Perkasa has been wondering around like a headless chicken attempting to please many Malay masters but only managing to further expose the scam that the BN is anything but a vehicle for a kleptocratic racial hegemon. While Perkasa comes out sounding like the village idiot, groups such as Isma (Malaysian Muslim Solidarity) have a strong consistent message of racial and religious supremacy, bolstered by a cadre of Muslim professionals who engage in sophisticated rhetorical legerdemain to subvert the democratic process in favour of Umno, although they claim the mantle of “independent” Malay/Muslim opinion shapers.

Perkasa meanwhile is waging a muddled war on two fronts, the first with MIC and the second, with MCA. While certain Umno personalities rightly point out that Perkasa is a joke, the reality is that much of what Perkasa advocates is in line with mainstream Malay thought even though the community is fractured and not along ideological lines but along party (political) lines.

Perkasa’s war against the MIC is based on the MIC’s Vell Paari statement that Indian Muslim preacher Zakir Naik - who apparently is an honorary member of Perkasa - should be investigated for allegedly being an Islamic State (IS) recruiter here in Malaysia. Apparently, such a claim makes someone a threat Islam.

While I have no idea what Zakir Naik is doing here, the reality is that Malaysia has always been a transit point for Islamic terrorism. The New Mandala ran a piece in 2013 – ‘Extremism in the name of Islam and Malaysian Muslims’ - which I think is still relevant today. Indeed, I think the climate has become more tense with recent geopolitical conflicts and regional ratcheting of Islamic fervour by hegemons fearful of loss of power.

While I thought the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project was a flawed endeavour, I do think that the thrust of the piece - an examination of how the state creates an environment either willing or unwittingly for these types of extremists to thrive - is an important point.