THE Da Vinci Code has, thankfully, been passed for screening in Malaysia despite the uproar by Christians worldwide who regard the movie as blasphemous.

Some churches in Malaysia have found Dan Brown's book offensive and instructed their members to stay away from the movie but that has not stopped The Da Vinci Code from being shown here.

The Home Affairs Ministry has done the right thing because we should adopt a culture of opening up hearts and minds.

But in the case of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir (The Last Communist), the authorities have adopted a different position.

The film, directed by independent filmmaker Amir Muhammad, is said to chronicle the life of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng, now living in exile in Thailand.

Although it was approved by the Censorship Board without a single cut, it was banned by the ministry after an editor of a Bahasa Malaysia newspaper voiced his unhappiness – never mind that he hasn't even viewed the film.

The crux of the stinging reports was that Amir allegedly highlighted the exploits of the communists in the 90-minute film, which featured interviews with ageing CPM members.

Those who have reservations over the film included Home Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad and Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin – both of whom have presumably also not seen the film – as they felt that many Malaysians have not forgiven the CPM for the many atrocities they committed.

It is this knee-jerk reaction from the authorities, which have succumbed to the demands of some individuals and groups, that has led many Malaysians to question the Government's rationale.

Several Members of Parliament have been invited by Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim to a special screening of the film tomorrow.

Credit must go to Dr Rais, who agreed with Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang that a special screening should be conducted for the elected representatives to draw their own conclusions.

Malaysians have no reason to question the sincerity of Radzi and Zam, who are both in their 60s and have experienced the upheaval caused by the CPM.

They certainly saw and shared the grief of those who sacrificed their lives for the country fighting the communists.

Their fear is that the film would promote Chin Peng, who is regarded as the man behind the destruction of property and the loss of many innocent lives.

But more than 50 years have passed.

The Cold War with the United States has ended and the Americans and Russians are now friends. Germany has unified as a nation while Communist China has embraced capitalism, with the Red label used by its leaders to hold on to power. Cuba and Vietnam have opened up their markets and taken advantage of the tourism dollars.

The odd one remaining is North Korea but you can be assured that no sane Malaysian youth would seek asylum there.

Today, the former CPM members at the Friendship Villages in Thailand have long traded their guns for handphones.

They have become businessmen, cashing in on curious visitors who crave for bits of history by visiting their old hideout tunnels.

Talk to them privately and they would tell you about their lost years because of their idealism. But for old time's sake and foolish pride, they would tell reporters and movie-makers like Amir that they had no regrets.

These are people of another era, who fought the Japanese, the British and later, the Malaysian armed forces. They thought Chin Peng and Chairman Mao were their greatest heroes in their proletariat struggles.

But in today's age of the Internet, iPod, MTV and Mawi, the young, who make up more than 60% of our population, do not even know who Chin Peng is.

It's the same as the Mat motor who wears a Che Guevara T-shirt and mistakes the celebrated Cuban revolutionary for Bob Marley the legendary reggae singer.

Hello, this is 2006. Chin Peng may still be the bogeyman to the older generation who cannot discard the ghost of the past but Amir, who is known for making arty films, doesn't stand a chance against The Da Vinci Code and Mission Impossible 3 in mainstream cinema.

Chin Peng against Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks, you must be joking.

Chin Peng is not news any more. His views have been recorded in My Side of History, a book compiled from interviews by Ian Ward and Norma Miraflor in 2003. Again, to the Government's credit, the book was not banned.

Since then, our universities have published books on former Malay leftists and CPM leaders, many in their 80s and 90s, so that their side of the story could be recorded before they pass away.

I cannot fathom how a movie on Chin Peng can be a semi-musical. From a journalistic point of view, Amir has failed because, how can a movie about Chin Peng be made without an interview with the main character?

After all, the rest of the CPM veterans are merely secondary sources – foot soldiers used as pawns by Chin Peng who was safe hiding in Beijing.

The human rights activists would cry that banning the film is an infringement of human rights, the arts groups have said it is mindless censorship against artistic expression. But the fact is, the majority of Malaysians do not really care. The authorities have, unwittingly, made a big fuss over a film which would likely be a flop.

But the sad reality that emerged from this storm in a teacup is that once again a small group that lacks a good grasp of the issue has been able to dictate what we can see, hear and even think – all because not many of us are vocal enough to stand up against the tyrannical few.
 

The newspapers have been filled with nothing else but
football and football. And of course, the political turmoil faced by Prime
Minister Tony Blair. At last week's local council elections, Labour Party was
walloped by its rivals, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats. For the media
and Blair's enemies, this is the beginning of the end for Blair, who has been
the PM for three terms.

The knives were further sharpened when his deputy John
Prescott was exposed in a sex scandal. The deputy PM's secretary Tracey Temple
may have lost her job but she has made a fortune giving intimate details to the
newspapers.

