Right way to handle campus politicIT would have been hushed up by Universiti Putra Malaysia if it hadn't been captured on video and circulated on the Internet.  

Without the visual impact, the scuffle involving a group of UPM students reported in the newspapers would not have stirred so much interest and unhappiness. 

It would have been dismissed as a minor incident unworthy of national interest but the circulation of the video clip, recorded on a video camera, kept the issue alive. 

Last week, gangsterism reared its ugly head when about 50 "pro-establishment" students intimidated and manhandled seven students belonging to the Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju UPM (UPM Student Progressive Front) said to be linked to Keadilan. 

The pro-government students, who call themselves Kumpulan Aspirasi, were said to be unhappy with the presence of the students who had set up a help counter for new students at the campus canteen. 

The Kumpulan Aspirasi group, led by an elected student council leader, wanted the SPF to leave because it was not a registered body. 

When the SPF students refused, the situation turned rowdy with the Kumpulan Aspirasi students seen pushing, shouting and intimidating the SPF group. Luckily, the ugly spat did not turn physical. 

A police report has been lodged but the police have left the case to be handled by the university authorities. 

Although students are not allowed to group themselves, whether along political, racial or religious line under the University and University Colleges Act, the fact is that they do. Sometimes, with the support of outside political help. 

The Umno and PAS influence is particularly strong on students, especially those from Kelantan, who are the most active in campus politics. 

For the minorities – the Chinese and Indians – who are keen to be involved, they are either pro-government backers, as in the MCA and MIC, or they are with the opposition. 

In the case of the UPM SPF students, they are perceived to be Keadilan supporters, and thus found themselves in a tight spot because the student council is controlled by the pro-government group. It is, in a way, a territorial squabble. 

For Chinese students in predominantly Malay universities, it has never been easy getting elected into the student council because the sad reality is that voting is on racial lines. 

It may be easier in Universiti Malaya and Universiti Sains Malaysia but not in UPM or Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Thus, the setting up of unregistered student bodies like the SPF and the Chinese Consultative Council (CCC) in UKM. 

Unlike the SPF, the CCC enjoyed much influence in UKM in the 1980s until the then Education Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim banned it, saying it was communal. 

But the CCC was accepted by the PAS and Umno-inclined groups, with both sides attempting to woo the crucial Chinese vote in student polls. 

They were regarded as the "kingmakers" and the CCC cleverly played that role and gained acceptance as a group. Although it was unregistered, it came under the ambit of the student council. 

I know because I was involved in the formation of the CCC together with several others, including now MCA Youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, Kelana Jaya MP Loh Seng Kok and Kulim state assemblyman Boey Chin Gan. 

We did not hide the fact that we were supportive of the MCA. The 2,000 Chinese students in the campus knew where we stood and came out in full force to vote for the CCC in a separate election.  

It was illegal but the student council turned up to endorse the poll, which must have given the university authorities a headache. 

In functions organised by the CCC, such as the mooncake festival, the CCC even managed to get MCA leaders and UKM officials to attend, thus giving these activities the seal of approval although it was an unregistered body. 

We could even secure the setting up of a pork-free Chinese food section at the canteen. Armed with written support from the Malay students, the CCC met UKM officials who approved it. 

Although it was hardly an ideal situation, it was an exercise in the sharing of political power and how the different races needed to work together. 

The then Malay student leaders, including many now holding key positions in politics and business, worked well with us. 

In the case of the Kumpulan Aspirasi students, it is obvious that maturity and political finesse is missing. The student leader, seen on video, behaved in an outrageous manner and certainly unbecoming of an elected student leader. 

The SPF students, on the other hand, failed to realise their potential as a decisive factor, and had chosen, instead, to limit their role. Their affiliation to the opposition, if correct, has surely not endeared them in a place where they are a minority. 

But the Higher Education Ministry and UPM must never allow those involved in the bullying to be left unpunished, no matter what their political inclination may be. 

It is not for the student council to take the law into their own hands. An inquiry must be conducted and the culprits involved, particularly the elected student leader, must be suspended. If no action is taken, UPM would be sending the wrong signal. 

The university is a place for students to study and broaden their knowledge. It is also a place for students, who are interested in politics, to sharpen their interaction skills, especially with the other races. 

It is also a place for them to cultivate relationships with their fellow students, regardless of race, which would help in their network, when they graduate. 

Differences in opinion and political inclination must be accepted as a fact of life. The immaturity of the UPM students has not helped those pushing for the repeal of the UCCA but may even push the Government to rethink its earlier plan to relax the rules.

STRESS the common values shared by Malaysians and highlight those
similarities in the Ethnic Relations course in all local universities. 

We should spend more time talking about our common values and beliefs instead
of stressing on our differences. 

The Higher Education Ministry had good intentions when it introduced the
Ethnic Relations course in Universiti Putra Malaysia and, subsequently, in all
universities. But whether it is a module, guidebook or textbook, there is
nothing wrong in taking another look at the contents of the course. 

The Cabinet has rightly withdrawn the controversial guidebook. There is
nothing wrong in admitting that there are flaws in our work. Life is not just
about scoring points – whether from a political or communal perspective.  

Regardless of our race, religion and culture, we all believe in the
importance of compassion and truth.  

We can be Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or Christians, but we respect each other
and our faiths – that is the hallmark of Malaysia. 

A temple, a church and a mosque can exist next to each other and that is
wholly acceptable in Malaysia. We don't even think about it. We call our God by
many names and pray differently. But ultimately, we believe in the Almighty.  

And all religions teach us to be moral, charitable, selfless and tolerant.
That is the core of all religions.  

Our religions expect us to be morally upright, and we certainly should not
tolerate corrupt figures even as they work hard at projecting themselves as
pious and God-fearing pillars of society. 

We see no differences when it comes to issues such as social greed, abuse of
power, economic disparity, racial polarisation and democratic rights. But what
have we done?  

Instead of focusing on universal values, which all Malaysians share, some of
us prefer to point fingers at one another. That is not the way to build good
ethnic relations.  

There is nothing wrong in using historical events to remind us of the need to
be sensitive in a plural society, but old wounds are unnecessarily opened when
we start blaming each other for events that are long over. 

