I refer to the Malaysiakini report ‘Chinese don't mix with others’: Dr M under fire .

Lately, there has been a renewed talk of unity: As usual, the blame is put squarely on the non- Malays, the Chinese in particular. There are several fallacies, contradictions and hypocrisies that must not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

First of all, most Chinese graduated from the national-type schools, as with Malays from the national schools though they are by no means united. Just look at the plethora of political parties that claim to represent them.

The Malays have Umno, PAS and PKR. The Chinese have MCA, Gerakan and, DAP (although technically, PKR, Gerakan and DAP are multiracial). The Indians have MIC and the PPP. Not to mention many other minor parties representing the Kadazans, Dusuns, Dayaks, Ibans and so forth.

The Chinese are famous for in-fighting, going to the same schools or not. Just look at how MCA is doing this every five years or so. If going to the same schools did not foster unity among the Malays, Chinese and Indians, how do the proponents of the single-school system expect to unify all the races?

In short, unity is a red herring. Either they are naïve or they have a very different definition of unity. The main reason why the Chinese are reluctant to send their children to the national schools is not because they shun the Malays, but rather because they don’t trust that these national schools are up to par.

Furthermore, at every turn they are treated like outsiders, ridiculed and chided. The continued deterioration of our education standard has since proven their suspicion many times over. Increasingly, many Malays, too, are sending their children to national-type schools as they think learning another language gives them an extra edge.

Prior to the conversion to national schools, many Chinese preferred to send their children to the English schools. The English schools were well-run and enjoyed a good reputation. At that time, the national-type schools were in the doldrums. That changed when the English schools were converted en-masse to national schools.

The rising popularity of national-type schools then must rank as one of the greatest unintended consequences following the nationalisation of the English schools.

If people have a common aspiration, they will come together despite having diverse backgrounds. But the government policies are expressively designed to differentiate them according to their ancestry. What the government says and does are mutually antagonistic. From education to economic policies, the government explicitly distinguishes the people for different treatment.

How is that conducive to fostering unity? According to one of the aspirations of the NEP, the government intends to eliminate the identification of race with economic activities but they choose to achieve the goal by doing the exact opposite; and they have succeeded spectacularly.

On the other hand, the racial imbalance in the civil service is not so much mentioned, let alone addressed and this has worsened since the implementation of the NEP/NDP. When taking all these inconsistencies into account, all those high-minded pronouncements are mere window dressing.

Furthermore, with the country’s creeping Islamisation, an Islamic identity is empahsised for everything, from personal conduct to food to banking. If something is deemed unIslamic, the Malays are told to shun, ban, look-down on or ostracise it. How is unity going to be fostered if the Malays refuse to engage the other races?

The argument is often phrased as ‘Malay sensitivity’ and others ought to show proper respect for Malays and Islam. Respecting another race or religion is laudable, but it must be mutual and reciprocated, otherwise, it is called submission, not respect. The kind of respect expected is more in line with the kind children or subordinates show to parents or bosses - not to peers.

The concept of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ or ‘Ketuanan Islam’ is incompatible with genuine respect for another faith or race. Another common refrain is that the Malays are ‘tolerating’ the existence of non-Malays in this country and the non-Malays should be ‘grateful’ for the benevolence of the Malays.

When one race is merely tolerating the other, it is rather pointless to talk about unity. The most damning irony of all is that even the major political parties making up BN are divided along racial lines.

If they are serious about fostering unity, they should disband the individual parties and form one single multiracial party. Otherwise, their sincerity in fostering unity has as much credibility as a prostitute preaching chastity.

To the honourable prime minister who dismisses racist comments from the ranks of Umno as insignificant, consider this; would he drink a cup of coffee if it contains a drop of poison? Everyday? After all, what is one drop compared to a whole cup?

May I remind him of an old Malay adage, ‘Kerana setitik nila, rosak susu sebelanga’ (because of a drop of indigo, so spoils a whole bucket of milk). Furthermore, the poison is not only confined to those who spew racist speech, but extends to those who condone or do not speak out against it. And that is by no stretch of the imagination a minority in Umno.