COMMENT | As the global North grapples with an identity crisis amidst a refugee imbroglio and a heightened fear of radicalism, the narrative that Malaysia should be grateful for our peaceful landscape has only been reaffirmed.

However, one only needs to look closer to see that ethno-religious fragmentation has come in vogue once again, with Mahathir’s rebranding of Umno’s bumiputera-ism and PAS’ exit from Pakatan to become a third force.

In response, the government has repeatedly identified national unity as a key component of the country’s long-term strategic agenda. Speaking on TN50 last month, Khairy Jamaluddin mentioned that the youth must have shared experiences for the interest of social cohesion, and that a compulsory national service programmes for school students is among the proposals on the table.

He is only partially correct. While it is indeed true that a united community requires some semblance of similarity, the mechanism of compulsion and forced narratives used in government campaigns will never be able to succeed in creating a society beyond quasi-connected silos.

Insofar as this slogan-crusade mentality continues, national unity programmes will continue to fail in deconstructing the divide-and-rule system that still dictates our everyday interactions.

To understand the discourse surrounding the issue, we first need to recognise that there are competing frameworks of unity at play.

Malaysia has historically adopted the pluralist model, or better known as the salad-bowl - various identities co-exist without having to sacrifice their distinctiveness.

As opposed to a melting pot model, where cultures converge to form a set of common values and traits, the pluralist model provided a quicker path to an acceptable social contract when independence was negotiated.

Unfortunately, it was also deeply short-sighted...