Permatang Berangan assemblyman Shabudin Yahaya and Sungai Dua assemblyman Datuk Jasmin Mohamed, two political unknowns outside the state, made it to the national pages last week for their warped remarks on women’s dressing. 

The two Umno politicians suggested there should be a dress code for women, blaming women’s provocative dressing for sexual crimes. 

The women’s dressing menggoda (seduces) and mencabar (challenges) men, Shabudin was quoted as saying when debating at the state assembly. He said men were sure to look when sexily attired women walked by them.  

Hello, what’s wrong with these lawmakers? Malaysians are used to hearing such remarks from conservative PAS politicians in Kelantan, with an eye on the religious and political sentiments of their electorate, but for them to come from the Barisan in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious set-up in Penang is another matter. 

In December last year, the Kota Baru Municipal Council also announced that women working in retail outlets and restaurants would be fined if they were not decently dressed, referring to tight-fitting blouses, jeans, shorts and skirts. 

The council warned that those arrested could be fined up to RM500. That was the latest ruling in a state where a top PAS leader once said the state government would not hire attractive women. 

The PAS government has continued with its policy of gender segregation at supermarket check-outs and no lights out during screening of shows in cinemas. The gender segregation also continues at concerts, which older PAS politicians continue to frown on. 

But Mansor Musa (BN-Batu Maung) rightly put the two assemblymen in their place for their sexist remarks, saying they were not showing a good example of the House. 

Tan Cheng Liang (BN-Jawi) also ticked them off, saying “even women who are covered from head to toe and two-year-old children have become rape victims. This shows that it has nothing to do with women’s dressing.” 

The arguments put up by Shabudin and Jasmin are completely flawed because there are plenty of sex crimes committed against women in rural areas, including east coast states, where the victims were conservatively dressed. Even grandmothers in tudung have been raped. 

It is acceptable, even expected, of men to look at sexily dressed women or attractive women, but in a civilised society, we are expected to restrain ourselves. That separates Malaysia from some Middle East countries where even their conservatively dressed women are often subjected to sexual harassment, even attacks.  

Malaysian women travellers to some Middle East countries have often talked about having their buttocks pinched by men, who seem unable to control their urges.  

It is simply shameful because our women, understanding the culture and sensitiveness of these countries, had taken steps to dress decently but that was even not enough to stop such despicable acts. 

Malaysians must be wondering what Jasmin was talking about when he said that women who dressed provocatively had also forgotten their family responsibilities. 

What kind of an argument is that? There are plenty of men of all races and religion who have failed to pay their alimonies and maintenance to their ex-wives. That is surely failing to fulfil family commitments, and nothing to do with how women dress.  

Politicians like Shabudin and Jasmin – and not forgetting Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) and Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf (BN-Jasin) – are really wasting taxpayers’ money when they make such remarks in Parliament and state assembly debates. 

They may think it is humorous and a way to make the headlines but Malaysians expect better quality debate from our legislators. To put it bluntly, they are making fools of themselves and we do not find it funny at all when we have to pay their allowances for their presence.  

When such remarks are made, it would also have an impact on the mindset of some people, reinforcing such prejudices against women. 

Malaysians want to hear from our politicians how they have helped women, especially single mothers, to be entrepreneurs and how they can be trained to be computer literate, similar to the successful programme in South Korea. When mothers are good with computers, they can impart their knowledge to their children before they even attend school.  

If they believe so strongly in the dignity of women, we would like to hear from the likes of Bung Mokhtar and Shabudin Yahaya how they can help our women – who are our grandmothers, mothers, sisters and daughters. 

The two leaders have adopted a realistic approach: a good neighbour is better than a friend a few thousand miles away. In the case of Malaysia and Singapore, we are stuck with each other for better or worse, thus it’s more realistic to work together. 

Sadly, there remain insular politicians in Malaysia who continue to cling to their myopic views. Their prejudices and imaginary suspicions do not help Malaysia, especially Johor. 

We can talk about wanting to be competitive, but we have to change our mindset first. 

The world has changed and the tide of globalisation simply cannot be stopped because businesses are operating without borders. Narrow nationalism with its protectionist tendencies is simply self-defeating. 

Malaysia must try to make itself more attractive, more competitive and more open if we wish to be on the radar screen of international investors. 

The current flavours are India and China, two giant blips on the radar. Unless we get ourselves heard or seen, we will become little dots that investors may miss. 

The Iskandar Development Region (IDR) project, the brainchild of Pak Lah, is set to dramatically change the socio-economic landscape of the country but we cannot do it alone. We need Singapore. Period. 

