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.

MANY Malaysians have long complained about job vacancy advertisements that require applicants to have compulsory knowledge of written Chinese and spoken Mandarin.

For job-seekers who are only proficient in Bahasa Malaysia and English, such advertisements must be frustrating, particularly if they feel they are qualified for the jobs offered.

At a glance, Malay and Indian applicants would seem to be the ones discriminated against, but English-educated Chinese are also in the same boat.

Many Chinese can speak their Cantonese or Hokkien mother tongues, but like their Malay and Indian brethrens, they would be rejected by such employers who must have their reasons for insisting on the ability to read and write Chinese.

On Tuesday, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak urged the private sector to stop the practice of making it compulsory for local graduates to be proficient in Mandarin.

The Deputy Prime Minister said the private sector should be more open in accepting and training local graduates without imposing certain requirements.

Employers who insist on hiring only a certain race and gender have long infuriated Malaysians. Often, these are not even offers for high positions but simple clerical or supermarket jobs.

Employers must realise that it makes good management sense to have a balanced staff of various races. Not only would they have a larger pool of applicants to choose from, but the company would also be able to deal effectively with a larger market of customers. Managing leave for staff would be easier too.

For government agencies where Malays make up the majority of the staff, it has always been a nightmare during Hari Raya Aidilfitri. If there are more non-Malay civil servants, such manpower problems would not exist.

Advertisements that impose conditions on language and race should not just be stopped for job vacancies but also those relating to rental of apartments or houses.

There is absolutely no need for employers to state such conditions openly, although there is nothing to stop them from culling candidates who do not meet their expectations in the selection process.

As a Chinese, I fall into the category labelled by some as xiang jiao ren (literally banana people: yellow on the outside, white inside – a Chinese who does not speak Chinese).

When watching Cantonese dramas or movies, I rely on the subtitles. When on holiday in China with tour groups, the English-educated ones like me find ourselves unable to comprehend what the guide is saying.

Most Malaysians are bilingual, but next to those who attended Chinese schools and who can speak three languages, we are at an obvious disadvantage.

But we have to be practical. We can either whine about it, pretend we are not affected by our lack of language skills, or we can learn these languages because of their economic value.

While people like me may find it late to start learning to read and write a new language, there is nothing to stop the younger set, especially fresh graduates, from learning Mandarin, Arabic or Spanish.

As Najib stated, the number of graduates have almost doubled from 45,000 in 2000 to 85,000 last year, but a recent survey showed that 32% of graduates today have yet to secure jobs after completing their studies last year.

No one is surprised by the figure.

The slowdown in the economy has not helped. Employers have become more cautious of escalating production costs, thereby imposing stringent rules on recruitment.

For job seekers whose degrees are not in demand in the job market, they become even more unmarketable when interviewers find that they have a poor command of English.

For many local graduates, that inadequacy is already reflected in their application letters – if they can't string together a proper sentence in English, how can employers have faith in them putting up a decent sales presentation?

This poor command of English is evident among many local graduates, regardless of race. They are victims of an education system that has neglected English. If anybody is to be blamed, it's the politicians. But unfortunately the damage has been done.

The elites can send their children for education overseas but most Malaysian parents cannot afford to do so. If one is living in a kampung, new village or estate, the children have little exposure to English, putting them at a disadvantage against urban kids.

Even in China, employers have begun to insist on fluency in English among fresh graduates in the market. If you want to do business in India, it's still English.

The reality is that English, Mandarin and Arabic would become more important in the coming years because China, India and now the United Arab Emirates have emerged as big markets.

A local company with plans to set up office in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan would insist on Mandarin-speaking candidates. A Chinese Malaysian who can only speak Cantonese or Hokkien would lose out to a Malay who speaks Mandarin and write Chinese.

Likewise, a Mandarin-speaking job applicant is useless for a company doing business in Dubai.

Good English and Arabic would certainly be an asset. Tour operators for Arab visitors to Malaysia would hire Arabic-speaking graduates.

In Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and Austria, most people there can speak at least three languages, but in Malaysia and Singapore, we do not seem to have that skill despite our plural set-up.

In Singapore, many speak English and Mandarin but cannot speak the Malay language, while in Malaysia, most of us are merely bilingual but the trend is that many are becoming monolingual, which is something that we need to check.

Nobody owes anyone a living. We should not expect the Government to give us a job as a pegawai in the civil service, simply because we are graduates.

What we should do is improve ourselves to become more marketable and adaptable to the requirements of a demanding world.

Learning does not stop once we step out of school or university. Learning is, to borrow a phrase, a "lifelong" process.
 