Prescott,
meanwhile, is under immense scrutiny although he still keeps his £199,000 a
year job and the perks that go with it.

Politics is the same everywhere.

I decided to take a week's break in London
after covering Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's official visit
to Jamaica.

The plan was to watch the farewell Arsenal match against Wigan
at the 93-year-old Highbury stadium, where there has been many good memories
for the Gunners.

Determined as I was to be a part of history, the scalps
denied me that opportunity with their £400 a ticket cut-throat offer. I wasn't
prepared to pay, even if it meant missing Thierry Henry's supposedly last game
for my favourite team.

Strange as it may seem, I ended up in the Lion's Den in Old
Trafford instead, to watch Manchester United play Charlton Athlete, in what
could be described as an inconsequential game. Chelsea
and MU have after all kept the first and second spots in the championship.

But after I failed to get into Highbury, I could not say no
to an offer by AirAsia, a sponsor of MU, to watch the last match of the season
at Old Trafford, even if it meant taking a two-hour train ride to Manchester.

The low-cost carrier generated much excitement when its
Airbus, with faces of MU players on its body, flew into the industrial city.

Despite the foregone conclusion of the match, more than
73,000 people were at the stadium, one of the biggest crowds for the season. It
was simply fantastic, as a football fan, to watch stars like Rio Ferdinand and
Christano Ronaldo up close and personal.

But being the loyal Arsenal fan, I had to shout with delight
when it was announced that Arsenal had beaten Wigan 4-2
and Spurs had lost to West Ham 1-2. That meant that Arsenal was fourth.

The football fever continued unabated when England
finally got a true blue Brit Steve McClaren to be their coach. He has been
described as a boring fellow by the media. The merciless media tried to pin him
down on a sex scandal but found out he had broken up with his wife.

Never mind if he spends more time on the football pitch than
the bed, unlike his sex-scandalised predecessor Sven Goran Eriksson.

Patriotism is very much in the air with the English flag
fluttering on many cars. The colours of England,
whom many believe will do well in the World Cup, are being adorned everywhere,
from panties to party hats.

One shop in Oxford Street, selling jackets and suits, is
even offering a money back offer if England wins the Cup – all the customer
needs to do is to take up the offer before the finals starts.

Local analysts are saying that the football-mad season will
cost England
£1.3bil in losses as six million Britons are expected to call in sick during
the finals as businesses predict absenteeism, lateness and even drunkenness.

The selection of Arsenal's 17-year-old sensation Theo
Walcott for the team heading to Germany naturally grabbed the headlines as he
will be England's youngest international. When his coach called him up to tell
him the good news, the boy was busy taking his driving test, according to the
papers.

Everyone has predicted that Brazil
is going to keep the Cup but hey, style and samba alone are not enough in Europe.
You need technical skills and strategies.

I am putting my hopes on England,
even if it is cautious about its chances. Come on, England!

Topping the list must be the Printing Presses and
Publications Act, which provides the Government the power to issue, renew and
revoke the permit of any publication.

It no longer makes sense for the Government to impose such a
restriction on the press, especially the print media, when it can no longer
exert its authority on the Internet.

News is no longer only delivered via print. We have news
websites run by the mainstream press and also the alternative press. We also
have sites set up by opposition parties, groups and individuals, which carry a
variety of news and commentaries. And then we have the bloggers.

The media, as we understand it, is no longer the monopoly of
print.

No one needs a permit to start a website or to blog. He is
free in cyberspace and with the possibility of reaching out to millions of
readers not only in the country but worldwide.

And certainly the Government will find its influence
diminishing in the coming years, as the young switch to the Internet for
information. It will no longer just be a question of an alternative news
medium, but of too much information to choose from.

Participatory journalism and politics have already begun to
make their mark in Malaysia
and it is sad if our politicians are unable to see the trend.

Young Malaysians no longer want to be told what they should
read, hear and see – they want to have a say in how a newspaper or a government
should be run.

Not only that, they want to post their comments instantly,
whether through a website or via the SMS, on issues affecting them. In the
multimedia age of podcasting, they can post sights and sounds on the Net.

Last week, the National Union of Journalists called for
greater press freedom to battle corruption and abuse of power in the country.

Its president Norila Mohd Daud said the public had a right
to know the progress of any government programme as the leaders were elected
through the democratic process to administer the country on the people's
behalf.

Increasingly, Malaysians would become more demanding and
critical of the press. Rightly so, too. It is a worldwide phenomenon, where the
press is as lowly-rated as politicians.

Many see the press as part of the establishment, thereby
unwilling to challenge the elite for various reasons, including those affecting
their political and business agenda.

The mainstream media has come under fire for being
pro-establishment and at the same time, many readers find the alternative press
too self-righteous. Even as it criticises the mainstream media for lacking
objectivity, the fact is that most of the alternative press is
opposition-biased.