It is an ambitious plan aimed at making Johor bigger than China’s Shenzhen province, which has benefited greatly from Hong Kong. 

Johor, similarly, hopes to gain from Singapore which plans to raise its population to 6.5 million, with tourist arrivals estimated at 13 to 14 million a year once its two integrated resorts begin operations in 2010. 

Our politicians can argue that the proposed bullet train should end in Johor Baru and not Singapore. The point is, if Malaysians want to visit the two casinos, they will still go to the island republic. 

Similarly, foreign investors to the IDR will find it easier to fly to Singapore and then take a 30-minute drive to Johor. It doesn’t make sense to fly to Kuala Lumpur first. 

Our politicians should understand that Johor can gain from Singapore’s success and growth. Malaysians will not lose the shirts off their backs by working with Singaporeans – on the contrary, there is plenty to gain if we complement each other. 

No doubt there are outstanding issues such as the price of water supplied to Singapore, railway land, Central Provident Fund withdrawals for Malaysian workers and a bridge to replace the Causeway, but we have to move on to areas of agreement too. 

The wisdom of our leadership is that we should not assume too much and we should not give in too much. 

Fortunately, that is the thinking of Putrajaya but parochial-minded politicians have sometimes sent the wrong message to Singapore. 

Let’s be clear about the IDR. It is the cornerstone of the Prime Minister’s national economic agenda and plenty of resources and energy will be channelled to this 20-year project. Two other growth areas are in the east coast and the northwest covering Perak, Penang and Kedah. 

The IDR – covering 2,217 sq km, which is nearly three times the size of Singapore – has the potential to turn Johor into an economic powerhouse that is bigger than Bangkok or Jakarta. 

For a start, Johor has allocated about RM1bil to clean up and rehabilitate three of its most polluted rivers ahead of plans to build Danga Bay, a massive waterfront project with residential, commercial, recreational and social amenities. 

Johor needs a new image. Visitors see the city as badly planned with traffic congestion, squatter settlements and high crime rate. An extreme makeover through the IDR will certainly rejuvenate the state once a new skyline comes into place. 

If Pak Lah has his way, he would want immigration officers to process passports of visitors on the buses instead of making them queue up. He understands the frustrations of having to line up for a couple of hours at the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) checkout. 

The original proposal to introduce a passport-free region in IDR late last year was scrapped due to concerns that the area could be flooded with foreigners. One possibility is to issue smart cards, with similar features to the present Malaysian passport, so that visitors can have easier and faster access into Johor. 

Malaysia and Singapore have taken the right step in setting up a special ministerial committee to focus solely on bringing in investments and facilitating business and tourism to the IDR. 

It is the kind of language acceptable to both sides. Certainly, with its combined muscles the panel can expedite projects that benefit both nations. 

Another meeting between Pak Lah and Lee is scheduled, this time in Singapore. Now the barriers should be removed to make the journey ahead smoother. 

Taxpayers have good reason to be upset because it has cost them RM90mil in 2005 when Parliament House was renovated. Apparently, waterproofing material was not installed then. 

Different figures have been reported on the actual amount spent – ranging from RM60mil to RM85mil and now RM90mil – but what is certain is that it was a lousy job. 

On April 28, 2005, Members of Parliament had to leave the Dewan Rakyat when water seeped through the ceiling, drenching two rows of benches, and forced proceedings to be adjourned. 

Television sets situated at specific points, including the media centre, went blank while Finance Ministry parliamentary secretary Datuk Seri Dr Hilmi Yahaya had to stop his speech because his microphone failed. 

At the Dewan Negara just a few steps away, it was reported that two posh leather chairs broke when the Senate was in session. 

Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib was then quoted as saying, in a rather dramatic manner, that “it was too dangerous to continue with the proceedings, the water wasn’t slowing down and the ceiling could have collapsed for all we know.” 

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang called it a “day of shame for Parliament.” 

Two days later, Ramli must have recovered from the mishap as he said that the roof leak should not be linked to the renovations, and that the matter was a “technical oversight and already rectified.” The renovations, he added, were generally good. 

Samy Vellu ordered the Public Works Department to investigate while the Public Accounts Committee also promised a probe, with PAC deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw saying that the whole building needed to be checked.  

It would appear that Samy Vellu and the PAC would probably have been told that all problems had been fixed, and all have been forgiven and forgotten until Wednesday’s uproar in Parliament over another ceiling leakage. 

Worse, the complaints over the water seepage at the media centre by some MPs degenerated into a new controversy when the MP for Kinabatangan Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin and Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusof made their now infamous bocor remarks. 

