The communal politics of the ruling coalition for last 50 years help develop and entrench collective identities among Malaysians polarized long the lines of ethnicity, race, religion. Malaysians then identify their interests with those of their own racial and religious group as against those in the opposing group.

The fact that the various groups lack shared norms, culture and values exacerbate the divisions. The competition for tangible resources such as money, shares, land, or better jobs, businesses and licences as well as intangible resources such as education, social status etc are negoitated, appropriated and fought out on group basis.

Contending sides usually regard cooperation and compromise with the other group implies a loss of one’s own group and everything is interpreted as a sum zero conflict of one group against the others with little prospects of win-win. If one value system is followed, then another cannot.. These conflicts are deeply embedded in collective psyche as they involve interests or values, the continuance and protection of which is regarded by the disputants as critical to their self esteem and survival. If there are plenty of resources available, as when the nation does economically well, then everyone simply takes what they need and the conflicts are ameliorated but where the economic goods are getting less and less whether due to global economic conditions or local depletion of resources, the conflicts are given a more poignant edge.

The patriots to party, based on race, become the traitors to the necessary end result : that of being patriot to country based on the concept of unity under plurality, blind to race religion and ethnicity, all working for the common good together based on more universal values of righteousness merit and fairness to scale the value added ladder necessary for survival in a globalised environment.

Communal parties are helmed by people/elites whose vested interests are identified with the above stated order of things. Those enjoying vested interests will defend their self interest and resist change, even if such change is initiated by their own political leader trying to save them as a class from being booted from political power in the next general election. They will obstruct if not remove him from position of leadership if he evinces (beyond sloganeering) a real will to reform. The fact that the leader is drawn and rose up from their same party ranks and have benefited from the same privileges under such an order make it that much doubly harder for them to accept his overtures to change. And he has neither will or power to take them on, when groups of them galvanise against him to openly deconstruct his platform of ‘1 Malaysia’ from its very moorings.

The talk against extremism, as such a term is used in reference to ideology, mindset and rhetoric based on race and religion, becomes empty when the talker himself ascended to leadership position by leveraging on the same rhetoric, ideology and mindset that he now (obliquely) labels ‘extremist’. There can not be an implementation of pluralistic policy when the political party in power avowing to implement such is itself, together with majority of its members forming its power base are themselves communal and racial based in ideology and appeal. It is a plain contradiction in terms.

No wonder the numero ono balked at pointing the finger at the relevant target – in fear of four fingers pointing back – and instead a refrence is made, at the end of message, to only militant groups, considered a threat to national security, which is (politically) safe, and the just about the only thing all Malaysians and groups could forge a consensus about.