It would be more appropriate for our universities to recommend that our
students read books and newspaper reports on the May 13 and the Kampung Medan
incidents as part of their tutorial work.  

Let our students draw their own conclusions based on the various sources
available to them so that they can enrich their minds. Don't force on them our
prejudices and views.  

We must learn from those shameful incidents, especially the younger
generation. But let us not plant seeds of discontent and hatred in the minds of
our young.  

It does not matter who struck the first blow. It is more important that we
accept that violence is wrong. 

We need to remind our young that peace in the country cannot be taken for
granted. We have to work at it.  

Reminders to exercise restraint in our statements may sometimes be regarded
as old-fashioned in this cyber age when nothing is sacred and nothing is
censored. But the price of democracy can be costly if we only choose to see an
issue from our own perspective or, even, prejudice.  

Tolerance and compromise are strengths, not weaknesses. Common sense, in the
larger interest of all Malaysians, must never be under-estimated. 

It is bad enough that many of our prejudices, which are stumbling blocks to
nation-building, are being perpetuated by some quarters. 

We cannot expect our young to listen to politicians preaching national unity
the whole year round but churning out racial remarks at their annual party
assemblies. That is hypocrisy. 

As we debate this issue, it may be timely for the Cabinet to also direct the
Education Ministry to look at the contents of our school history books or the
textbook for new civil servants. 

Is it true that Sybil Kathigesu, the heroic woman who lost her doctor husband
and child while providing help to the people during the Japanese Occupation, has
vanished from our books as claimed? 

Can the ministry verify a news report that Yap Ah Loy, the Kapitan China,
too, has lost his place in the development of Kuala Lumpur? 

Is Malaysian history being re-written by textbook writers without the
knowledge of our Government? 

Similarly, religion should not be used to emphasise ethnic differences. No
one should attempt to use religion to keep Malaysians apart, as this is against
the spirit and philosophy of every religion. 

I remember having to sit for the Islamic Civilisation course in Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, or ZI, as it was called. Some of my non-Muslim course mates
felt uneasy, assuming that it was a subtle attempt to convert us. But there was
little reason to fear.  

If one's faith is strong, why should it be shaken when one learns about
another religion? 

Comparative religions is not a subject encouraged in Malaysia. But if
properly handled, it can help all of us know each other's religion better.  

The problem, however, starts when we grow suspicious, believing it is an
attempt to convert us. Sometimes it is real but sometimes it is imagined, due to
prejudices.  

Unfortunately, the quest for knowledge is lost when we shut our minds. As a
result, we lose the opportunity to know more about the religions of our fellow
Malaysians. 

I enjoyed the lectures of the late Datuk Dr Fadzil Noor, who later became PAS
president, and Datuk Dr Harun Din in UKM. I did not convert but learnt to
appreciate Islam more. 

But in courses like this, great care must be accorded to the sensitivities of
students of other faiths.  

As an example, Jesus is a prophet to Muslims but to Christians, he is also
God. No attempt must be made to ask a student whether Jesus is God or merely a
Prophet in an examination, as that would put a Christian student in an awkward
position. 

We celebrate 50 years of independence next year. Despite the complexities of
our country, we have been able to come this far because of our high level of
tolerance. 

Our politics of consensus, despite being communal-based, has worked well for
us. If the three main races – Malays, Chinese and Indians – had not worked
together, we would not have been able to achieve independence.  

We needed each other then and we need each other still today. This is our
only country. This is where we were born, where we live and where we are likely
to die.  

I looked up the book The May 13 Tragedy by the National Operations
Council, published on Oct 9, 1969, to refresh my memory of the tragedy. 

There are enough details in the report for those interested in finding out
more, including the names of the political parties and main politicians
involved. Of course, there are other versions of what happened. 

But more importantly, it was the foreword by the then Director of Operations,
Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, which struck me. 

He wrote: "If the events of May 13 are not to occur again, if this nation is
to survive, we must make sure that subjects which are likely to engender racial
tensions are not exploited by irresponsible opportunists." 

His advice remains relevant.  

Inter-religious and inter-ethnic harmony can be cultivated if we identify and
stress the common values that exist, in one form or another, in all religions
and races. 

WHAT'S the rush really? The Government seems dead-set on pushing through its plan to
build the controversial sports training centre in England despite criticisms
from the public.  

The unhappiness must surely be the cost, with Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang
putting the figure at RM490mil while Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun
Razak said it was not confirmed and that only a small sum was budgeted for the
first phase. 

Malaysians cannot be faulted for being angry. Assuming that Lim had inflated
the figure for political reasons, surely the public has the right to know how
much of their money would be used for the proposed project in Brickendonbury,
just outside of London. 

National Sports Council director-general Datuk Dr Ramlan Abdul Aziz earlier
said the RM490mil figure is a projection of the total cost the Government would
spend over the next 10 years, and not for building the infrastructure. In a
special press conference on Friday, he said no figure was ever mentioned in any
of their deliberations or decisions.  

"Whatever has been stated so far is merely speculative and from other
parties," he said. 

Deputy Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Liow Tiong Lai also reportedly said
the figure from Lim "did not come from the ministry" while National Sports
Council's Philip Chan said it "is not definite" and "is likely to be lower". 

These contradictory statements have not helped clear the air. In fact, the
public would probably have more questions now and, as taxpayers, they should
rightly do so.  

The Government has a moral duty to tell us how the project will benefit
Malaysian athletes and how much money will be involved.  

We can assume that the project will not involve any purchase of land since it
will sit on a site belonging to the Malaysian Rubber Board, where the Tun Abdul
Razak Research Centre is located. The centre was founded as the British Rubber
Producers' Research Association (BRPRA) in 1938. 

Brickendonbury estate has a long and colourful history dating back to Saxon
times (approximately 500 AD) and has passed through many tenants, either leased
or let. During the Second World War, it was used to train agents and resistance
workers in industrial sabotage. 

The centre moved into the estate in 1974 and restored the mansion, which now
has elegant working accommodation, according to the centre's website, and the
grounds have well-built laboratories, library and development areas housing the
centre's work. It was given its current name in 1977. 