Their sexist remarks, which led to their formal apology to women in Malaysia, almost led to Malaysians forgetting the issue at hand. 

Even Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said the Parliament House was safe and that “it is 40 years old and nothing has happened to date.” 

But Samy Vellu is now telling us a different story. If the Works Minister is right, Malaysians can expect the Treasury to have a bocor in its pocket, with another expensive repair exercise coming up because of shoddy maintenance. 

Water leakage may be common in old and new buildings and those of us who have moved into new houses would know that we often have to call up the developer to carry out patching work during the one-year warranty period. 

But Samy Vellu, a trained architect, has declared that the leaky roof is a “severe problem” and that the whole structure must be removed. 

Five spots, he added, were found near the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara galleries and “if immediate repairs are not made, the situation will worsen and the leak will spread to 10 or 15 spots.” 

The dignity of the august house and the safety of the Right Honourable Members are important but the interest of taxpayers are equally important. 

I believe Malaysians in general are not amused by such huge amounts of money being spent on repairs and maintenance. 

The culprits should be hauled up and sued for damages if we wish to send a strong message to those who get government construction jobs. 

The Parliament maintenance staff should also answer for the pile of rubbish, mainly construction waste, on the roof, which had clogged the drainage system. 

With due respect to Samy Vellu, who has vast experience in public works, we would appreciate it if he can provide us with details of his estimates, including the RM22mil for checking buildings in Putrajaya. 

The Prime Minister, I believe, would want to know the damage for the maintenance work and costs to be incurred when the Cabinet meets next week.

The microphones of all MPs had to be switched off by the Speaker in the heat of the debate but Mokhtar’s profanity was loud enough for other members and reporters to hear. He must be proud of his record. 

Strangely, the Hansard, which records the House meetings in verbatim, has no record of the outburst during the debate. Things would have remained that way until the media approached Bung Mokhtar in the lobby and, to their surprise, he admitted the deed and went on to defend himself on record. 

Before that, the MP sparked a controversy when he uttered a sexist-tainted boleh masuk sikit? (Can I come in a little?) remark in his attempt to seek clarification from Bukit Mertajam MP Chong Eng.  

As expected, he said he meant no harm and that the phrase was commonly used in Sabah. 

Last week, Bung Mokhtar was back in the limelight again but this time he was joined by the “close one eye” Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf, who once accused certain top Customs officials of selling confiscated luxury cars cheaply to their “friends” in the palaces and other government departments but failed to produce any evidence.  

On Wednesday, Bung Mokhtar reportedly said: “Mana ada bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan bocor juga (Where is the leak? Batu Gajah leaks every month too) against Batu Gajah MP Fong Poh Kuan who had complained about the leaks in the Parliament lobby. 

An angry Fong proposed to refer Mohd Said, the MP for Jasin, and Bung Mokhtar, to the Rights and Privileges Committee, saying that the remarks were insulting and derogatory to women. 

A motion by the DAP MP to refer the two MPs to the panel was rejected by Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib on a technicality, saying Fong had filed the motion a day later. In short, the two BN MPs were let off the hook. 

But what was more frustrating was the lame defence put up by some backbenchers.  

Tangga Batu MP Datuk Idris Haron said Fong should not see the remark as a gender issue and accused her of using it to get publicity, saying “we should take them as a joke, not as a personal attack”.  

Petrajaya MP Fadzillah Yusuf said the statement never intended to humiliate women, adding: “I think he just said it as he was provoked.” 

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz also came to the two MPs’ rescue, saying he did not find the choice of words used to be offensive and that it was normal to play with words.  

This must surely be a case of partisan politics going overboard. What Bung Mokhtar and Mohd Said said was not just impolite but appalling. As politicians with the Yang Berhormat (The Right Honourable) title, should they not have acted in a more honourable and gentlemanly manner? 

Bung Mokhtar could be forgiven if he had made the remark for the first time, particularly during a heated debate, but this man has a pretty poor record when it comes to parliamentary debate. We expect our lawmakers to articulate their views without having to shout, much less shout profanities and make sexist remarks.  

It is better for our politicians not to use the honorific YB if they cannot live up to the expectations of the rakyat as role models. Not many of us expect our lawmakers to speak like Tony Blair or Bill Clinton but the least they could do is to exercise some restraint when debating issues affecting the people and the nation.  

In 2000, Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN – Sri Gading) touched a raw nerve when he started his speech saying: “It is unusual for women’s issues to be touched (raised) by men,” and after a pause, he added, “but women are supposed to be touched by men.” 

