Following the meeting on Wednesday, the DAP issued a tame
statement to say it was putting off a decision on whether to stay in the
coalition and would “conduct a comprehensive review of DAP's position.''

Trouble erupted last week between the two parties over the choice of candidate
for the by-election on Nov 29.

Keadilan is headed by Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, wife of Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim, which insisted their nominee Saifuddin Nasution Ismail should be
picked to contest the polls.

The two parties fought over the candidancy, with the opposition first choosing
Penang DAP assistant secretary S. Neelamekan and then quickly replacing him
with Saifuddin after Keadilan vice-president Tian Chua threatened to
quit.

When the DAP found itself outvoted, tempers flared immediately with DAP
secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock saying the DAP had been “stabbed from the
back.''

It isn't clear what will happen after the by-election as the DAP leadership
seemed ready to accept the apology from Keadilan deputy president Dr Chandra
Muzaffar.

Some DAP leaders, smarting from being played out by Keadilan, however said they
did not ask for an apology.

Lim described the incident as “the result of pure disgust at such unscrupulous
politics in the Barisan Alternatif.''

If Tian Chua was a brother comrade, he had turned into a “radical'' and a
“leftist extremist'' as far as DAP Socialist Youth leader Lee Kee Hiong was
concerned.

DAP deputy secretary-general M. Kulasegaran said the decision by the opposition
not to field an Indian candidate was a racial slur on the Indian
community.

>From the outset, the DAP grassroots had been unhappy with the tie-up with
Keadilan and PAS.

The pact, which led to the resignations of several DAP leaders last year,
caused the party to perform badly in the general election.

Besides Kit Siang, the other casualties were then chairman Dr Chen Man Hin and
DAP deputy chairman Karpal Singh.

It was simple. The non-Malay voters were not emotive with the Anwar issue.
Keadilan, to them, merely comprises former Umno members who wanted Anwar freed
from jail.

They were part of the establishment who had benefited politically and
financially for the past 16 years. Many were cronies, in fact.

Their slogans of democracy, justice and transparency sound hollow and
unconvincing, except to themselves and the foreign media.

PAS still refuses to dilute its religious extremism, coming out with
controversial statements such as barring beautiful women from working, separate
cashier's counters for males and females in supermarkets and preventing women
members from contesting in elections.

The DAP and Keadilan have both been losers. While the foreign press reported
extensively about Umno's declining support from the Malay voters, they refused
to mention that PAS has cleverly manipulated Keadilan and DAP to serve its
cause.

The longer Anwar remains in prison, the better it is for them. Parti Rakyat
Malaysia is, well, irrelevant to them.

Keadilan fared equally badly in the 1999 elections. In fact, many of its top
leaders were wiped out.

What they had done was to help PAS win more seats. PAS did nothing in
return.

The same applies to the DAP with its supporters helping to canvass for votes
for PAS in Chinese areas, awkwardly carrying the white-moon-on-green background
flags.

But what it got in return was pittance, a few Malay votes, which made little
difference. The core Chinese votes were gone.

It's the same in Lunas. Keadilan and DAP are fighting for the crumbs. It's not
even a seat that Keadilan is assured of winning but as the two sides slug it
out, they won't benefit.

PAS is watching the two parties fight on the sidelines with glee, knowing they
will become weaker and bitter foes. If Keadilan wins Lunas, the Barisan loses
its two-thirds majority in Kedah.

It means PAS will become stronger in Kedah and the prospects of PAS capturing
the state become brighter.

It will be a PAS mentri besar, not a Barisan Alternatif mentri besar. Certainly
not Dr Chandra, Dr Wan Azizah or Nasution.

Thanks to the generosity of Keadilan and DAP, the Barisan will now have to face
an increasingly strong Islamist party that has little patience for
liberalism.

The response could be the need for Umno to project a more religious appeal to win
back its support.

PAS may be willing to accommodate some multi-culturalism, including allowing
the Chinese lion dance, as showcased in Kelantan recently, but don't forget
that it's a norm in other states already.

The issue at stake isn't the lion dance or karaoke but in a PAS administration,
there is no place for a non-Muslim or a woman.

For the voters of Lunas, they have an important message to send to the
opposition front.

Do they condone such blatant display of political greed, where power-sharing
and consensus becomes irrelevant?