There are certainly more newspapers, television and radio
stations over the past decade but Malaysians have a right to question whether
the increasing numbers have made any difference in the content. For that
matter, they rightly questioned whether there has been anything refreshing.

The electronic media in Malaysia
may be faster than the print media, providing visuals that have enormous
impact, but it has been unable to discuss complex issues, especially on
politics and economics, in an intelligent manner.

In all fairness, the current leadership has provided more
democratic space to the media. Over the past two years, the press has certainly
been more critical.

The Malaysian press may not be as angry as some people want
it to be, but certainly more issues are being addressed these days. And, by
extension, more critical comments have been published.

In cases where some personalities claimed they have been
blacked out, a careful check would show that their views have actually been
printed.

Opposition figures have been invited to speak at talk shows
organised by television stations, which previously would have been unheard of.

Issues of race, religion, corruption, waste of public funds
and civil service inefficiency have come up in the open, and are more prominent
than ever.

There has been a great deal of tolerance on the part of the
administration and many Malaysian journalists appreciate this openness and have
used this window carefully, avoiding the thunder-and-lightning approach that
would otherwise jeopardise the opportunity.

We cannot expect complete changes overnight, but the
revolution, so to speak, has begun. Maybe gradually, but the pace has been much
faster than expected.

The older Malaysian editors may be more cautious, still
reluctant to take bolder steps because of their baggage of history, but the
young set of journalists would view issues differently.

Brought up in the age of information technology, they have
no regard for sacred cows. Laws which are outdated would simply become
redundant eventually.

It is like a man who refuses to change his black-and-white
television set to a colour one. It would just become useless.

Laws which are regarded as restrictive to the Malaysian
media are the same. The tools of information are changing and it is better for
the authorities to realise this trend sooner.

After all, a newspaper or other media that is perceived to
lack credibility would just lose its readership or viewership eventually.
Journalists, too, have to maintain their credibility or they, too, will be
ignored. Young Malaysians are spoilt for choice. It is time we wake up.

Just days before, the former Manchester United big man was
in China, Asia's biggest market, to talk about developing the sport and
boosting Chelsea's appeal in the region.

The English Premier League's top teams – Chelsea, Manchester
United, Liverpool and Arsenal – have a huge following in
Asia and these clubs recognise the importance of
countries which are economically strong.

It is about making billions of dollars from television
rights, product endorsements, appearance fees, merchandising and sponsorship.
In the past, marketing football was merely restricted to sportswear but now,
even credit cards, watches and cars are carrying the names and logos of these
clubs.

Airlines and telephone operators also recognise the appeal
of these football stars in helping to drive their products. They are prepared
to pay these clubs to have their products endorsed.

Two years ago, Real Madrid flew into Japan
to play against FC Tokyo, and 54,000 fans attended the match because they
wanted to watch English player David Beckham. The tickets were sold out even
before Beckham signed on with the club.

Malaysia
missed the chance of seeing Real Madrid here because the club wanted RM11mil as
appearance fee. Well, Real Madrid did pay RM157mil to sign Beckham then, even
if many of us now ask if he was worth it.

But it is the English football teams that command the
biggest following. Manchester United, for example, has a fan base of 50 million
people in Asia. Even in the United
States, where football is regarded as a
sissy's game by some rednecks, the base is growing.

Manchester United is a serious business concern that is
listed in the London Stock Exchange and is regarded as the most profitable
football team in the world. While it must keep its fans happy, more importantly
it must keep the shareholders happier.

Arsenal, another rich club, takes the Asian base so
seriously that its official website has the Chinese and Thai versions. The club
also hired Chinese-speaking staff to run its business section with China,
Hong Kong and Taiwan.

In Malaysia,
the people making the biggest buck are the illegal bookies, unfortunately. Last
week, it was reported that a 27-year-old bookie in Penang
had a worldwide clientele. He received bets up to RM10mil for weekend matches
and all transactions were carried out via e-mail and online booking. He was
waiting for the biggest killing – the World Cup finals in Germany
in June – but unluckily for him, the police nabbed him.

Two years ago, the Singapore Straits Times reported that
RM100mil in bets were placed with illegal bookmakers every weekend although it
was the first Asian country to legalise football betting on its domestic league
in 1999 and, in 2002, it started accepting bets on English premier. In Hong
Kong, the government has also legalised football betting.

Gaming is regarded as a sensitive issue in Malaysia
with most of the existing gaming licences issued decades ago. No politician
would want to be seen to take the first step to propose that sports betting be
legalised, even after considering the financial possibilities.

If couples holding hands is regarded as a delicate matter,
what more gaming? But the fact is that many Malaysians are big gamblers,
especially the Chinese community.

We have lost huge sums of money to illegal bookies,
especially when it comes to sports. Unless the Government is prepared to impose
a regulated form of betting on sports, the Government would end up losing such
possible revenue. Legalised betting for sports events would also cut down on
corruption as rogue enforcement officers are said to be profiting from illegal
bookies.

