The sarcasm and subtlety of Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's remarks on the sarong issue were well-appreciated without Tai Lo Chin having to point it out. The subtlety of Putucherry's letter seem to be missed — that of allowing the courts and its officers to do the job they are trained to do and allowing due process to take its course without having the executive branch to be belligerently subjudice, even if it is from the prime minister himself. Unless it is the accepted standards of Barisan Nasional apologists that only the PM is entitled to brash generalisation and sarcasm.

The prejudice and fear against PAS' so-called fundamentalism is so evident in some people like Tai Lo Chin that he even assumed that such an 'unacceptable' decision was from a syariah court when in fact it was the magistrate's court, the one of the same judicial philosophy as the court that convicted former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.

And what does this point about Mahathir's frustration with civil servants and judicial officers have to do with the alleged delinquent act of 'flashing' by a Pas supporter? Government officers have had a long history of toeing the line. If suddenly, after all these years, if it is true that they do not seem to be able to tolerate it anymore, then fair-thinking Malaysians must surely begin to ask ourselves why and why now?

Surely it is simplistic to blame everything on new-found religious awakening and extremism. Has it occurred to Tai Lo Chin that extremism begets extremism? That perhaps some Malaysians are just expressing their frustration with the present regime's extreme measures in protecting a corrupt status quo by taking their own personal extreme measures? Both are wrong, but it is the government in power that has a bigger responsibility in acting fairly compared to scattered individuals. It is called responsible leadership, not protective paternalism manufacturing paranoia.

Has BN's current favourite bogeyman — the religious fanatic — suddenly come alive? What malaise allowed that to happen? Who was in charge of the country for the last 20 years? Is he completely blameless in neglecting to provide moral leadership? One that would have made religious extremism an unattractive alternative compared to the choices presently available?

Every Malaysian must guard against extremism, especially religious extremism. But to bank your hopes on a communally-based leadership that is morally corrupt and bankrupt of ideas beyond 'divide-and-rule' to take the lead in doing that, is asking too much of the average politically-aware Malaysian. Unless, of course, he is a present beneficiary.