Malaysians will judge the people of Lunas on whether Malays should only vote
for a Malay candidate and not for an Indian or a Chinese.

If they think such racial tendencies should become a political culture in
multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia, then they should go ahead and vote
Keadilan. No, not Keadilan; PAS actually.

This is unprecedented in Malaysian legislative history.
There have been walkouts, uncouth language and challenges of a fight outside
the chambers, but never punch-ups. In Parliament, there has always been a lot
of hot air for political expediency before both sides laugh it off and walk to
the canteen for a drink. But what happened last week is a total disregard for
civility by the two lawmakers. They behaved like ruffians and certainly do not
deserve their honorifics of Yang Berhormat (Honourable).

There is no need for them to offer excuses and justification. The bottom line
is that it is wrong for anyone to be involved in a fight. Teng, the Bandar Klang
assemblyman, is telling everyone that he is the victim and that it was Zakaria
who used derogatory words on him. Zakaria, the Selat Klang assemblyman, claimed
that he was misunderstood. He denied using the words Cina babi (Chinese pig) on
Teng.

He claimed he had advised Teng that it was inappropriate for a non-Muslim to
dwell on halal (allowed in Islam) and haram (prohibited by Islam) which
concerned Muslims but Teng was offended by the remark.

He said Teng argued he had every right to use the terms halal and haram to
which he (Zakaria) replied jokingly: “Hey Cina, babi untuk you halal, untuk
saya haram (Hey, Chinese, pork is halal for you but haram for me).'' Zakaria
claimed that Teng got angry as he misunderstood the phrase used by him and
proceeded to challenge him to a fight. The uproar began when Teng, a lawyer,
had asked why the term haram was being used in illegal small and medium
industries (SMIs) since the entrepreneurs earned a living out of halal
business. Zakaria reportedly confronted Teng during the coffee-break; a scuffle
broke out and turned into a brawl.

Teng was allegedly slapped. He retaliated with a punch before an unidentified
man, said to be a supporter of Zakaria, joined in the fray.

Giving chase in the State Assembly building, Teng rushed into the room of
Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Mohamed Khir Toyo to tell him what had happened.

Dr Khir then got the two men to shake hands and make up. But the next day, Teng
said the issue was not over and threatened to lodge a police report.

The matter is, indeed, not over – as far as Malaysians are concerned. Both
assemblymen need to be censured.

The fight might have happened outside the assembly chamber but they deserve to
be suspended for their bad behaviour. The legislators seem to lack understanding
of their role. There seems to be arrogance on the part of Teng. His idea of
opposition is restricted to running down the Government. There must be some
finesse, even if one is an opposition member. Zakaria obviously needs a lesson
on religious, racial and cultural sensitivity. He ought to be more careful with
his words, particularly if they can hurt the feelings of other races.

He must be mindful that he is elected by Malaysians of all ethnic groups, not
merely by one race. He represents all communities. Racial slurs have no place
in Malaysia. In fact, it is better that our politicians learn, and quickly too,
that communalism no longer works. Questioning the patriotism of an ethnic group
might work in the politics of the 1960s – not now.

In fact, words like kaum pendatang (immigrant race) or bangsa asing (foreign
race) should be considered unparliamentary and even seditious. Making
references to China and India to a loyal Malaysian, born and bred in this
country, is unacceptable.

The DAP must understand the sensitivities of Muslims, too. Some of its leaders
may be familiar with a few Islamic terms after taking part in ceramahs
(political gatherings) with PAS but that doesn't make them experts in Islam.
Our MPs and assemblymen will earn more respect if they deliver well-researched
speeches.

Malaysians are not even asking for intellectual debate; the least they could do
is to behave themselves and set good examples.

The ruckus in the Selangor Assembly was not the only one. Recently, PAS MP for
Pokok Sena Mahfuz Omar and Barisan MP for Tampin Shahziman Abu Mansor
challenged each other to a fistfight outside the House.

On Oct 27, opposition MPs rudely interrupted Finance Minister Tun Daim
Zainuddin when he was delivering the Budget speech. And who can forget Mentri
Besar Datuk Adenan Yaakob who showed a lewd sign during the Sanggang
by-election earlier this year. Then there is PAS MP for Sik Datuk Shahnon
Ahmad, who wrote the book SHIT and used vulgarities against the
leadership.