When Bung Mokhtar asked why single woman found it hard to remarry, Mohamed replied that it was generally due to their not-so-favourable age, adding that “men, when it comes to younger women, they will definitely drool”. 

Last year, Bung Mokhtar, in a heated debate with Karpal Singh (DAP-Jelutong) shouted: “You should keep quiet. It’s a lucky thing that you are in a wheelchair. You almost died once (in an accident).” The DAP leader had earlier criticised Bung Mokhtar: “Dia otak tak centre (the MP is insane).” 

The Opposition also has its share of ugly MPs who are afflicted with the foot-in-the-mouth disease.  

The PAS MP for Rantau Panjang Abdul Fatah Harun made headlines last year when he labelled divorcees as gatal (randy) and went on to say it was not a sexist remark. 

Malaysians had never heard of this unknown MP until he asked in the Dewan Rakyat whether some women who divorced their husbands were more intent on getting separated. He claimed these single mothers did not look like they were sad about their divorce. 

Abdul Fatah said he based this on his observation at gatherings and parties, and the impression was that these women were gatal. He went on to say that it was quite obvious why these women ended up divorced or why their husbands left them. 

Really, some of our lawmakers never cease to amaze us, especially Bung Mokhtar and Mohamed Aziz. Despite repeatedly displaying political cockiness and being uncouth, they still get themselves re-elected. 

Malaysians have been spared from the physical drama which Taiwanese lawmakers are notorious for but we must end the name calling, the sexual innuendoes, intimidation, subtle threats and racist remarks that are often displayed at every Parliament session.

Among Asia Pacific countries, Malaysia was ranked 28th out of 40 and we trailed behind Pakistan and Cambodia. 

In 2005, Malaysia was ranked 152nd globally and 33rd regionally, which means there is a slight rise up the notches. 

But that’s not really good enough. We should not compare ourselves with China, North Korea, Myanmar, Iran and Brunei. Thankfully, no politician has attempted to make such warped comparisons. 

Widening scope: From mobile telephones to computers, which are getting smaller, providing news would no longer be the monopoly of professional journalists but ordinary Net users as well. — Filepic

For practical reasons, no Malaysian media company would want to be in the same category as Timur Leste or Papua New Guinea, even if they are ranked higher than Malaysia, as the advertising index is almost non-existent. 

Similarly, press freedom has little meaning if journalists always end up in the morgue, like in the Philippines, Cambodia or Thailand. 

Still, the cry for greater press freedom is getting louder. It would be foolish for anyone to stifle press freedom, especially among the mainstream media because some politicians want to control what the public think or read. 

It is no longer possible as the broadband becomes faster on the Internet and our sources of information widen.  

The newspapers would be just one source of information because media companies, as content providers, would also use other media to relay information. 

From mobile telephones to computers, which are getting smaller, providing news would no longer be the monopoly of professional journalists but ordinary Net users as well. 

Bloggers have become a source of information. Many may be opinionated and their information may not be accurate, given their lack of resources, but they provide an alternative. 

Many have raised pertinent issues and asked good questions, which make us think harder. Many former journalists-turned-bloggers have proven that they still have the network of contacts to help them break news.  

Every Malaysian is entitled to provide a viewpoint and if we do not agree, we engage in a discussion; it is really up to us to provide the best answers or opinion.  

Young Malaysians cannot be blamed if they perceive that many of our leaders have not grasped the workings of the Internet. The statements of some politicians have only reinforced this assumption.  

In Malaysia, it is unfortunate that blogging is regarded as online political writing. The fact is that Technorati, a directory for 55 million bloggers, shows that food and technology bloggers are at the top. It is only followed by politics and public relations. 

The trend is probably similar in Malaysia, too. Personal entries, a modern form of diaries, probably make up the largest number of bloggers, especially among students. 

Our politicians need only find out from their children or grandchildren how many of them are bloggers. Then, maybe, they would want to stop talking about registering bloggers. 

Still, it cannot be denied that under the Abdullah Administration, the Prime Minister has allowed greater democratic space and tolerance for dissent. 

It is thus unfortunate that some bloggers have made heroes of political players who had suppressed the media when they were in power. Many of these figures lack the credibility to talk about press freedom and when they do so, they smack of hypocrisy. 

Some are turning to the new media and have complained about media blackout when they, too, had used the same tactics to shut out their opponents.  

Many bloggers, unfortunately, are much too young to realise this or they have chosen to look the other way for political expediency. 

Some bloggers write about press freedom and yet display blatant intolerance of others who don’t share their political views.  

Posting daily comments against a personality with unsubstantiated allegations is not press freedom because that’s a personal vendetta or campaign.  