It sounds like a good place for our athletes, given its huge area. That means
the Government need only build the sports centre on that piece of land. If that
is the case, it would be helpful if the Government can, at least, show us what
the centre would look like, what kind of facilities would be available, the
staff cost and how much it would cost to maintain. 

The public must be convinced and, as an elected government, surely the
leadership must be sensitive to the wishes of the people. It is our money after
all, and at a time when we have to grapple with the increasing cost of living,
not many of us are in the mood to read about an extravagant project. 

We cannot be told to tighten our belts and change our lifestyle and yet have
to cough out our money on the multi-million ringgit project. That is something
we cannot accept. 

But half the battle would be won if the Government can justify the long-term
benefits of the so-called "high performance training centre". The public must be
convinced that having this sports centre will help Malaysians win medals at
international competitions such as the Olympics.  

From the bits of information that have come out, the proposed sports centre
is to groom and train our future athletes in a temperate country for temperate
sports. 

That would, presumably, involve allowing selected sports persons to stay,
train and compete in Europe. It would be good if the Government can inform us of
the kinds of sports that have been identified to produce these elite Malaysian
athletes who will grab international headlines.  

We are not talking about winning gold medals in sports that involve four or
five countries, like badminton or sepak takraw, but real international
sports, since millions of ringgit would have been committed to the project. 

That must be the intention of the Cabinet Committee on Sports headed by
Najib. It is noble and ambitious. Besides putting up the building, which our
Government seems to be fond of, we would like to know the real plan – how to
make champions of Malaysians in the UK. 

It would be nice to know, just for argument's sake, whether the Socceroos
built a multi-million soccer complex Down Under and whether Trinidad and Tobago
committed their entire GDP to gear their players for the World Cup so they could
make the English players look like sissies.  

And certainly, the long-distance runners from Kenya did not have this kind of
RM490mil luxury. 

You don't need a sports expert to tell you that buildings do not produce
sportsmen. Instead, what you need are good planning, good strategies, good
trainers and committed athletes. Most of all, let's get real and put our limited
resources to sports that we can win. 

A good sports programme, beginning at school level, is essential because
producing champions takes time. Trainers, whether local or foreign, also need
time to build these talents. 

We cannot expect instant results after signing a foreign coach for a year.
More importantly, they should be freed from interfering politicians masquerading
as managers and officials. 

It might be cheaper to pick selected athletes in certain sports and have them
trained here and overseas. Squash player Nicol David, for example, has picked
Holland as her base and in the hands of a foreign trainer, who is more exposed
to newer techniques, she has progressed to be a world champion beater. 

Let's be realistic. Given our physique, the penchant for nasi lemak
and teh tarik and our humid weather, we are not going to win the World
Cup. We can bring Alex Ferguson to train our boys in a trillion-ringgit soccer
complex and we still won't win. Maybe we can beat the Koreans and Japanese.  

Neither can we compete against the Japanese, Fijians and Samoans in sumo
wrestling because we can never bloat up like them, even if we build a sumo
complex there. 

So, Malaysians might as well focus on shooting, bowling, lawn bowling, table
tennis, squash, golf, hockey, sailing and volleyball, where we have more
realistic chances of triumphing, even if not at the Olympics, at least at the
Commonwealth Games. 

There have been cynical remarks, especially on the Internet websites, on how
the proposed academy will benefit us. Some of the allegations have been grossly
unfair but the Government owes it to us to justify the project and provide the
costs. That's not asking too much.  

The Government must also explain the need for the 100m dash for a project
that would cost Malaysia a bomb. Surely, the Government must have good reasons
for the decision and Malaysians would like to know. That's the first hurdle that
the Government needs to clear.

OUR politicians and bureaucrats love turning towns into cities. The city
status, for some reasons best known to them, seems to evoke a sense of urban
sophistication and the perception that development has reached its pinnacle. 

But beyond the elevation to bandaraya status and the prestigious
appointment of a Datuk Bandar who most likely would previously have been a
municipal council president, most of us have found that the authorities have not
been able to deliver even the most basic requirements for the city folks. 

The newest city in the country, Petaling Jaya, is known as the Billboard City
while Georgetown, the country's oldest city (never mind the technical dispute
over its status), does not even have a decent transportation system.  

Then, there is Johor Baru which is seen as a city trying hard to dispel the
image that it is unruly, dirty and has a bad crime rate. 

Some of us may remember that a few years ago, Johor Baru promoted itself as
the Healthy City where religious and moral values were embedded in a healthy
environment free from violence. 

The trouble with our politicians and bureaucrats is that they love these big
words and lofty ideals. Campaigns are launched and prizes are given for the
winning slogans which are often difficult to remember, much less practised. And
once the city is declared, there is always the standard pledge of wanting to
make the city world-class. These promises are often made with a straight face by
the Mentri Besar, Chief Minister and Datuk Bandar.

But seriously, all Malaysians expect from their city councils is a commitment to
deal with problems like flash floods, basic maintenance of public facilities,
and haphazard planning. In fact, we will be quite satisfied if they can collect
our rubbish efficiently. 

Put simply, we all yearn for our cities to have a safe and healthy
environment with good infrastructure and facilities. That's basic. 

But there are also legitimate reasons for Malaysians to demand more from City
Hall. As Malaysians become more affluent and travel the world (even if via the
excellent documentaries on satellite TV), they are bound to compare Malaysian
cities with the foreign ones. We expect our cities to have some of the qualities
we have seen in European and even Asian cities. 

Our politicians talk endlessly about attaining developed status and give us
statistics to show that we have already reached a certain economic benchmark
even though the ordinary rakyat may think otherwise. 

But surely, it cannot be that unreasonable for us to demand for higher
standards of public facilities such as pedestrian walks, efficient and clean
public transportation, parks, pleasant housing and culturally vibrant centres? 

We see the Europeans and Americans enjoying concerts in the parks, and surely
we want the same. Being able to relax in the park is part of urban living
although in Kuala Lumpur, it has been cynically said that couples can get
arrested by nosy enforcement officers for holding hands. 