If existing gaming outlets could be used to accept these
bets, particularly on foreign soccer matches, then gaming could be controlled.
The Finance Ministry can even restrict the betting only to states with huge
Chinese population such as Penang, Selangor, Kuala
Lumpur, Johor Baru, Ipoh,
Negri Sembilan, Sabah and Sarawak.

That would surely take away the political and religious
factors from such a move. Revenue from gaming operators could be channelled to
promote sports, including motor racing.

We can debate at length about the merits and demerits of
such a move but the reality is that gaming would continue to be a way of life
for many non-Muslims and that bookies would make huge sums of money while the
Government would not get a single sen.

Except maybe some dirty cops, who want to turn the other
way.

When Arsenal clashes with Barcelona
in Paris on May 17, we can bet that
the illegal bookies would grow richer.

IS ANYONE at all surprised by the statement from PAS Member of Parliament Abdul Fatah Harun that women divorcees are gatal (randy)?

This is not the first time such a sexist remark has been made in the august chamber and we can safely say that it won't be the last.

Malaysians should have, by now, become accustomed to the foot-in-the-mouth disease afflicting some of our legislators. From name-calling and sexual innuendoes to intimidation, subtle threats and racist remarks, we can expect all this and more at every Parliament session.

On Wednesday, Abdul Fatah Harun, the MP from Rantau Panjang, found himself a major news item. Indeed, for the first time, this almost-unheard-of politician had his photograph on the front page of many newspapers.

He gained notoriety for his question on whether some women who divorced their husbands were more intent on getting separated. He claimed that these single mothers did not look like they were sad about their divorce.

Saying that this was based on his observation at gatherings and parties, he said the women seemed to be gatal.

Abdul Fatah added that it was quite obvious why the women ended up divorced or why their husbands left them. Most of them were divorced because they were gatal, while those widowed were better behaved, he concluded.

The Islamist party's Terengganu leader cannot claim he had been misquoted, which politicians usually do when they talk themselves into a corner.

When outraged MPs demanded that he retract his remarks, he tried to get himself out of a tight spot by saying that he was merely referring to a small group.

Abdul Fatah is not the only one who have made such remarks. Recently, Jerai MP Datuk Badruddin Amiruldin, who thrives on controversial statements, blamed women who wear "indecent clothes" for rape.

"Clothes can be indecent too. That's why rape happens. Clothes play a part when someone becomes a rape victim. Screaming and shouting are also indecent. These things are beyond our culture and religion," he said.

Badruddin escaped national criticism because his quotes were only reported in one newspaper and picked up by a couple of news websites.

The Barisan Nasional MP had chosen to ignore the fact that, in numerous rape cases, the victims had been decorously clad in tudung and that many of the cases had taken place in conservative areas, including Kelantan and Kedah. These are states not known for their nightlife or women in provocative attire.

Children in school uniform, and grandmothers too, have not been spared by rapists. Should Badruddin blame them too then?

Rape is often a planned crime, not an impulsive act. A high percentage of rapists were known to their victims. Many were friends and relatives, even fathers.

If indecent attire was the major cause of rape, then we could simply impose a ban on such clothing, as Kelantan and some West Asian countries had done. There would then be no more rape, if Badruddin's logic holds true.

In April last year, Chong Eng (DAP – Bukit Mertajam) and Fong Po Kuan (DAP – Ipoh Timur) found themselves targeted by some MPs. One MP implied that Fong's assertive character was a typical reason many Malaysian women were single.

The uproar started innocently enough with Kota Melaka MP Wong Nai Chee talking about the rising number of divorce cases in Malaysia. At that point, Badruddin sought clarification from Wong, asking "what type of man would last with someone like the MP from Batu Gajah."

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

When Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN – Kinabatangan) asked why single women found it hard to remarry, Mohamed reckoned that it was generally due to their not-so-favourable age. He then added: "Men, when it comes to younger women, they will definitely drool."

Our Yang Berhormat expect to be treated with honour and respect because they are supposed to be VIPs, and most of them have titles. But can we expect some decency from them in return?

Surely, as leaders, they must uphold some degree of decorum, integrity and credibility if they insist on respect from the people.

A few days ago, one leader told reporters to "go to hell" – with the permission of the State Assembly Speaker – because he was angry. He explained later that he needed to "defend" himself.

On another occasion, the same person made an obscene gesture at an Opposition party member. Again, he did it because he lost his cool and he had to defend his party's integrity.

Dengan izin penyokong-penyokong (With the supporters' permission), we presume.

Many of our male MPs are good people who are respectful and sensitive to women. After all, many of them are grandfathers, fathers, brothers and uncles.

We should reject MPs who habitually display their utter lack of understanding towards women, who form a large proportion of voters.

