The point here is that the authorities seem to be ill
prepared each time we face a water shortage. It's almost an annual event;
surely by now we would have learned from the past.

Lack of information from the authorities only builds up anger, especially among
consumers who want to find out the duration of water cuts and how supply would
be restored.

Not being able to cook and wash is acceptable to most of us but it is a
different thing when there is not a drop of water to clean ourselves or to
flush the toilets. For those living in high-rise flats, where the water
pressure is low, their predicament is unimaginable.

And for residents in Semenyih, who live not far from the dam, it's a case of so
near yet so far. They must have found the water cuts unacceptable.

With low water pressure, the supply to most homes was murky, which did not help
to pacify the unhappy city folk.

But Malaysia is a lucky country. Barely a week of inconvenience, and we are
told that water rationing will be put off for the time being as a result of
heavy rain since Tuesday.

With water in the dams returning to normal levels, it's time we stop depending
on divine intervention to solve our problem. The Meteorological Services
Department should continue with cloud seeding to induce rain (last week, over
21 flights were conducted). To be effective, cloud seeding is usually done when
there are clouds over dams to induce rainfall at catchment areas.

Other pro-active measures had been taken, including reopening 41 wells that
were dug in remote areas in Selangor during the water crisis in 1998. A
filtration plant that was closed in 1998 would be re-commissioned.

All these measures were announced following public outcry last week. It's
better late than never but surely these steps should have been taken
earlier.

But it's no good merely to blame the authorities. For too long, we have taken
water supply for granted. In many European countries, their water is ''hard''
and impossible to drink from the tap.

Even boiling the water is not sufficient and many prefer drinking beer and
bottled drink for health purposes. In Malaysia, especially in Penang, the
quality of water is still good.

All this is only possible if our rivers are clean because they form the main
source of our water supply. So every step must be taken to ensure our rivers
remain clean.

Surveys have shown that only 27% of the 160 rivers in Malaysia are considered
clean. Not many Malaysians will find this shocking because for too long
factories, in particular, have treated the rivers as their dumping
ground.

All the laws drawn up and passed by Parliament will be meaningless if we do not
punish those who treat our rivers with disdain.

Water is an essential commodity. A year-long campaign to educate the public on
saving water should be started.

At the same time, we expect the authorities to tell us what steps have been
taken before the dry season comes again.

If our politicians want to keep boasting about how advanced we have become,
then it's time they stop giving us the same old story whenever the dry season
sets in.

In the case of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad and his deputy, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, they make it a point
to speak to reporters after a function. If time is pressing, reporters are
allowed to throw questions at them as they are leaving.

This same newsman-politician interaction, we can assume, is not enjoyed by our
counterparts in Singapore. In fact, American journalists cannot get near their
President. They are restricted, most of the time, to the White House press
briefing room where a government spokesman would provide them with
information.

Last week, Singapore's Minister of State for National Development Dr Vijian
Balakrishnan found himself embroiled in a controversy when Umno politicians and
the Malaysian press criticised him for purportedly calling Malaysian reporters
''wild animals.''

He had reportedly passed the remark at a luncheon hosted for a visiting Barisan
Nasional Youth delegation in Singapore.

The rookie politician has said the remark was made in jest. He claimed that he
was hurrying along because ''wild animals'' were waiting to pounce on Barisan
Youth chief Datuk Hishamuddin Tun Hussein.

In retaliation, Information Ministry parliamentary secretary Datuk Zainuddin
Maidin, the former Utusan Malaysia editor-in-chief, said the incident showed
that Singaporean journalists behaved like ''mice'' when they came close to
their government leaders.

Not to be outdone, New Straits Times columnist Shamsul Akmar wrote that
Malaysian reporters should feel proud because it proved they were not
''domesticated.''

Trying to defuse the situation, Dr Vijian said: ''I could say I'm sitting in a
lion's den now.''

Malaysian reporters and Barisan leaders who attended Dr Vijian's luncheon have
admitted that they did not find his remark offensive but others have joined in
the fray to, presumably, settle political scores.

But there is certainly a need for Singaporean leaders, especially the younger
ones, to understand how their counterparts function.

The visit by the Barisan Youth leaders, for example, is good for
networking.

Over the past two years, the Singapore Government has, in fact, invited
Malaysian journalists, civil servants and other officials to visit the
republic.

But there is one area that Singapore needs to look into – until today,
Malaysian media companies cannot open their offices there.

Except for national news agency Bernama, which has a correspondent in
Singapore, none of the Malaysian newspapers can have representatives
there.

It is a strange decision on the part of Singapore because other foreign
reporters are allowed to operate there. In the case of Malaysia, we have been
liberal by allowing Singapore newspapers to station ''consultants'' here.

In the past, it was worse. Each did not allow the other's newspapers to be
taken into Malaysia or Singapore. Restricting information in this manner is no
longer possible today with the Internet although Malaysian newspapers still
cannot be sold in Singapore and vice-versa.

The restriction came about, presumably, because both sides did not want
emotional stories, written by either side, to be widely read by the
people.

But that should not stop Singapore from discontinuing its policy of not allowing
Malaysian newspaper firms to set up offices there.

Allowing Malaysian journalists to work there would help Singaporean leaders
establish a closer rapport with our media and, in turn, our media could
understand their policies better.

Singapore should not expect contacts with Malaysian journalists to be made
through a lunch or a visit. Relationship takes years to establish.

Over the past week, Singapore newspapers have published stories on how we have
reacted to several issues, ranging from the tudung ban to the visit by
Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

It's time for leaders such as Lee to influence their government to make bold
decisions that are in tune with the times.

