of the royal household to claim his state is an equal partner as well but it is a story for another time) meaning that without any one entity, Malaysia’s existence is in jeopardy until an amendment is made to the Constitution to state the exit of a partner as it did when Singapore was expelled.

Simply put, being Sarawakian or Sabahan first does not make any of them less Malaysian. Instead, for them, as in the case of the Malays, being Malaysian is a given.

But the premise for the argument that being a Malay first meant that he or she is a lesser Malaysian stemmed from the interpretation of Malaysia being multi-racial meaning that each race must place the nation before their ethnicity.

That may apply to the non-Malays but not to the Malays, Sabahans and Sarawakians.

In fact, the whole exercise of demanding the Malays to be Malaysian first is contrary to what the other ethnicities are doing.

They may declare to be Malaysian first but their adamance and defiance in defending the culture, schools and languages imported from their countries of origin, raises doubts, if not contradictions between what they declare and what they feel.

In the final analysis, the Malays must replace their identity with being Malaysian and any attempts otherwise would result in them being accused of racism while the others can champion their ethnic origins freely and unapologetically.

That is a right and the Malay apologists concur.