Such MPs should be made to attend classes on sexual violence and problems affecting single mothers, so that they can speak with some intelligence on issues concerning women.

Otherwise, we will have to continue to suffer their silly antics.

IT WAS never easy for reporters who had covered the late Tun Ghafar Baba as a Deputy Prime Minister. He was humble, approachable and kind, but for the press, he was never good copy.

In journalistic term, it means he was not an exciting person and neither would he make any sensational news.

There was seldom any chance of getting page one news items at his assignments. Certainly, one could not expect him to make a controversial statement.

He shunned the limelight, preferring to work quietly for the country and Umno, instead of plotting and scheming away.

But he was consistently a Malaysian leader. As an Umno leader, one legacy that he left behind was that he proved that one did not need to make a racist remark to be popular to climb up the political hierarchy.

He wasn't sophisticated and neither was he internationally urbane, but he made Malaysians, especially the rural folk, comfortable.

At a time when politicians are disliked and perceived to be easily bought, people continued to look up to him as a trusted politician.

He had a constant reminder to his family members, friends and journalists – Malaysians should not waste time fighting each other.

"I would like us sitting together and discussing on how we can make more money together for the country," he once told me, saying disputes were a waste of time.

He blamed politicians for twisting facts to get themselves elected but lamented that Malaysians did not spend time finding out the truth.

"They just listen to the speeches made by their leaders and get angry at what they hear," he said in his biography, written by former aide Datuk Dr Alias Mohamed.

He never liked any references to the Chinese and Indians as "immigrant races", particularly by young politicians.

"They live here and they will die here. I advise the Chinese and the other races not to get hurt when the Government appears to help the Malays more, because they lag very far behind. But I know that the Malays would not want the Government to help them forever. They too want to stand on their own two feet eventually," he said.

He was the last of the Mohicans, as one Umno veteran put it. The former cikgu from the kampung did not mind being talked about behind his back as a simple man.

He had always been forgiving, as his name meant. Those who were closed to him had seldom seen him losing his temper.

As a plain "Encik" for a long time, he did not care about honorifics, titles and perks.

He was fond of telling his listeners proudly that one Singapore newspaper reported that "the Chinese have Ali Baba, the Indians have Sai Baba and the Malays have Ghafar Baba". That anecdote, he made sure, was included in his book.

His family home at Lembah Pantai was a spacious house with a swimming pool but it was always empty when I visited. Once, I just drove into the porch because there was no guard.

A maid showed me into the house. His long-serving secretary, Rahman Yunus, had telephoned to say that Ghafar wanted to see me to keep him updated on the latest political developments.

He wasn't very healthy by then and had sought both Western and Chinese medical treatment.

I asked him whether he could climb the stairs but instead he showed me a room at the ground floor, where he said he slept mostly. It was almost spartan but the easy-going elder said he did not mind.

He had fought for the independence, was the youngest chief minister at one time and held a record of being unbeatable as a Member of Parliament. He had helped formed Malaysia, in short.

Ghafar was truly a nationalist and a leader of all Malaysians, who understood the importance of moderation and the politics of consensus, which continues today to be the hallmark of our Government.

We bade Ghafar farewell but he will remain in the hearts of Malaysians forever.
 

Seriously, Malaysians are conservative people. A peck on the
cheek and a hug maybe, but surely, we don't see the open display of passion as
in western societies. No French kissing for sure. Love should not become a
crime in Malaysia.

If that is not enough, we get all worked up over how
lawmakers and government officials should dress up. Culture, Arts and Heritage
Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim has come up with a hybrid design, with a
Nehru or Mandarin-like collar jacket and recommended batik shirt.

Rais has repeatedly said it's optional, so we should just
let it be. Many of us think the design unattractive and for most, we'd rather
stick to the suit and tie. But amid all the grumbling, not many seem ready to
tell him politely. Even the Cabinet Ministers, who supposedly backed his idea,
are not wearing designs recommended by Rais.

Many of us have also forgotten that the late Datin Paduka
Seri Endon Mahmood wanted the men and women to wear the batik and kebaya
respectively at official functions. How fast we forget.

Our MPs have not only taken up precious debate time on these
trivial issues, Malaysians must be wondering why our legislators are so
particular about how we speak the national language.

We all know ordinary Malaysians don't speak like dramatists
and if a mixture of Malay and English is used in television dramas, it merely
reflects accurately how ordinary Malaysians communicate.

But what's missing from the current parliamentary debates
are concerns over how Malaysia
intends to face the onslaught of competition from our neighbours and the impact
of globalisation.

These issues don't seem important enough to our MPs. We
continue to live in our comfort zone, often unrealistically holding on to our
Malaysia Boleh spirit, without realising that we have lost our competitive edge
to Thailand
and, now, Indonesia.