Our politicians continue to tell us that we have done relatively well
economically and we have no reason to doubt that. We have returned the same
political party to power since independence. But in return, we expect to enjoy a
quality of life that is commensurate with our stature. 

Malaysia turns 50 next year. Surely, we should go beyond dreaming of having
parks, museums, art centres and flea markets with great eateries? We have a rich
historical and cultural heritage, but can our cities stand out and reflect our
rich tapestry of life? 

Our cities may be fairly well-run but let's not compare ourselves with
Karachi, Phnom Penh, Jakarta or Yangon. Let's set higher benchmarks for
ourselves. 

Georgetown, for example, has been sadly neglected. The politicians can
continue to defend themselves and say how well they have run the city. 

They can issue statements, cleverly backed with figures, to defend their hard
work but the perception and sentiments of the people cannot be ignored. 

Georgetown's rich architectural heritage is in serious decline, especially in
the inner city, because of the lack of positive incentives and development
control. 

Kuala Lumpur, even with the best attention from the powers-that-be, suffers
flash floods each time there is a downpour. If we cannot even resolve this
perennial problem, why are we boasting about world-class facilities? 

In fairness, KL has managed to solve much of its traffic jam. It has managed
to get rid of the ubiquitous mini-buses and there is at least a decent mass
rapid transport system in place via the Star and Putra LRT lines and the Rapid
Bus system. 

Urban planner Dr Goh Ban Lee has proposed a standardised urban quality index
for Malaysia to provide a consistent time-series data to allow for better
formulation of strategies and policies. 

Most of us have dreams of what a city should be like but the reality is that
most Malaysians regard local councils as lackadaisical, unimaginative and
incompetent. 

It may not be a fair assessment of the local authorities but the mounting
complaints through the years have certainly contributed to that negative
image.

IT'S that silly season of the year again. Each time Parliament is in session, we can be guaranteed that at least two or three Yang Berhormats will either infuriate us or make us laugh with their remarks and antics. 

The current Dewan Rakyat session, which started last week, will only
end on July 18, but it has the makings of a circus already. We are not
sure if it's the act of calling each other animals or the politicians
themselves who quite fit the description. 

But one thing is for sure, the Dewan Rakyat must be one of the rudest
legislative chambers in the world. After all, Kuala Lumpur has been
ranked as the third rudest city in the world by a magazine. So if there
is such a ranking, we can be sure our legislators will not let us down,
in the true tradition of Malaysia Boleh. 

Fortunately, apart from the verbal jousting, our YBs have not resorted
to physical drama like punching, kicking and hair pulling, which the
Taiwanese lawmakers seem to be quite proud of. 

After all, we do believe in kesopanan dan kesusilaan
(mutual respect and good social behaviour), which our politicians like
to preach about, since they learned this Rukunegara principle from a
young age. The rest is fair game. It is a jantan (manly) thing to do, one may say. 

Last week, the bad boy of the Dewan Rakyat, Datuk Bung Moktar Radin
(Kinabatangan-BN) was in the news again. He is the kind of politician
whose behaviour has become fairly predictable. Malaysians and the press
can expect him to display political cockiness and unparliamentary
language when putting down his opponents. 

But does he care? I don't think so. He has his name in the news and I am sure that is all that matters to him. 

Coming from Kinabatangan, where the media has shown little interest,
except when trees are illegally chopped down or when dead freshwater
dolphins are found, he is a virtual unknown the whole year round. 

So, when Mr MP comes to town, he has to make sure his name is mentioned
and noticed by his political bosses. The rest of us, the people and the
media, are really not his concern. 

The House turned into a verbal war zone on Wednesday when a shouting
match erupted between BN and Opposition MPs over a factual error in a
question answered by Deputy Internal Minister Datuk Mohd Johari
Baharum.  

In the free-for-all that ensued, MPs traded insults, comparing each other with animals and even questioning their sanity. 

The MP for Jelutong, Karpal Singh, who can also be depended upon for
parliamentary humour, accused Bung Moktar of creating division in the
House, saying "dia otak tak centre (the MP is insane)." 

As the row continued, Bung Moktar responded: "You should keep quiet.
It's a lucky thing that you are in wheelchair. You almost died once (in
an accident last year)."  

Not to be outdone, Karpal Singh asked "to shoo the animal out of the House. You are nothing more than a big fool from Sabah." 

Since proceedings are now videotaped, we are able to watch as the MPs
slugged and bullied each other, like what schoolboys do these days. The
tactic seems to be that if one loses in a debate, the best approach
would be to intimidate or to disrupt the proceedings. It also works for
MPs who have not prepared their speeches well. 

The hardworking MPs, who have spent hours on research, unfortunately
find themselves "hijacked" by these rude MPs the next day. The press,
after all, also look for such fights in Parliament. 

But not to be outdone, the Close-One-Eye Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf
accused certain top Customs officials of selling confiscated luxury
cars cheaply to their "friends" in the palaces and other government
departments.  

He further claimed that the officials had abused their power by selling
the cars meant for open auction to their royalty friends in return for
Datukships. 

But until now, he has not produced a shred of evidence to back up his
claims. In fact, after whacking Customs, knowing he would be fully
protected by parliamentary privilege, he has astonishingly said he
would not lodge any police report. 

No one is suggesting that the Customs officers are angels, when many
enforcement agencies are perceived to be corrupt by Malaysians, but as
a lawmaker, isn't it his duty to submit evidence of wrongdoings to the
authorities?  

He should know better. By withholding such information, he risks being accused of wanting to get back at Customs. 

Really, what kind of examples are our MPs setting? To curse a fellow MP
or, for that matter, anybody who has been injured, must have baffled
any decent and fair-minded Malaysian.  

By now, Malaysians are used to the racist and sexist remarks of certain
MPs but they never fail to amaze us with more of their outbursts. 

What is terribly missing from Parliament is quality debates with witty
repartee. They should perhaps read up the Hansards from our early years
and learn how the Tunku and his contemporaries from both sides of the
political divide debated.We wish there would be more MPs like Datuk
Shahrir Samad (BN-Johor Baru), Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (BN-Kota Baru), Dr
Wee Ka Siong (BN-Air Hitam) and Loh Seng Kok (BN-Kelana Jaya) who have
displayed much intelligence, even courage, in their delivery. 