TWO brickbats in two days – first, the police have been criticised for beating up several protestors at a demonstration against the increase in electricity rates at the KLCC. While the newspapers have given only scant mention to the protest, the Internet websites had run pictures of bloodied demonstrators.

Yesterday, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar found himself in an embarrassing situation. A critical report, meant for internal circulation, was posted on the police website.

The 12-page report contained strong, even intimidating, proposals by the police against the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The document stated that the setting up of the IPCMC was "unconstitutional, prejudicial to national security and public order, victimised the people, and could cause a state of anarchy which would undermine the ruling coalition's power".

The report, which has been circulated among members of the police force, said the IPCMC would "undermine the IGP's administrative and enforcement power" but what has become a controversy now is the proposals by Senior Police Officers Gazetted Association if the body was formed.

They included voting for the Opposition in the next general election, asking the Opposition to speak up for their causes in Parliament, working to rule, demanding that the top police brass quit, allowing crime rates to go up and mass resignations of investigating officers.

The association also expressed its disappointment that the Home Ministry had remained silent on the issue, and questioned why the police force had to be singled out for reforms.

These emotional demands, while not out in the open, are a reflection of the simmering unhappiness in the rank and file of the police force since the proposed setting up of the IPCMC.

In a private meeting with the Prime Minister, they had expressed their frustrations. On March 25, in his Police Day message that was read out at all police contingents, except at the event at the Police Training Centre where Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Bakri were present, the IGP had rejected the setting up of the IPCMC.

He said the police force and police associations rejected 24 of the proposals of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, including the setting up of the IPCMC.

But the posting of the internal report on the website, which the police have found to be a mistake, has been untimely. It will not help the image of the police. It is even more unfortunate for Bakri, who is expected to retire in three months.

The Opposition has seized the opportunity to attack the police, with DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng pressing for the PM to act quickly against what he termed as a police "revolt" and that "only the IPCMC can stop the crisis of authority and discipline".

There is now an urgent need for the PM to look at the increasingly vocal call from the public for real reforms in the police force and at the same time, pay heed to the concerns of the force.

The security of the country must not be compromised and the police have cited weaknesses in the recommendations of the commission. For one, we should not expect the police to hand their confidential documents to anyone.

Politicians, for one, can hardly be entrusted to be the commissioners of the IPCMC with imposing powers on the police. That would spell the end of neutrality, professionalism and a people-centred police force. The police also refused to accept that the IGP's authority would be subservient to a layperson.

Royal Commission chairman Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had proposed the IPCMC should be made up "of seven members, appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and chaired by a person with a legal background" and that its commissioners "should not be serving or former members of the police force".

These genuine fears are stated in their report. Why should the police want to be judged by those with zero knowledge of the running of the force, especially in dealing with criminals and terrorists – people with evil minds who may portray themselves as angels?

But at the same time, times have changed. The public expects better accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance principles. Our policemen have questioned, quite correctly, why they should be singled out when there are worse government bodies.

Neither can the police accept the powers of the commission to take disciplinary action including discharge, suspension and demotion of a policeman.

Unfortunately, the practice of corruption, which some would say is rampant within the police force, has not helped its cause.

There is unlikely to be much support from the public despite the many convincing arguments put up.

An independent body, along the lines of an Ombudsman, may be the answer. Different countries, even within the Commonwealth, have different systems of such a body. In India, there are states with two Ombudsmen with the powers of a judge, while in some Canadian provinces they enjoy little power.

But there is a hunger, among the public, for a body to channel its grievances over what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the excessive power of the police force.

The public finds it frustrating, even powerless, having to report against the wrongdoings of the force to another policeman, and assumes it will not get a fair hearing from the start. Even though that may not be the case, perception, trust and confidence are important when one seeks justice.

These wrongdoings would include allegations of corruption, abuse of powers, intimidation, allegations of sexual misdemeanours and plain incompetence in the force.

The Government has not helped, with its seemingly dragging image of the proposed IPCMC. It has been more than one year since the proposal.

Having raised the anticipation of the people, it then said the IPCMC's implementations were unlikely because of police objections and worse, some Barisan Nasional backbenchers then objected to the proposal. Many of us will still recall the similar chorus of support when it was then politically correct to support the setting up of the IPCMC.

The Government has found itself in a tight spot – meeting the demands of the people for real reforms and tackling the unhappiness of the police officers, whose roles are so essential in maintaining the country's security.

A re-look at the proposals and the views of the parties involved may be necessary, so that everyone can see eye-to-eye on the issue, for the larger interest of Malaysia.
 