We looked down on Indonesia
as an exporter of maids and labourers without realising that in the first six
months of last year, Indonesia
alone reportedly took 69% of all foreign direct investment into South-East
Asia. Even Vietnam
has come up strongly behind us.

We are quite awoken to the fact that China
and India have
become economic giants but how many have us have seriously prepared ourselves
to do business with them, starting with learning Mandarin and Hindi?

Many Malaysians still remain monolingual or, at best,
bilingual. In fact, how many of us can speak the languages of our friends and
colleagues although we are fellow Malaysians. It's a shame, really. Worse, some
of us fly the nationalistic flag instead of dealing with our inadequacies.

Our leadership must be brave enough to convince the
nationalists and the chauvinists that languages should be regarded as tools to
improve ourselves. It must go beyond politics and culture. It is about human
capital development, as the Prime Minister would say.

For one, we must not only be able to speak and write
English, but be competent in it. We have compromised on our standards on
English for the last 30 years and, as a result, our teachers and graduates
today are poor in the language. Despite getting an A in English during public
examinations, their strength in the language is not evident at all.

Malaysia
is at a critical juncture. This is a window period for us to take stock and be
fitted into the whole picture. When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi unveiled
the Ninth Malaysia Plan, he warned that the world has changed as "we are
operating in a more competitive environment where the fight for foreign
investment is more intense".

The Prime Minister said that "besides facing more intense
competition from China
and India, even
our neighbours in the region are gearing up their economies".

In short, the real competition is outside the country. Many
of us still like to think that the competition is among the three major races,
with non-stop debate over how the economic cake should be shared. Such talk is
at its worst at political gatherings.

But if we continue to squabble endlessly over quotas and
equity, we may just find the Malaysian cake taken away by foreign competitors, who
only believe in their own rules. Sometimes, even no rules.

Granted that there has to be certain political
considerations and that overnight changes cannot take place, there is a serious
need for the leadership to change the environment and mindset.

Many of us are so used to subsidies that any reduction of
subsidies would spark off loud protests. But tough measures are needed in the
long term if we wish to compete effectively. Both Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and
Abdullah have spoken passionately on it but nothing has changed.

The old ways of doing things, especially among the
foot-dragging civil servants, should be over. Malaysia
has a reputation among investors for having too much red tape. If it takes a
few months to get the necessary approvals to start a factory, supermarket or
hotel in neighbouring countries, it can take up to a year or even two in Malaysia.

We can console ourselves by saying that is merely a
perception and blame it on the foreign media. But we should not deceive
ourselves too long. Too much bureaucracy simply leads to delay, escalating
costs and even corruption. It is a sin to turn away foreign investments which
can create thousands of jobs because of red tape.

Foreign investors have plenty of choices. If they feel Malaysia
has too much red tape and too many rules, including those relating to equity,
they would simply go to other places.

In a global economy, we have to be sharp, lean and
effective. The objective should be our concern, not the means or process. If we
want to be lean, then meritocracy should not be a dirty word. We should not be
apologetic about it or to bend rules around it because we do not mean it.

Our Malaysian team won the lawn bowling event in the recent
Commonwealth Games in Melbourne
because they were good. They trained hard and deservingly got the gold medal.

There were no special privileges for them just because Malaysia
is a novice to this white man's game. Like everyone else in an international
competition, they have to slog it out with the same rules.

As Abdullah put it aptly, the 9th Malaysia Plan is a
national mission. That should be our objective. It doesn't matter what
languages we use to achieve that target if we sincerely want Malaysia
to be competitive.

Every time a bed was emptied, it was either the patient had
been discharged because he had recovered or that the person had lost the fight.
Usually, it was depressing.

But what struck me most during the time I spent with him in
the final moments of his life was that people were essentially the same.

They may come from different backgrounds, religions and
races but they hoped the best for each other.

There was no time or reason to squabble over communal rights
or petty politics which often divide Malaysians unnecessarily. Certainly, they
had no time for politicians who tell us to unite as Malaysians and then spew
racist rhetoric at their yearly party conferences.

At the hospital, the doctors and nurses treated everyone the
same. No one got special treatment because of his race. The doctors and nurses
were efficient, kind and patient.

We always have our priorities wrong, especially when we are
healthy, young and energetic.

We often have the mistaken belief that our achievements are
the result of our own abilities and hard work. There is always the smack of
arrogance.

But fate and faith have a way of coming together. Through my
late father-in-law, I got to know some of the patients. Not all of them
personally, but their stories.

Many of them suddenly found time for God. My father-in-law
was no different. Having lived a tough life, he was a cynic. He used to pass
sarcastic remarks against God when he was healthy. And certainly as a
non-believer, his heart was sometimes hard.

But as the cancerous cells ate away his body, he began to
realise that every day was a miracle in his life. Each sunrise was a bonus.

No longer did he ask to see miracles before he accepted God.
He came to terms that he had been blind to the daily miracles taking place
around him.