For the opposition figures, Datuk Kamaruddin Jaafar (PAS-Tumpat) has
managed to project an image of moderation, which is so lacking in the
Islamist party. 

The DAP women MPs have also made a name for themselves but they need to
refrain from joining in the jeering and name-calling, which take away
the shine from them. 

There are plenty of reasons to telecast the Dewan Rakyat sessions on
television. Malaysians would then know whether they have elected a
hard-working MP or a clown to represent them. 

AS of June 20, I officially live in a city. Bandaraya Petaling
Jaya to be precise. But seriously, does any of my fellow residents
really feel that our suburb has changed for the better? 

We are
not talking about physical structures, like buildings and roads, which
are often wrongly used as a yardstick for development. Mostly
intentionally, by politicians, the more cynical among us would say. 

PJ, to many of us, is still very much a residential area. I also work
in Petaling Jaya, which means that my life revolves around this new
city. 

Like many Penangites who headed to the Klang Valley for career reasons,
I chose to live in PJ because it is, in many ways, home away from home.
There are many Penangites here and Penang food is readily available,
though one must add that many hawkers misuse the Penang label to churn
out stuff that is far from the real thing.  

Eating out means having our meals at the famous SS2 hawkers' centre or
at PJ Old Town. Back then, the SS2 centre was a road, closed to
traffic, in the evenings. 

Nothing has really changed. The hawkers are now operating from a
covered area. A little cleaner, perhaps, but they still won't win any
prizes in that category.  

The road where the hawkers used to operate is used as a wet market in
the mornings. Again, they won't win any prizes for cleanliness. 

The MPPJ enforcement officers are still the most disliked people
around. They are still regarded as corrupt. Nothing has really changed
in the two decades of my life here in PJ. 

As a young father then, I would take my wife and daughter for an
evening stroll at the Jaya Supermarket in Section 14. That was the only
decent shopping complex then. 

Today, Section 14 is still as congested as ever, and with more huge
buildings coming up, one can expect the situation to worsen. There are
many banks there but, seriously, have you ever seen policemen on patrol
there? 

Of course, we now have more interesting malls in PJ, like One Utama,
Atria, The Curve and Ikano Power Centre, but back in those days, PJ was
truly very boring. 

There were plenty of pubs to choose from, though. For the disco kaki, how can we forget the Picadilly in Damansara or the All That Jazz joint next to the still surviving Mungo Jerry bah kut teh shop? 

Coming from Penang, where the name of every street and every school has
a story to tell, I could never fathom why the early planners chose to
use the numerical system in PJ, particularly when the sequence is never
faithfully followed. 

The people of PJ pay high assessment rates, but in terms of services, I
can safely say that not many of us would give the council a positive
rating. 

A re-branding exercise will never save a troubled company if the work
culture, content and targets are not met, as any shareholder can tell a
chief executive officer. 

The MPPJ president is now the Datuk Bandar but we are not sure where PJ
is heading towards as a city. Resident groups have become more vocal
but they are being dismissed as irritants.  

Their petitions are not taken seriously, judging from the dismissive attitude of the council. 

Naturally, the Barisan Nasional politicians are worried while the
opposition is taking full advantage of the grievances of the PJ people
to win their sympathy. The incumbent Members of Parliament and state
assemblymen must be mindful that their votes come from the PJ people,
not the MPPJ. 

Sure, they need the council to support their constituency work but they
had better know which side they should be on, if they want to keep
their posts in the next elections. More than ever, the municipal
councillors (or city councillors now) should realise their action or
lack of action is being checked by the people and the media.  

Participatory democracy may still be alien to some councillors but they
should not forget that the residents are more aware of their rights. I
would advise these councillors to head to the library for a Political
Science 101 textbook if they still keep to their old ways of doing
things. 

For the council, it is not just about filling up potholes, keeping the
streets clean or putting up ugly structures at roundabouts. And they
cannot even do a decent job of these simple tasks in the first place. 

The real challenge for the Datuk Bandar and the councillors is to make PJ a city that has soul.  

What is the benchmark for PJ? Do we want PJ to be a smaller version of
Melbourne or Singapore? Do we just live day by day, content with what
we have, or do we have a vision of what we want PJ to be in 10 or 20
years' time? Will we be proactive or reactive? 

Does the Datuk Bandar intend to use the strengths of the PJ resident
groups to the advantage of the council or will he continue to view
these talented people with a jaundiced eye? 

We want PJ to be as clean and as well-maintained as Shah Alam, but
surely not as soulless and dull as the latter. We do not expect the
kind of landscaping in Putrajaya, given PJ's small size, but we would
be happy if there is a more systematic method in keeping the city
clean. 

And if the council can find the budget for the ugly structures that are
all over PJ, we wonder why PJ cannot have artistic and cultural
activities, not the RTM type, that would surely have the support of the
PJ people. 

Unlike Shah Alam or Putrajaya, PJ is uniquely multi-cultural and its
pluralism should be used to project itself as a successful Malaysian
city. For a start, the Datuk Bandar should seriously shed PJ's image as
the Bandaraya Bill Board of Malaysia. 

One of the hottest talking points today is speculation over how the
Umno supreme council meeting tomorrow will deal with its former
president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. 

The talk that Dr Mahathir may be sacked started after PAS vice president Datuk Husam Musa told Harakah that he expected Umno to act against the former premier for his harsh criticism against Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. 

Although Dr Mahathir was sacked from Umno in 1969 following his
widespread distribution to the public of his letter to then Prime
Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, the likelihood of him being dismissed for
a second time is unlikely. It is far-fetched and a fantasy of PAS.  

Umno members and the people in general would regard such a move as
sledgehammer treatment that would not be in sync with Abdullah's
decision not to rebut Dr Mahathir.  

Abdullah's "elegant silence" has been well received by the people, as
they do not want the spat to worsen. Such a scenario would not do any
good to Malaysia, economically and politically. 