THERE has been no official word but the talk is that preliminary meetings have been held to get Disneyland to Johor.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was in Japan for a five-day working trip, reportedly met officials from Oriental Land, the Japanese partner of Tokyo Disneyland.

The plan, according to speculation, was to bring Mickey Mouse and the fantasyland to the proposed 9,645ha Nusajaya, a massive new township in the southern Johor corridor.

The state is said to have set aside 960ha and investments worth RM2bil for the plan, which could create 20,000 jobs.

Interestingly, in April last year, Abdullah said he had no objection if Disney were to come to Johor.

Following that remark, Singapore's Straits Times contacted Michelle Nachum, the spokesman for Disney theme parks in California for a confirmation but all she was prepared to say was that Disney constantly evaluated strategic markets around the world.

She would not confirm or deny that Johor was on the list.

No one is surprised that Singapore is keeping a close watch on developments in neighbouring Johor. The Lion City, in fact, almost got its own Disneyland in the Seletar area but the plan fell through.

It was reported last year that negotiations went so far as identifying the site and the government was even prepared to add another station to the North-South MRT Line, with the reservoir as a backdrop.

Singapore Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kang was quoted in the Straits Times as saying that in the end, it did not work out because Disney wanted a 300ha chunk of land and was not prepared to pay for it.

Lim told Parliament that this happened in the 1990s when the government was keen to attract a major theme park like Disneyland or Universal Studios to set up in Singapore, saying "theme park operators are actually content providers, they really only provide the software and the intellectual property."

He said they wouldn't "want to put in too much of their own money" and that "they earn a development fee even before the theme park operations starts" – management fees would be added when operation started, followed by a cut of the gate takings.

Johor, on the other hand, has plenty of land. It is ready to offer up to 1,000ha of land and in comparison to Hong Kong's 70ha and Singapore's reluctance to give up 300ha, the southern state has a distinct advantage.

But running theme parks is not easy, especially in South-East Asia. The humid weather obviously works against us in Malaysia, especially when visitors have to do plenty of walking and waiting in a sprawling theme park.

The theme park in Genting Highlands is successful because of its cool weather and not forgetting the casino element.

The Sunway Lagoon's wet concept is also successful, given the fact that Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, which have no beaches, have a big market.

The present Disney locations are in California, Florida, Paris, Hong Kong and soon, Shanghai.

Florida has warm weather but it is not humid, unlike Malaysia, and can be windy at times.

But our hot weather need not necessarily be a minus point.

The Formula One race in Kuala Lumpur is now touted the "hottest race on earth" and even the monsoon season in Terengganu has helped put Malaysia on the world map with the Monsoon Cup.

Singapore has had two bad experiences – the 12ha Tiger Balm Gardens, set up in 1935, which later became the Haw Par Villa. It had over 1,000 statues depicting Chinese legends but visitors found them gruesome.

It lost RM72mil.

The Tang Dynasty City was another flop, with one report finding the place too hot on sunny days, having too much concrete with too few shelters and people having to queue up for 40 minutes for a boat ride.

It was part of a comprehensive finding by National University of Singapore's Associate Prof Peggy Teo, who does research on tourism.

Since then Singapore has played safe, preferring the air-conditioned indoor kind of theme parks such as Underwater World and Snowcity.

Malaysia has taken the right direction by planning new tourist attractions as scenic spots and shopping malls alone won't do, especially if we wish to get repeat visitors. That was the view of some Arab tourists, interviewed by a newspaper here recently. Our country should also not be in the category of short-stay destination.

More attractions need to be created as the tourism industry becomes more competitive.

Huge sums of money have to be invested to shift world attention to Malaysia.

For example, Brazil paid more than US$1mil (RM3.6mil) to the Rolling Stones for a one-night concert recently. Although the city treated its people and tourists to the free concert, it drew world attention. Shanghai also paid for the ageing rockers.

But in Malaysia, our politicians and some sections of the people may not be so receptive; but it is a small sum to pay for assured global advertisement.

As travelling becomes easier, tourists have also become more demanding. They expect their tour guides to know what they are talking about, having done their research on the Internet before they started their visits.

If they wish to visit a zoo, it must be like San Diego Zoo, a world-class outfit, or a safari park, where animals are allowed to roam freely and not locked up.

Snakes and crocodiles are also passe now.

Plenty of homework needs to be done, especially on the financial prospect of attracting regional visitors, if we wish to set up world-class theme parks here.

Malaysians would surely like to see Mickey Mouse in Nusajaya but we believe careful planning and plenty of common sense are needed as massive public funds would be involved, so that no one takes the mickey out of us.

