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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.