It is Dr Mahathir's right to criticise the leadership and a sacking,
under such circumstances, would not be justified. The Prime Minister,
after all, is also committed to the principles of transparency and
openness. 

Over the past week, Umno Members of Parliament, Mentris Besar and the
Barisan Nasional component leaders have all pledged their support to
Abdullah. The expression of support has been overwhelming and certainly
his control of Umno is unshakeable. 

There may be pockets of unhappiness against Abdullah, judging by
comments posted on various Malay websites, some of which are said to be
linked to certain Umno personalities. But generally, the majority of
Umno leaders have sided with Abdullah. 

Many of those who posted their views online expressed their
unhappiness, if not disgust, at Umno leaders who run down Dr Mahathir
now when they previously praised, and even curried favour, with Dr
Mahathir. 

These views may not be an accurate assessment of the feelings of the
Umno grassroots but they do provide an indication of the sentiments of
some Umno members who have been ignored by the media. 

But even those close to Dr Mahathir acknowledge the reality that it
makes no sense for ambitious Umno politicians to back this retired
politician who has no plans and no hope of coming back to power. It is
only politically wise to invest in the present and the future, if one
wants to climb the hierarchy. 

Dr Mahathir said he had spoken out on various issues because he was
concerned at the way certain policies had been handled by the Abdullah
administration and had, at one point, said that "something had gone
wrong". 

Last week, Abdullah decided that the relevant ministries would reply to
Dr Mahathir's queries on four issues he had raised, after meeting 78
members of the Barisan Backbenchers Club, including senators. 

According to Johor Baru MP Datuk Shahrir Samad, replies would be given
to Dr Mahathir "openly, clearly and fully so that if there are any
doubts among the public, they can be quashed". Interestingly, Shahrir
had earlier suggested to Abdullah not to bother replying to Dr
Mahathir. 

One can understand where Shahrir is coming from because whatever
answers provided by the ministers would probably not be accepted by Dr
Mahathir.  

The outcome can be predicted because when the Foreign Ministry issued
an 18-page reply on April 24 over the Johor Bridge controversy, the Tun
dismissed it as the "ramblings" of the then ministry's
secretary-general Tan Sri Fuzi Razak. 

One wonders how much different his response would be when another reply is given this time.  

Yesterday, the first explanation to Dr Mahathir came through a direct
response from Proton. Although it was from the company's perspective,
it helped shed some light on the two decisions taken that had not gone
down well with the former premier. 

But the political temperature has gone down somewhat. Reporters turned
up in full when Dr Mahathir spoke at a peace forum at a hotel in
Petaling Jaya on Wednesday. At the end of the forum, the press
attempted to get Dr Mahathir to comment on the various issues relating
to his feud with Abdullah, but he turned them down. 

Some have suggested that Dr Mahathir did not want to prolong the
controversy any more as enough had been said. There is also speculation
that the two had spoken to each other without the knowledge of their
aides and advisers. 

A family holiday trip to Europe is coming up soon for Dr Mahathir and
certainly his absence would also help emotions to cool down. It would
allow both sides to reflect on what has taken place over the past two
weeks and, hopefully, for some form of healing process to take place. 

Both Dr Mahathir and Abdullah are respected figures. They have their
strengths and weaknesses. The former has contributed tremendously to
Malaysia but surely he has to acknowledge that he has also failed in
many aspects during the two decades of leadership. 

He is, after all, a mere mortal who has made many mistakes and, in his own words, made many errors of judgment. 

In the case of Abdullah, he has been accused of being indecisive, weak
and under the influence of certain personalities. But let us not forget
that we, the voters, have given him a massive mandate for five years.
We should let him handle his job, by no means an easy one, and give him
all our support. 

I believe that the majority of Malaysians would like to see the
leadership spend its time tackling real people issues like the rising
cost of living. Ordinary Malaysians talk about their rising petrol and
electricity bills, and now the sugar shortage.  

By the way, where is the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal as we face these problems?

THERE are plenty of good reasons why Barisan Nasional leaders are
worried over the harsh criticism by former Prime Minister Tun Dr
Mahathir Mohamad against his successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad
Badawi. 

Dr Mahathir, who led Malaysia for 22 years, is highly respected and his
views are taken seriously. Whether we agree with him or not is another
thing.  

Unlike others, he does not speak in broad and generalised language,
which can sometimes give the impression that the speaker does not have
a strong grasp of the subject that he is speaking on.  

With Dr Mahathir, his choice of words is always direct and easily
understood. He calls a spade a spade. He always has his facts and
figures in hand, which gives him the edge when he faces his listeners. 

So, when Dr Mahathir levelled his attack on Abdullah, using very strong
language, it was headline news in all newspapers and numerous websites.
The television stations, for some strange reasons, pretended it didn't
happen.  

The reaction from Barisan and Umno leaders was swift, with many calling
up their media contacts to rally behind Abdullah. The expression of
support is certainly essential for the leadership. 

A united front would show that Abdullah is still the commander and he
is still very much in control. Such support, which may be dismissed as
sycophancy by the sceptics, should not be under-estimated. 

The solid backing has sent the message to Dr Mahathir that the party
disapproves of his hurtful words. Some would even say it was an attempt
to undermine the authority of the prime minister. 

The general sentiment of ordinary Malaysians is that Dr Mahathir must
learn to give up his control on the Government now that he has retired.
In short, he must give Pak Lah a chance to steer the ship. Pak Lah has
just been in charge for three years, which is not even a full term yet. 

Judging from the letters, e-mail and phone calls from readers, the
outburst has not gone down well with Malaysians. They expressed their
gratitude for the development Dr Mahathir brought to Malaysia but
expressed their sadness, even outrage, at his outburst against Pak Lah. 

But these may not be enough. While the politicians and elites have made
their stand, either out of genuine loyalty to Pak Lah or to ensure
their political survival, it is the feeling on the ground that the
leadership needs to seek. 

The politicians and the media must find out from the rakyat what they
really think of the spat between the two leaders. The media has only
reported what the politicians think, so far. It is the voice of the
people that matters the most. 

Dr Mahathir's harsh remarks would certainly increase the possibility of
many middle-class Malaysians, especially those in urban areas, being
emboldened to be more critical of the Government. 