He also began to see and realise who the sincere family
members, relatives and friends in his life were.

It was his wife, whom he had often taken for granted in his
early years, who now cared for him. She accepted patiently the tantrums of her
dying husband.

Not many people, including relatives, turned up at the
hospital bed. After all, there was no inheritance.

One family member came to my home and chose to watch the
Astro movies, even as he knew that it would probably be the last time they
could be together.

But my father-in-law found God. It had taken him a long
time. Much too long, I would say, but he did.

He began to understand the importance of learning to be
close with God. Everything else was now secondary.

As he found God, he also found many sisters and brothers of
the same faith, sometimes total strangers, visiting and praying for him.

Certainly when he passed away at the age of 59, he was much
calmer. We could see that in his face.

But it doesn't have to be that way for us. All religion
basically preaches good values for mankind.

In our own quiet ways, without having to claim credit and to
show others, we pray for the goodness of everyone.

But even the faithful, including this writer, stumble in our
daily lives. We do things that we should not be proud of, sometimes hurting our
family, friends and colleagues without realising it.

Worse, many of us like to think we have been faithful based
on how often we pray.

This would include people who seem pious through the way
they conduct themselves, but readily steal public money.

The trouble with most of us is that we fear men rather than
God. We choose the people we want to know, refusing to believe that all people
are significant.

It is only in our final hours that we realise the presence
of God and that He has been watching us.

The past one week has seen Malaysians of various faiths
celebrating their various religious festivals. We have certainly been blessed.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, I wish all of you a
Happy Easter.

IT WAS the best solution. Enough time and energy have been wasted by Malaysia and Singapore officials on the proposed RM1bil controversial bridge to replace the 82-year-old Causeway.

We have been talking about it since 1996, when the idea was mooted by then Prime Minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

A decade is a long time and after the endless rounds of negotiations it does make sense to call it off if both sides are heading nowhere.

Let's be honest about it.

The idea to build the bridge sounded like a good idea, at first.

It was supposed to have helped to ease traffic congestion in Johor Baru, as well as improve water quality and reduce pollution in the Tebrau Straits.

A modern bridge that would allow ships to pass underneath, it seemed attractive and many Malaysians liked the idea, hoping it would bring more economic benefits to the state.

But too many demands have come into the picture, clouding the issue at hand.

Singapore has long wanted a decision on the bridge to be part of a package deal on unresolved bilateral issues.

In 2002, when the water issue was separated, Singapore called off talks on the bridge plan.

The following year, Malaysia announced that it would build its half of the bridge unilaterally.

Despite the posturing of some Malaysian politicians, it is unlikely that Malaysia could simply start to build a bridge through unilateral actions.

It would have invited serious legal implications.

We can expect Singapore to take the case to the International Court of Justice, and despite Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar's optimism, not many legal experts share his views.

Threatening to go ahead with the construction could well be a negotiating tactic on our part to pressure Singapore but the facts were staring at our faces.

We are not sure whether our gung-ho politicians knew what they were talking about when they flexed their muscles, but Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is just being practical.

Bilateral negotiations to build the bridge, yes, but to proceed with unilateral action does not seem possible.

Building a bridge or demolishing the Causeway is a bilateral decision, it is that clear.

Whether the Malaysian part was called a "scenic" or "crooked" bridge, it would be built on half of the 900m Causeway.

Although it involves a mere 450m, the bridge had to be curved and extended more than thrice the distance, to 1.4km, so that heavy vehicles could cope with the maximum incline of 4.2 degrees.

Suddenly it wasn't so attractive anymore from a political, scenic or engineering perspective.

Presumably, the negotiations had proceeded because Singapore was prepared to talk "if there was a balance of benefits for both sides."

In the end, the benefits seemed to tilt heavily to the island republic. The conditions were just impossible to be met.

No Malaysian can accept the sale of sand to Singapore for a reclamation project for 20 years or to allow its jetfighters to use our air space as a trade off for it to agree to the proposal.

It is like asking Malaysia to give up its sovereignty.

There are sections of Malaysians who are angry at the decision to cancel the proposal, with some implying weaknesses on the leadership. But even if the Malaysian part of the bridge was built we would have the other half of the Causeway problem to deal with.

No one would be surprised if more demands were imposed by Singapore later.

What is the point of spending billions in taxpayers' money only to end up with more problems?

Let's not forget that there is still the RM2bil Second Link, which was opened with much fanfare in 1998.

Then Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said "the construction itself is testimony to the achievements that we can attain by putting our hearts and minds together."

In the case of the bridge, there were obviously no hearts and no minds together.

It is unfortunate that Singapore has still not learned to be a good neighbour, continuing to be preoccupied with its uncompromising attitude on only gains. Sometimes you have to lose a bit to gain.

In the case of dealing with neighbours, one must sometimes be prepared to sacrifice more in the interest of the long run.