LET'S be honest about how we view the outcome of the Sarawak
state elections. The Opposition rocked the Barisan Nasional by winning
nine seats – completely wiping out the coalition in the state capital
of Kuching – in the face of an almost fortress-like Barisan campaign
machinery simply because many voters believe that some Barisan leaders
have overstayed their welcome. 

It's already one week after the
polls, but not many Sarawak Barisan leaders seem ready to grab the bull
by its horns, so to speak, to address the real causes of the electoral
casualties. They want to play the nice guys by ignoring the problems
rather than risk upsetting the powerful.  

But the writing has been on the wall for the voters to see. Some
Barisan leaders chose to ignore it, believing that they could pull
through the election again with another massive win. After all,
election results in Sarawak have always been predictable. 

Or they simply believed that they are indispensable and that they
really expected the younger voters to accept their oft-repeated mantra
that their work to help the rakyat is still not completed. Or they are
still in the process of grooming their successors. 

Without doubt, the Barisan has a strong two-thirds majority.
Democratically, the opposition has not been a formidable opponent, but
given the complexity of Sarawak politics, the Barisan leaders have
plenty of reasons to be worried. 

The massive swing to the opposition is unprecedented. We are not
talking about pro-Barisan independents but real oppositionists.  

The DAP grabbed six seats, and even Parti Keadilan Nasional won one.
The number could have been higher, as the winning margin in several
areas was only in the three digits. Even PAS, which many expect to lose
its deposit in the single seat it contested, garnered over 1,000 votes.

There has been loud grumbling. Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he sensed even before the elections that
there was "something amiss" in the state, that there was something
"quite wrong" in Sarawak. 

He said he would give the reasons to Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib
Mahmud in private. Well, that is simply because the Prime Minister is
being polite and diplomatic. Abdullah's few sentences are telling
enough.  

Sarawak Barisan leaders must not just wake up, as Taib has said, but
they must snap out of their state of denial. If there is to be a real
shake-up, then they must address the reasons for the rejections. 

It is not a rejection of the Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) alone
but a rejection of the Barisan. Painful as it may be, and not many
politicians would want to shoulder the blame, that is the crux of the
matter that must be addressed.  

For Umno leaders, they are upset with the entry of Keadilan into
Sarawak. It is a lease of life for the opposition party, which has been
struggling to keep itself intact for the past two years.  

The focus has been on the Chinese voters in urban areas but just take a
cursory look at the protest votes in the rural areas. They may not be
enough to unseat the Barisan but the trend should upset the federal
Barisan leaders.  

We have to accept that the old ways of doing things are over. Barisan
politicians cannot hope to talk about the need for development and
unity at their ceramah and believe that they have done enough.  

They must stop believing that seeing their pictures in the newspapers
would guarantee the votes. That would be simplistic. Deputy Information
Minister Datuk Zahid Hamidi correctly pointed that out immediately
after the polls. 

As the Barisan carry out their post-mortem, one glaring effect of the
polls must be the age difference of the contenders. In one corner was
the younger line-up of the opposition and in the other corner was the
very much older Barisan leaders. 

Taib, who has headed the state for 25 years, celebrated his 70th
birthday on Monday. His deputy Tan Sri Dr George Chan turns 70 this
September while another deputy, Tan Sri Alfred Jabu, is 66. 

In comparison, the voters in Kuching, mostly in their 20s to 40s, voted
in a younger set of state assemblymen – Ting Tze Fui (Merandong), 24,
Violet Yong (Pending), 29, and Chong Chieng Jen (Kota Sentosa), 35.  

It is not just about the leasehold expiration of property or the
unhappiness over the fuel price hike, but that Taib and others have led
the state for too long. They have done marvellously well but it is time
to pass on the baton. 

There is also the excessiveness. Expensive projects that serve little
purposes for the people. Why would the state spend RM300mil on a state
assembly building that meets only twice a year? It's sinful. 

But all is not lost. We must be ready to learn from history. In 1999,
PAS sprang a surprise and pulled the rug from under the Barisan in
Terengganu after 40 years, ending Mentri Besar Tan Sri Wan Mokhtar
Ahmad's 25-year reign. Wan Mokhtar lost his Chukai seat, a Barisan
stronghold, too.  

The time has come for rejuvenation and reforms in Sarawak. The people
deserve fresh input for development and the search for successors must
now be expedited. 

Surely there are enough qualified and talented people in the state to
take over. Give the younger people a chance; give Sarawak a chance. 

It means entering into a relationship with God. Often, for
the faithful, it means a change of lifestyle. But the most poignant reality is
that sometimes, conversion into another religion is also because of love that
leads to marriage.