Worse, he was supported by the party ulamaks (theologians) who preach morality.
It is best that our legislators take a hard look at themselves. They must
realise they now have a better-educated and more-informed electorate who have
higher expectations of their elected representatives.

We want to see a battle of wits, not a battle of fists, among our
legislators.

Like a sore loser, the Democratic candidate said the
election battle was not over.

In all likelihood, the results would probably be disputed and taken to court,
throwing the nation into disarray.

The two candidates are holding onto the edge of their seats for the tabulation
of several thousands of ballots in the mail from overseas. These votes would
not all be counted before Nov 17 – 10 days after polling.

Postal votes, like in the Malaysian electoral system, could now decide the
outcome of the presidential race in a complicated voting system which nobody
seems to understand – not even Americans themselves.

The tally thus far shows Bush having won 29 states for 246 electoral votes,
Gore has 18 states plus the district of Columbia for 255, with 270 needed for
victory.

But the incomplete popular votes total shows Gore ahead with 49,145,883 votes
or 48%, and Bush having 48,940,963, also 48%.

The fate of the next US President could well be decided by a Marine standing
guard at the American Embassy in Timbuktu.

If we laugh at some illiterate Malaysian voter for drawing the dacing or the
moon on the ballot papers, rest assured that it doesn't just happen in this
part of the world.

A number of Gore supporters cast their votes for Pat Buchanan of the Reform
Party because they were confused by the design of the ballot.

For Malaysian campaign workers who shake their heads at spoilt votes, they will
be glad to know that over 19,000 votes in Palm Beach county, Florida, were
rejected because they were marked for more than one presidential
candidate.

The comedy of errors continues. Oregon, the home state of computer giant
Microsoft, is still counting the votes.

The click of the mouse isn't working there, it seems. No wonder American voters
are now saying they smell a rat in the whole voting process.

The votes in Oregon are so close, according to reports, that the likelihood of
an automatic recount was “pretty high.''

In New Mexico, the votes are now being counted by hand. The most wired country
in the world has realised that manual work is sometimes more reliable, just
like in the Third World.

You would have thought that a recount, by whatever method, would usually have a
small margin of error but the world is now hearing that results are changing
overnight.

In New Mexico, Gore may now end up the loser. This must be terribly confusing
for both candidates.

And if you have been following the American presidential race on CNN, you would
notice that most of the anchor broadcasters are horrible at maths.

The biggest boo-boo, of course, is to tell the whole world that Bush had won,
which led to a flood of congratulations from leaders of various countries for
the Republican candidate.

But the red-faced politicians shouldn't worry. Bush, we are told, is hopeless
at Geography and he may not even know where some of these countries are
located.

Gore must be upset with the brave people of Florida. Just a month ago, he had
no complaints about the voting system; now his campaigners are set to challenge
the system.

He may be right, finally. Americans are crying out for reformasi or doi moi of
the entire political system.

As in all democracy, the Americans must understand that it should be made
simple for participation by all. That's what civil society is all about –
participation in the running of a government.

A democracy is also not perfect, as the Americans are now telling everyone.
Many Commonwealth countries, which modified the Westminster system to suit
their countries, have long told them that.

The first-past-the-post system, which we adopt, seems unfair but it works. That
is the most important.

When you have a system to pick someone to vote on your behalf, as in the
electoral college, it's bound to be mind-boggling.

Americans now realise that the popular vote doesn't really count.

Whoever wins, Gore or Bush, should heed the advice of Indian Chief Commissioner
Manohar Singh Gill.

The US should invite independent observers from all countries to watch the
presidential election just as Washington does to see polls in other parts of
the world.

In fact, these observers should also have the right to reject or accept the
election results, as the Americans usually do.

Finally, if Bush or Gore goes to court to challenge the results, the Dewan
Rakyat should seriously table a motion demanding a fresh trial if we are not
happy with the verdict – particularly if Gore wins the case.

Whether they be bushed or gored, the public would have had enough of the
Hollywood comedy American Presidential Elections 2001.

The sequel, if there were to be one, would be anything but good – as with most
movies.

Its task should be to convince the other races why it
opposes the project which is aimed at national integration. Certainly an
objective of such over-riding importance deserves the support of all
Malaysians.