The former PM must have surely understood the unhappiness, if not
resentment, of the common people against the increase in petrol and
electricity tariffs.  

For wage earners who do not expect much pay increase or a fat bonus
this year, it has been hard. Barisan politicians should not believe
that the blatant propaganda interviews with "common people" over RTM
truly reflects the feelings on the ground. 

The call to ordinary Malaysians to change their lifestyle, for example,
has been greeted cynically. For many, who already lead modest
lifestyles, there isn't really much to change. People are prepared to
sacrifice but they won't tolerate the mismanagement of public funds. 

The loudest grouses in the country are those relating to the escalating
cost of living. The leadership must feel the pulse of the nation. No
one is sure whether Dr Mahathir has intentionally tapped into the
disenchantment of a large section of Malaysians when he made his
outburst but the leadership must not take lightly the grumbling in
urban areas. 

Dr Mahathir has exerted pressure on Abdullah because his views carry
weight. If he says that the leadership has not done a good job, that
remark in itself is bad for the leadership. 

Now, the opposition will exploit the situation by saying that even Dr M has lent credence to what they are saying. 

The former premier has said that he is aware that the opposition wants
to use him to attack the Government and that he will not allow that as
he is a Umno loyalist. But the reality is that the price for doing so
can be politically costly. 

The results of the Sarawak state elections have made many Barisan
leaders uneasy. Sarawakian voters, except those in Kuching, have a
record of being pro-establishment but the good showing of the
opposition is not good for the Barisan. 

If PAS, which lost its deposits in past polls, can secure over 1,900
votes in the sole Sarawak constituency it contested, the Barisan must
wake up.  

Many have openly asked whether the same voting pattern would take place
in other states if elections were to be called tomorrow. They want to
know whether the inflationary trend, which has hurt many Malaysians,
would have dire repercussions for the ruling coalition. 

Are they merely angry over the price hike or do they also have other
unhappiness over the state of the country? Were Sarawakians merely
unhappy with Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud alone or the
state policies?  

Are urban voters upset that the promises of the last general election,
particularly on corruption and accountability, were not carried out
fast enough?  

It is good that Barisan leaders have started to take stock of these
questions because they must gauge the feelings of the people at the
early stage. 

The Sarawak elections have shown that the electoral pact between the
DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat has worked well. Lawyer Dominic Ng of
Keadilan beat Barisan's Lily Yong in a straight fight.  

The same arrangement between Keadilan and PAS would probably take place in the next general election. 

Dr Mahathir and Abdullah need to sort out their differences because if
the matter is not resolved, it does the country no good. Dr Mahathir
appeared to have softened his stand on Friday, saying he was not
fighting with Pak Lah and merely wanted an explanation on certain
issues. 

It is best for the two leaders to have a heart-to-heart talk, without
their aides and advisers. After all, they do have one thing in common –
to make Malaysia a better country for us.  

IT has been brewing for close to a year now. He made known his unhappiness – in his usual sardonic and sarcastic way – to a small circle of listeners that the Abdullah administration has not run the country well.

But on Wednesday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took off his gloves to launch what the media has termed his strongest criticism against the Prime Minister.

He accused Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of dismantling many of his policies and projects, and said that Abdullah was not his first choice as his successor and that the mild-mannered politician had betrayed his trust.

These were harsh and hurtful words which shocked ordinary Malaysians, who until now had little inkling of the pent-up frustrations of the former premier.

Sharp remarks against the leadership earlier were given scant coverage, but media space grew following his recent criticism of the government's decision to scrap the Johor bridge.

Abdullah, aware of the stinging comments, had maintained his calm and refused to let himself be drawn into a verbal war. At Cabinet meetings, he told his ministers he would not do so, although at least one minister had strongly urged him to defend himself.

It may just be the most effective tactic. It has helped Abdullah maintain his dignity while at the same time, prevent an escalating fight between the two respected figures.

For Dr Mahathir, the immediate verdict among ordinary Malaysians and Umno members, is divided. Many feel he should act more like a statesman and let his handpicked successor carry on the job of running the country, while there are those, especially businessmen, who have compared his legacy to that of Abdullah.

Some business and political groups claimed he had stronger economic fundamentals and that Malaysia was falling behind in the region.

Last week, Abdullah pointed out that Malaysia had done well and improved its competitiveness rating, calling for faster implementation of the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

With the open fallout between Dr Mahathir and Abdullah, the question now is where does it go from here?

Dr Mahathir, at 81, is still robust and out-spoken. No one can stop him from speaking out as he has done all these years, no matter how irritating it may be to the powers that be.

We have all applauded him many times as the spokesman for the Third World, for his tough words against the United States. No one should be surprised if he does the same for domestic issues. That is the Dr M that we know and love. Nothing will change.

For Malaysian journalists, the first blow against Abdullah came on Aug 8, 2005, during a private dinner with 10 senior editors to celebrate his 80th birthday.

It was arranged by a prominent businessman, among others, for me to patch up with Dr Mahathir following his unhappiness with me.

On May 30, 2005, he had called a press conference to tick me off for my comments that during his 22 years tenure, he could have done more to combat graft.

At the same press conference, where he spoke on the Approved Permit (AP) issue of importing cars against Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz, Dr Mahathir said he wished he could have done more, such as carrying out anti-corruption campaigns. He also expressed disappointment with my article.

We patched up all right but during the dinner that lasted over two hours, he startled, if not shocked us, with his no-holds barred comments against Abdullah. Journalists, as the saying goes, are witnesses to history.

What he said affected us so much that we compared notes as he left, to make sure we got our quotes right so that we could include them in our memoirs.

With over 10 people present, there could never be a secret and word went out on what Dr Mahathir had said.

Later, the press was to witness similar expressions of unhappiness from Dr Mahathir.

One sore point with the former premier were allegations that he had used up money for mega projects and that the country had no more money. He would always rattle off figures to argue his case.

"The Government has lots of money and Putrajaya is built largely from Petronas funds. Petronas made a profit of RM50bil last year and this year it made RM83bil and spent RM13bil to subsidise petrol prices of the public," he said on Wednesday.