For those in power now, Malaysians hope they will not end up in the same way. They have the opportunity to change things in our country and certainly they would want us to judge them with greater honour. 

The rules have changed because of the Internet and many of the laws affecting the media are no longer relevant.  

The number of Internet users in Malaysia may be small but it will explode. Nobody needs a printing permit to set up a website and with the Internet Protocol television coming our way, anyone can broadcast news with just a video camera. 

Malaysians will also ask why they can watch on al-Jazeera the twilight lives of ex-Communist Party of Malaya leaders or an apostasy case involving a Malaysian Muslim when such subjects are frowned upon by the authorities in newspapers. 

Amir Muhammad, who has made two movies about the ex-CPM members, would also wonder why since all one has to do is to go to www.youtube.com to catch his work. 

Many subjects remain sensitive simply because we still carry the baggage of history. Young Malaysians have a right to question why the discussion of the Constitution and our rights, either relating to religion or as citizens, should be deemed sensitive. 

Malaysia should stop talking about regulating the traditional media and instead allow Malaysians to articulate and engage in issues because they are hotly debated with just a click in the new media. 

Our politicians must learn to trust our newspaper editors and journalists, as much as they want us to trust them.  

These disenchanted voters have not caused serious damage to the point of costing Barisan seats but the discontent is evident. 

Win, but…: Barisan candidate K. Parthiban triumphed in Ijok, but the votes going to the opposition have raised concerns for the coalition.

With a general election speculated to be held early next year, Barisan leaders will need to address and resolve these grievances, or at least, ease the discontent. If they cannot, they will surely need to cushion this unhappiness, at least. 

The results of these two by-elections showed that the majority of Chinese voters still place their fate in Barisan hands, but the loss of a couple of hundred votes here and there is still a matter of concern. 

MCA and Gerakan leaders, who spent nine days in Ijok, were warmly welcomed by most of the Chinese voters. The camaraderie was clear at coffee shops and restaurants where Chinese new villagers came to greet their leaders. 

MCA chiefs explained to the voters how the Barisan worked – on a consensus basis in meetings behind closed doors. 

But if the Chinese voters of the semi-rural constituency warmed up to the MCA and Gerakan leaders, the campaigners also realised that there were up to 200 Ijok voters who worked and stayed in Kuala Lumpur. 

The preliminary finding of the by-election results was that these Ijok voters, who are said to reside in Cheras, Kepong and Bukit Bintang, had returned to vote for Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). 

It was not because they loved PKR, as their sentiments would probably be with the DAP, but it was because they wanted to vote against the Barisan. To put it bluntly, they wanted to teach the Barisan a lesson. 

MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting gave an honest assessment of the Chinese voting trends and the reasons behind them. 

At the local level, many Chinese voters were unhappy with the poor constituency service by the late Datuk K. Sivalingam. In the 2004 general election, his majority had already been reduced to 1,649 votes from 3,166 in 1999. 

But, as Ong said, there were also rumblings on several national issues, including statements made by some politicians. These Chinese voters said they were hurt by the remarks and the actions of these leaders. 

He said there was no doubt that “to a certain extent the Chinese voters in the area had swung to the opposition.” 

Ong said that in predominantly Chinese Ijok town, for example, the Barisan won by a majority of only 21 votes and in nearby mainly Malay Kampung Ijok, the Barisan lost by 116 votes. 

It is clear that national issues had some impact on the political sentiments of some Chinese voters. 

Although Barisan leaders said they wanted to find out why these voters backed the opposition, at least publicly, they must know by now why the votes went the other way. 

Racist remarks and keris waving at last year’s Umno general assembly made an impact on the minds of Chinese voters. These incidents have yet to be forgotten. 

For some Chinese voters, the rhetoric about the grip they had on the economy was difficult to swallow when the majority of Chinese voters are wage earners, professionals and traders, like many of their Malaysian brethren.  

Much more than that, the Barisan has to deal with the perception, real or otherwise, that certain policies had worked against them. 

The principles of these policies may be fine but at the implementation level, the bureaucrats' different interpretations have often worked to the disadvantage of the community. 

The euphoria of the Ijok by-election victory for the Barisan is now over.  

There will be another round of the Ijok fight some months from now. There will be bigger fights in other states, where a couple of hundred votes could be crucial in determining the victors. 

An honest post-mortem is important and we believe Barisan leaders will make a proper analysis.  

Voters, regardless of their race, want to be heard and realise they can make a difference, at least through their ballots. 

Politicians should listen to the people’s voice, loud or otherwise, because it can make a difference.