In the case of inter-racial marriages, the reality is that
sometimes, marriages fail and when that happens, people may want to go back to
their previous religion. In other countries, it would have been a simple and
straightforward matter, but in Malaysia,
it can become a thorny issue.

So, we have ended up in a murky situation. The moderate and
more sensible politicians have preferred to discuss these issues behind closed doors,
away from emotional and sometimes irrational individuals.

Then there are the legalists who argue their case strictly
from what is written in the Constitution. That means interpretation of
semantics. It can be a cold and elitist approach but they have valid reasons.

After all, what is the point of having a Constitution, a
properly defined document of laws and principles, if we are not going to
respect and follow what has been agreed upon?

For that matter, what is the role and function of the courts
and the legislature if these issues are hijacked by religious bodies or,
sometimes, by individuals with political ambitions?

Malaysians have yet to come to the point where we are brave
enough to adopt a critical attitude towards those who mesmerise us through
religion. Irrespective of our faith, not many of us dare to question religious
leaders even if their stand is flawed because we see them as God's men,
forgetting that they are mere humans.

They may be learned and trained but that doesn't give them full
control over followers of the various faiths. If we are to be progressive and
to move forward to become a civil society, then we must adapt ourselves to deal
with those who attempt to put up a theocratic structure for their own benefit.

It has to be granted that there would be disputes – with
religious and communal connotations – when it involves prayer, death or
marriage.

In a multi-racial country, it is right that we take a
cautious approach, because the larger interest of the people is more important
than that of individuals. The unity and harmony of the community as a whole
must not be compromised.

That is why Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
has wisely called on various groups to exercise caution, especially in any
debate about syariah and civil jurisdictions.

The Prime Minister has rightly said that organisers must be
careful as the subject is sensitive. He has been just and fair-minded when he
said recently that the public forum on the protection of minority rights under
the Federal Constitution was legal and not banned but advised them that they
must avoid treading on dangerous grounds.

The organisers of Article 11, an umbrella group of 13
non-governmental bodies, must remember that those who oppose their views have
similar rights to hold meetings to express themselves.

When meetings with opposing views are held, there would be
some who may intentionally stir up arguments that can be hurtful.

Abdullah is correct in calling for caution because many of
us often see things only from our own perspective. We talk about our rights,
forgetting that others have rights, too.

The police must be commended for acting in a professional
manner, given the emotive situation, by asking the forum organisers to cut
short their closed-door meeting and asking the protesters to disperse.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri
Abdul Aziz was harsher in his criticism of the protesters.

It can only be described as mob behaviour, which must not be
tolerated in any civilised society. No lawful society should accept such
behaviour by those who try to legitimise their actions in the name of religion.
There is such a thing as rule of law.

One leader of the protesters was the Penang Ulama
Association of Malaysia assistant secretary Hafiz Nordin. He is also the state
PAS deputy youth chief but he denied the party was behind the protest. Last
week, PAS Youth handed a memorandum to the Prime Minister's Office calling for
action against the organisers of Article 11.

Penang police chief Deputy Comm Datuk
Christopher Wan said that action would be taken against the protesters, who
called themselves the Anti-Inter Faith Commission Body, pointing out that they
were from "a political party".

I am reliably informed that active high-level discussions
are taking place among political, religious and non-governmental groups on
these issues. Those involved in these talks are a multi-racial and
multi-religious group of people with high integrity and credibility and I
believe that they would be able to come up with some fair and accepted
solutions.

Issues affecting marriage, divorce, child custody and burial
rites should not be the monopoly of religious elites. Regardless of their
religion, they are not the sole, authoritative interpreters of their respective
religions by virtue of their religious training.

The "holier-than-thou" and narrow approach of the religious
establishment, who sometimes refuse to accept the perspectives of other faiths
beyond their own, can be obstacles to reform.

I am positive and optimistic that our Cabinet, which include
the heads of many Barisan Nasional component parties, would be able to tackle
these issues well. But certainly not politicians masquerading as religious
leaders.

Our Barisan leaders are elected representatives of the
people, and they, and not the theocrats, should determine what is best for the
people. They should not get themselves clouded with issues, which some may want
to complicate, because at the end of it, it is about the personal and private
lives of ordinary Malaysians.

We must be alert against policies, seemingly religious,
which run contrary to our Constitution and laws. We must hold sacred to these
principles of laws because they were agreed by our founding fathers.

No one has a right to judge anyone because in any religion,
it is God and God alone who determines all, and that right to abrogate that
power has not been given to anyone. That should be clear.