If Dr Mahathir had adopted an unfriendly attitude towards Singapore, Abdullah took a different approach.

He was determined to mend ties, but Singapore has not seized the opportunity.

The bridge issue should also serve as a lesson to our politicians. They should think before they speak.

Clashing statements, indecisiveness, back-pedalling and constant change of policies does not help our image as a serious, efficient country.

The public should not be left confused or even caught unprepared on major issues affecting the nation.

Building a bridge between two countries is not as straight-forward as it looks.

Singapore can talk about the environmental impact of the proposed bridge but extracting a huge amount of sand can also be environmentally disastrous to Johor.
 

Last week, the Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Mohd
Bakri Omar stunned the nation by using this description to stress the point
that his men and women have to change their mindset to lift the game to meet
the changes of the times.

He said the problems faced by the police would not have
arisen if the officers had carried out their duties. He revealed that there
were allegations that some policemen were operating petrol stations and shops
selling batik.

The next day, his deputy Datuk Seri Musa Hassan said
investigations had been launched into allegations that some policemen even
owned factories and leisure businesses.

Federal CID director Comm Datuk Fauzi Shaari went further by
saying those found to be involved in businesses and neglecting their police
work could be demoted and even sacked from the force.

But while police-bashing may be fashionable these days, given
our general unhappiness with the manner in which they deal with the public, let
us think again.

It is of course clear that policemen of whatever rank, more
so the senior officers, are not directly involved in owning or running any
business. The question is whether it is wrong for family members to be involved
in businesses, particularly their wives, siblings or children.

Why should their family members be denied the right to run
their own businesses if they have the experience and capabilities? After all,
they earn a decent living and help supplement the family income.

Many family members of Cabinet members are also involved in
businesses and even when their positions and connections appear to give the
impression that they had certain advantages, no one made an issue of it.

But more importantly, the fact is that our cops are among
the worst-paid in the region. The constable recruit is likely to be an SPM
school-leaver who gets a monthly pay of RM690 with a maximum salary of RM1,512.

These are the men, and they include many traffic cops, whom
many Malaysians have bad experiences with, simply because they are in the
frontline of interaction with the public.

When you consider how much they are paid, you will agree
that it is almost impossible to live decently in Kuala
Lumpur, Penang or Johor Baru
with that kind of salary. Worse, if he or she has a family.

Crime reporters, with their strong knowledge of the workings
of the police, have long talked about constables who turned part-time taxi
drivers and pasar malam traders.

One colleague spoke of a mata-mata, in singlet but still
wearing his police belt and rolled-up blue pants, washing his vehicle at a car
wash, located near a police station. Either he owned the car wash or he was
helping a friend to run the place.

In comparison, his London
counterpart earns at least £1,897 (RM12,132) monthly while in Hong
Kong, he would get HK$14,670 (RM6,943). In Singapore,
a corporal gets S$1,612 (RM3,682) while in Malaysia,
the same rank gets a minimum RM824.

A police commissioner, which is a very senior post, starts
at RM6,571 and ends with RM8,229. But he would probably only get about RM3,000
in pension money by the time he retires.

The IGP earns a minimum of RM8,822 and ends at RM12,706
while his deputy gets RM7,224 and before his career ends, he gets RM9,039. The
senior officers are of course much luckier than the rank-and-file, as there
would be other better benefits and allowances.

We are aware that the Government has taken steps to improve
the welfare of the police and has approved a RM2.5bil allocation for better
housing and working environment for policemen.

Without doubt, recommendations are easy to make while
implementation requires detailed study and planning. But our men and women, who
put their lives at risk while at work daily, deserve priority.

Last September, Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said
that to create a more comfortable living environment, police quarters might
soon have a swimming pool.

But the concerns of our policemen are homes for them and
their family. Just build them quickly is all they ask.

The Government may not agree to a separate salary structure
for our policemen as it would lead to complications. Other essential services
like the soldiers, the firemen, the teachers and the medical staff would demand
the same.

While the Government could give better allowances, let's not
forget that when these people retire, their benefits would be based upon their
salary, not their allowances.

Some would argue that a better salary would not necessarily
curb corruption. True, because it is human nature to want more.

But a well-paid policeman would be more reluctant to risk
his job for some extra cash. It would also be against his dignity, integrity
and credibility.

It is easy for politicians and the public to demand high
standards from our policemen but when these men in blue have to drive taxis or
wash cars to feed their family, reality sets in.

It may be a warped argument but officers with businesses on
the side, even if their wives are nominees, can at least take their minds off
the temptation of dirty money.

If we wish to create a thinking police officer, then we need
to set a higher entry standard for our policemen. That means getting the good
graduates to join the force but with a salary structure that must be
attractive.

Policemen are voters and members of the public, too. Why
shouldn't they be cynical when they are told to be patriotic for their country,
race and religion by politicians? We all know some politicians live beyond
their means, too.