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.

CORRUPTION, abuse of power, ineffective and poor service – these were the descriptions of the police force. They did not come from the Opposition but from the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar himself.

For most Malaysians, what the top police chief said is not even news anymore. Many motorists, at one time or another, have had to deal with corrupt constables who stopped them for flimsy traffic offences.

We have also coped with officers who display reluctance at taking down reports on crimes. We have shown our patience with nonchalant officers who tell crime victims that the force has zero chance of recovering their stolen items because "such crimes are a daily occurrence."

Malaysians cannot be blamed if they put on a cynical smile when they see the anti-corruption stickers on the patrol cars and badges of similar nature on police uniforms. All of us know that bribery is still rampant.

Just days ago, a 60-year-old woman alleged that she was stripped at a police station.

The impression of the public, with the ear-squat episode still fresh in their minds, is that the police had not learnt their lesson. Maybe it is unfair to have such an impression when these are mere allegations, but public perception is important.

Mohd Bakri, who was speaking at a seminar for 196 officers-in-charge of stations in Kuala Lumpur on Monday, did not hold back his punches. He said the problems faced by the force would not have arisen if the officers had carried out their duties.

"Then, the situation will be different and the public will not make a fuss or take any action against us," he said, adding that "integrity cannot be taught, it can only be nurtured; and you as station chiefs must carry out your task as supervisors to ensure your subordinates are honest and sincere, as you are the closest officer to them."

The bottom line is that the force must be prepared to change. Although Mohd Bakri has spoken to fewer than 200 officers, the message must go down to the force's entire 85,000 personnel. The days of using muscle and brawn are gone, and as Mohd Bakri put it bluntly – the officers must use their brains, so they would be more rational.

Malaysians expect a certain level of performance from government agencies and bodies, and the police force should not be an exception. The job of a policeman requires him or her to interact with the people; it's a frontline job with plenty of scrutiny.

We expect the force to lift their game and be in tune with the rapid changes in the country. Malaysians are more educated, better exposed and better travelled. More importantly, we know our rights.

We know that there are good police officers in the force; we know that they deserve better salaries and perks, and we know that they have kept our streets relatively safe.

But in the scheme of things, we must never allow our standards to fall; not comparing ourselves with Manila, Jakarta or Bangkok, but seeing where we stand against the police forces of Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Canada and Britain.

Malaysians have become more assertive over the years. Such New Activism, which is a common development in any economy with a fast expanding middle-class, will continue to have an impact in the coming years.

The new tools of communication, the Internet and the SMS, would be used widely by Malaysians to pass judgment on issues involving the police, even if the issues were ignored by some sections of the media. No one can run away from this reality anymore.

Mohd Bakri hit the nail on the head when he told his audience to "read the newspapers … you can see students with lots of As in their SPM and STPM. They will become part of the community that you will have to serve."

For the good of the police force, our men and women in uniform must be respected. We want to respect them and we want them to be respected because they have dedicated their lives to protect us.

We must remember that we can sleep soundly every night because of their effectiveness.

We realise that there are politicians and activists, with their own agendas, who look for every excuse to tarnish the police's credibility, but our leaders and police must sit up and listen when ordinary citizens talk about their unhappiness openly. These are voices that are similar to what Mohd Bakri has said.

The question is what happens next after the speeches have been delivered. Would the errant police officers continue in their ways in the absence of an acceptable mechanism and an anti-corruption agency that is not truly independent?

A clean and upright police force is a long-term process but for the change to begin, the police must be prepared to accept feedback – of the good, bad and ugly sort. They should not take criticism as personal attacks but in a constructive way.

For the time being, the police force must realise that until they earn their stripes, so to speak, from the people, they would be regarded as officers with no honour. They should be the Polis DiRaja Malaysia, not Polis Raja Di Malaysia.
 

But it looks like all these have been forgotten, if not
ignored by some of our lawmakers.