Under the Vision School concept, three schools of different medium of
instruction – Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese and Tamil – will occupy a common
compound and share facilities. In fact, there are already two Vision Schools
which came about because the schools involved happened to be within the same
locality.

These schools have been totally integrated under the Vision Schools but their
characters have remained unchanged.

It would do a lot of good to the Dong Jiao Zong if it emphasises less on
ethnicity.

Unless one has stepped into a Chinese school to see its facilities and how the
teachers carry out their work, one is unlikely to have the same kind of
sentiments as the movement.

Even an English or Malay-educated Chinese is unlikely to feel as strongly about
the issue as a Chinese-educated person, or a parent who has children in Chinese
schools. So, the movement must realise that the majority of Malays and Indians
would question its stand.

The movement has put on record that it supports the aim of the Vision School
project to promote national integration for unity. But what it is concerned
about is that the project would eventually erode the identity of Chinese
schools. It would better serve the movement's cause if it can provide more
convincing arguments to the other races.

Chinese schools have contributed tremendously to the country's development.
Supported financially almost entirely by the community, they have been
self-reliant.

The impressive facilities in many of these schools are acquired through the
donations of the community and the MCA.

Long before the Smart School concept was introduced, computer lessons were
already started in Year One classes in Chinese schools.

With great emphasis on academic performance, Chinese school students, including
those from independent schools, have always done well to the point that their
examination results are readily accepted for entry into top American
colleges.

Besides relieving the burden of the Government on education and training, these
schools have steadily produced a disciplined IT-trained workforce.

With such a reputation, it is no surprise that many non-Chinese parents have
sent their children to Chinese schools.

Chinese schools are vital in helping to sustain the survival of the community's
other institutions, such as guilds, associations, Chinese newspapers and
Chinese-based political parties.

On a broader scale, the ability to speak the Chinese language will become more
crucial with the growing importance of China over the coming years.

According to news reports, there are now over 65,000 Malay students in Chinese
schools. It makes sense for Malays to be good in Mathematics and Science and
have the ability to speak a third language. But at the same time, the Education
Ministry has cause for concern as 88% of Chinese school-going children go to
Chinese primary schools.

Education Minister Tan Sri Musa Mohamad said if children of different races
were separated at six or seven years of age, it would be difficult for them to
come together at secondary level.

Musa is right. Every effort must be made to promote national integration at all
levels.

Education is certainly one of the best ways. Those of us who went through
Christian missionary schools understand the benefits of the system then.

We were taught correct English, instilled boarding school discipline and, more
importantly, we had friends of different races.

There was also a sense of belonging and mission, which no longer seems to exist
in present-day schools.

That identity is lost. This is perhaps the fear, rightly or wrongly, of the
Chinese educationists.

Cultural pluralism in education must be seen as an asset rather than an
impediment in national unity. So is social democracy.

Policies deemed to be discriminatory will produce resentment, so the cause of
communal polarisation cannot be blamed on the school system.

Schools merely reflect the ethos and norms of the various communities.

The national leadership must be commended for its moves to strive for national
unity. It can further do so by emphasising civil and political equality of all
groups.

That aside, our education system needs a complete overhaul. Starting with
better pay to get the best people to teach.

To seriously improve English in schools, we must equip our students with the
means to learn the language critically and creatively. To make the Vision
School project attractive, the ministry could perhaps equip participating
schools with the best facilities.

The Dong Jiao Zong has a case but it must realise it cannot exist in isolation
in a multiethnic country.

Dong Jiao Zong leaders cannot only see things from their perspective. Mere
suspicion of the motive isn't enough to argue against the Vision School
project.

Superficial arguments won't win the support of the other races. They must be
convinced of the Dong Jiao Zong stand.

At the same time, the Government must appreciate the importance of cultural
pluralism. A Vision School will have no meaning if it carries only a name of a
particular ethnic group, the school library having only books of a single
language and restrictions are placed on the participant schools.

Other concerns include sovereignty of each school, committee representation,
community participation and administrative autonomy.

Then there are some racist officials who impose decisions that are against the
national policy. At university level, one read of moves to stop certain
cultural functions.

It is better that the fears of the tendencies to assimilate be discussed now
rather than when the project is fully carried out.

In the spirit of musyawarah (consensus), it is best that our educationists sit
and discuss, beginning with a common ground – and that is education standard
and national unity.