"It still has about RM70bil. It will pay tax of RM30bil and have RM40bil left. Petronas must give, as it belongs to the Government. So to say the previous government has spent all the money is not supported by facts."

What has happened on Wednesday has been deja vu for older Malaysians. Dr Mahathir was sacked from Umno in 1969 for his criticism of Tunku Abdul Rahman. When Dr Mahathir was prime minister, the Tunku campaigned for Parti Melayu Semangat 46 against Dr Mahathir during the elections.

Writing in his As I See It column, the Tunku was critical of what Dr Mahathir did and it must have disturbed Dr Mahathir, who would probably have seen it as interference from a retired prime minister.

Unfortunately, history has repeated itself. This time, it has become more complicated because Dr Mahathir has a larger than life image for many Malaysians as he had been the only Prime Minister they had known for a long time.

It will not be easy, even unfair, for anyone to compare Abdullah's three years against Dr Mahathir's 22 years of leadership. It will be something Pak Lah has to live with.

But Pak Lah has incumbency on his side. Pledges of support from Barisan Nasional and Umno leaders have been immediate and are surely a boost to his firm grip of the coalition and party.

Just in case anyone missed a remark by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, he said he has been given the tag of Mr Nice Guy. But not anymore and that's a loaded remark!
 

Most of us tend to relate the visual image of The Last Supper to Leonardo Da Vinci's masterpiece where Jesus and his Apostles are seated at one long table, all facing front. 

Pilgrims to Jerusalem will be reminded that that is just not the normal
practice of the people at that time. Instead, the more accurate
depiction of The Last Supper would be for them to sit on the floor,
around various low tables. 

And certainly the most popular item being sold to pilgrims visiting the
Holy Land is an intricate piece of woodwork, made out of olive wood
tree, depicting such a scenario. I know. I bought one when I was there. 

The US$500 (RM1,080) work of art was sold to me by Sibly Kando, the
grandson of Palestinian shopkeeper Khalil Iskander Shahin, who became
rich and famous after he bought the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest and
largest collection of manuscripts with references to the Bible. 

I was in Jerusalem a year ago, when not too many people in Malaysia had read The Da Vinci Code and the people in the Holy Land had not even heard of Dan Brown.  

The Jerusalem woodwork has a semi-circular setting, with John, Jesus
and Judas seated together. On their extreme right is Peter, who served
food to them. 

In Da Vinci's painting, Jesus is seated in the middle and on his right
is John, which Dan Brown's book has claimed to be actually Mary
Magdalene, and not John. 

In the first place, it is unlikely that they would be seated in a
straight row, which would throw out Dan Brown's theory immediately. 

The premise taken by Brown is that Da Vinci had intentionally painted
the figure next to Jesus to look effeminate, to depict Magdalene
instead. They were said to have been married and had children. 

Having read the book, I decided to watch the movie, with an open mind,
to see whether the worldwide protest from Christians was justified.  

I have to confess that I enjoyed the movie. It was not as boring as the
critics had claimed. Director Ron Howard has done a decent job in
keeping the flow and suspense. 

But what startled me was that our censors actually allowed the full
nude body, minus the private parts, of the albino assassin Silas to be
shown. In this scene, the Opus Dei monk had continuously whipped his
already bloodied back, in a seemingly sadomasochistic manner. Grinning
in pain, Silas carried out the ritual in front of a picture of Jesus. 

Also, given the sensitive nature of the movie to many Christians, who
see it as blasphemous, the censors should have insisted that an
advisory be put up, at the start of the movie, stating that it is a
work of fiction. 

If The Passion of Christ
was banned on religious grounds (though subsequently shown to
restricted audiences), with the Home Ministry believing that it needed
to take into account Muslim sentiments, the censors should have
exercised the same caution with this movie.  

It has decided not to ban Da Vinci Code but surely an advisory would have been appropriate. In a plural society, the authorities must be sensitive to everyone.  

Having studied at St Xavier's Institution in Penang, a Catholic school,
I certainly appreciate the dedication, fairness and kindness of the
Christian brothers, many of whom came from Europe and made Malaysia
their home. 

Through such mission schools, they provided the best education to
Malaysians, regardless of their race and religion. Many parents today
do miss that quality of education in our existing school system. 

The Chrisitan brothers never made any attempt to convert me, and it was
more than 20 years after I left school that I became a Christian.  

The attempt by Dan Brown to paint the Catholic Church leaders as villains certainly pained many. 

Brown's storyline accuses the church of knowing the secret bloodline of
Jesus-Magdalene and how it conducted "the greatest cover-up ever"
through kidnapping, fraud, deception and even murder.  

While mature Christians, with a solid faith foundation, would not be
affected by the book or movie, the same cannot be said for those who
are still in search of God. Or rebellious teenagers who would be more
receptive of anti-establishment and sub-cultural views. 

More importantly, the church should be not disheartened because the
movie has generated debate over the role of Christianity and the
church. 

It has also put Christians in a positive light – that we prefer
intellectual discourse and persuasion rather than to resort to
emotions. Certainly no one has been killed over the movie and no
cinemas have been set on fire. 

The church should seize the opportunity, in a creative way, to talk about the book and the faith to non-believers.  

At the Wesley Methodist Church in Kuala Lumpur, I attended a full house
meeting on the book. The young posed tough questions to the pastor, of
which some were not convincingly answered, but it has certainly stirred
passion in Christianity. 

On my personal homefront, there was a lesson for my 15-year-old
daughter after she read the book. She, like many teenagers, has been
intrigued by Silas although Opus Dei is not a word widely used in
Malaysian homes. 

She has asked more questions about the church, which church elders
sometimes ignored or brushed aside. But that is how young minds work –
they no longer accept everything on the surface. This is the new world. 

Still, she was startled when I told her that one of daddy's friends is
a dedicated Opus Dei member who has visited us at home.  

The Opus Dei uncle is not albino but a mild-mannered Indian, who lives in Petaling Jaya, whose only sinful passion is the siew yuk (barbecued pork) in Pudu. He certainly does not hit himself with a chain. My daughter learnt to separate fact from fiction.