There are many conflicts today, simply because we forget that religions, languages, and even cultures, are 'living creatures' with utilities, functions and rightful roles to play.

Sometimes we argue why Malaysians are generally not proficient in Bahasa Malaysia (BM), our official language.

We also argue why certain religious practices are at odds, even with those professing the same religion. We argue why our cultures are dying, inundated and overwhelmed by Western influence or modernism, and so on.

I always believe that if something is useful, people will learn and adopt it. Hence, many learn English because they know the language will widen their horizon, enhance their knowledge and skills and improve their employability and economic wellbeing in the long run.

We master the language without coercion; and neither are we incentivised in any way by the state.

We were told Bahasa Malaysia is our national language. Learning and mastering it is mandatory in schools.

We need the language to deal with government departments, for citizenship application and to apply for jobs in the civil service. Yet, despite its importance, many have remained rudimentary in their BM proficiency. They find investing in English and Mandarin probably more rewarding.

Perhaps we shouldn’t look at BM purely from an economic standpoint. We were told that BM is our language of unity and national cohesion. Somehow, most countries believe in this too, and Malaysia is no exception.

No end to dividing the people

But seriously, is a single language really that important for unity? Have we not seen people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture and religion fighting like dogs and cats?

The reality is that there is no end to dividing the people. We just need to create or find a new excuse. If we have a common language and religion, maybe the next dividing factor is income disparity, social status or regional differences.

The same goes with religion. We have seen the increased emphasis on it. We have seen the strict adherence expected from all its followers, as well as non-believers. We have seen state apparatuses coming into the forefront to enforce religious doctrines and beliefs.

But did all this go well? Increasingly have we not seen more people resenting the encroachments into their life?

If religion is good, timeless and 'evergreen', why is it causing so much dissension today? Instead of uniting, it is almost like a source of conflict, even among the followers of the same faith.

I think the problem has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with human interpretation, which may be driven by many factors, other than their faith.

It is either they make it relevant by being inclusive or they make it irrelevant by being dogmatic. I think there is too much of the latter today.

We can promote and uphold many things - religions, cultures, languages, et cetera. Ultimately, the success is whether there are buyers or not. When we buy something, usually it is based on utilities - something that is beneficial and useful to us.

Religious and language experts, and nationalists, can all talk the grandeur stuff till the cows come home, but the success would depend on us, the buyers.