The MPs were supposed to create a positive impression of
themselves "so that every visitor to the Dewan Rakyat must be satisfied with
the standard of debate in the House", in Pak Lah's words.

While the majority of MPs have carried themselves with
decorum and dignity, there are still certain legislators whose performances, if
not antics, have continued to tarnish the image of the House.

Granted that proceedings of the House can sometimes be
monotonous, some MPs believe that they need to liven up the House and, in the
process, get their names published in the newspapers.

From name-calling to provocative statements, to remarks with
racial overtones, these MPs seem to have the assumption that their performance
is being judged in this manner.

But Malaysians expect their Yang Berhormats, whether on the
government or the opposition, to debate in a consultative and moderate tone.

They watch the debates in Westminster
and ask why our lawmakers cannot measure up to the debating skills of their
British counterparts. The intellectual content and eloquence are sadly lacking.

With over 200 MPs, we cannot expect every single one to
behave like ladies and gentlemen but they must understand that as lawmakers,
they hold certain responsibilities.

It is one thing to be loud and passionate to get one's
message across, but it is a different story when MPs have to shout and call
each other names. Calling each other animals at the Dewan Rakyat has almost
become a norm.

Of late, there is an even more disturbing trend. Given the
sensitive nature of religious issues, we expect our MPs to use their heads when
discussing issues affecting all Malaysians.

Instead, we see MPs who only see an issue from their own
religious and ethnic perspective. While the choice of words and body language
of the opposition MPs have upset the backbenchers, the intimidating manner of
some backbenchers to shut down their opponents is equally sad.

I am still trying to understand the manner in which Minister
in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Nazri Aziz engaged DAP MP Teresa Kok
recently on the tudung uniformity issue in the police.

Granted that he has strong views on the issue, he must
realise that as a Cabinet minister, his stance would be reflective of the
Government. As a senior Cabinet member, we expect him to exercise restraint,
even when the political temperature goes up, as it would be a test of his
maturity in crisis management.

Unlike PAS and DAP, which essentially represent only one
particular ethnic group, the Barisan Nasional is a coalition of 14 component
parties which represent all races.

Nazri must remember that he also represents other races,
which also include many Barisan supporters. Surely their views are as
important, and as a minister, he must downplay certain sensitive issues. More
importantly, the line between PAS and Umno must remain clear.

I must, however, commend Agriculture and Agro-based Minister
Tan Sri Muyhiddin Yassin for his calm and cool manner in handling the issue of
the closure of pig farms in Malacca. It is a delicate issue, and as he said, it
is also regarded as a sensitive issue.

But that doesn't mean it must be swept under the carpet. He
handled it well without hurting the feelings of any particular community and he
showed that he was committed to finding a solution.

Last week, he told the House that "any decision to close
down or move pig farms should be put on hold until a formula acceptable to
everyone is found," adding that the issues involved state governments such as
the availability of land and the impact of the farms on the surrounding
environment.

The fact is that as long as Malaysia
remains a plural society, there will be issues affecting the community which
will be public. Any action taken would, in some ways, affect all of us. The key
to resolving such issues deemed as sensitive would be to handle them in a moderate
way, and that has been the winning formula for Malaysia.

Our politicians should take the cue from Pak Lah. He has
never uttered any remark that can cause ill feelings among Malaysians. He has
his flaws but no one can deny that he is a moderate and fair person.

As we celebrate the 50th National Day next year, our
politicians should also learn a thing or two from Tunku Abdul Rahman. He was
loved by all races and not just one race. It will be sad if our MPs merely want
to remain as jaguh kampung (kampung heroes) who are perceived by Malaysians as
merely good at picking up fights, throwing tantrums and making racist remarks.

Let us see MPs who can engage in high-quality debates with
elegance and witty repartee, not clownish and intimidating antics. Well-researched
speeches with the right dose of punchlines are what we look forward to, not
petty side-shows.