No doubt, they do not have the kind of relationship their predecessors had, but
they also do not carry the baggage of history with them.

And the water supply comes from Malaysia. If Malaysians
feel that Singapore ought to pay more, the media has every right to play it up.
The Malaysian press would be failing in its duties if such an important issue
were to be buried.

In the case of Saifuddin, he is making these accusations to the Malay audience
who may not read the two English newspapers.

Readers of The Star and NST would know that these dailies have devoted much
space to these issues, the latest being the controversy over reclamation works
by Singapore at Pulau Tekong.

Worse, Saifuddin has distorted the matter – two Singapore companies merely hold
a negligible combined shareholding of 3.07% in NST Press and 7.85% in Star
Publications (M) Bhd.

He claimed that Singapore had editorial control over the policies of these two
newspapers, which is nonsensical. There are no Singaporean reporters in these
two dailies, let alone Singaporean editors.

If he checks his facts, Saifuddin would have realised that the Foreign
Investment Committee allows investment in media firms if the stake is below
30%. There are also no Singapore representatives on the boards of these two
companies, as alleged.

But experienced journalists usually take statements from politicians with a
pinch of salt, even if these politicians consider themselves respectable
statesmen.

In the case of Goh, it is his opinion that the Malaysian media has
sensationalised the issue. Opinions are personal sentiments and need not
necessarily be correct.

As for Saifuddin, his facts are wrong – and dangerous if conveyed to listeners
at ceramahs. He should know that unlike Singapore and Thailand, Malaysian
newspapers do not employ foreigners.

In Singapore, Malaysians working in newspapers there have found that they are
usually not assigned to cover local politics. Most are restricted to layout
work or to cover Malaysian news.

In Thailand, Malaysians are employed in English language newspapers because of
their proficiency in the language. They are usually hired as copy-editors and
sub-editors to clean up news reports submitted by locals.

These Thai newspapers are quite liberal in recruiting foreigners, to the point
that Malaysians sometimes complain that even backpackers are hired and given
better treatment, simply because they are whites and presumably more fluent in
English than Malaysians. Again, that is a matter of opinion.

The tudung issue has been given much coverage in Malaysian newspapers because
many Muslims here wear tudung. They can relate to the issue, and many of them
have relatives in the republic.

Malaysian newspapers have, in fact, been cautious in dealing with the issue.
The Malay dailies, while defending the right to wear tudung had, after all,
been critical over the wearing of purdah and burka.

The reclamation issue has generated interest because of reports that the Pasir
Gudang Port in Johor Baru could lose its competitiveness once large vessels are
forced to fork out extra expenses for pilot services to sail through the
would-be narrowed Tebrau Straits resulting from the land reclamation.

Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman had said that once the works were
completed, the width of the straits would he halved, as indicated by the
graphics of the project that were made available to him.

He had said that with reclamation work, it would result in only a mere 700m
separating the Royal Malaysian Navy's training college, near Kota Tinggi, and
the edge of the reclaimed land.

The onus is now on the Singapore Government to argue its case and to convince
Malaysians. As far as the Malaysian press is concerned, the issue is
newsworthy.

It must be upsetting for these people, who have been
waiting patiently for PR status, to read about cases such as that of the
Bangladeshi woman.

The time has come for our immigration authorities to tighten the rules on PR
status application from Indonesians and Bangladeshis. While we need these
foreigners to perform manual labour, it must be impressed upon them that they
are guests in this country.

We must not lose sight of the fact that we want to attract the best brains to
Malaysia if we wish to compete with our neighbours. The best people,
irrespective of nationality, are needed in various fields.

For example, there are plenty of experts in information technology and medicine
from India. These talents should be offered the carrot to settle in
Malaysia.

So are doctors and nurses from Myanmar. If PR status is to be accorded to them,
it should be done so after a period of employment. But the same privilege
cannot be extended to coffee-shop helpers.

Singapore seems to have been able to attract many skilled foreigners, including
Malaysians, with its offer of PR status.

A permanent resident does not enjoy the same rights as a citizen, such as
voting and running for office, but it provides a positive psychological effect.
It's a form of security and offers a sense of legitimacy in a foreign
land.

The action taken by the Home Ministry to flush out illegal immigrants in Sabah
is commendable. There should be no let-up of such operations.

It is also interesting to note that the Human Resources Ministry announced last
week that 100,000 to 200,000 Vietnamese would be joining the Malaysian
workforce in the next few months as part of the government-to-government
agreement on foreign labour between the two countries.

Experts from both countries are now working on the framework for a memorandum
of understanding on the guidelines for employment of these workers.

Vietnamese workers who apply for overseas employment would undergo language
classes and training to understand Malaysian laws and regulations.

The participation of these Vietnamese, especially in the construction industry,
will be a good alternative. The first batch of Vietnamese workers can be looked
upon as an experiment and their performance will be watched closely.

In addition to the Vietnamese, the Malaysian authorities should consider
workers from Cambodia and Sri Lanka.

Malaysia has plenty of nearby countries to choose from for labour and should,
therefore, be selective.

Similarly, we should be selective in the granting of PR status.

We cannot afford to be seen as a country where foreigners can enter with ease
and secure PR status after working for a few years. The reputation of Malaysia
is at stake.

In 1999, a women's rights advocate contested on an
opposition front ticket in an urban parliamentary constituency. PAS supporters,
in their robes and serban, marched to the nomination centre with her.

But one night, in full view of the press, she was ordered to speak from the
kitchen at a small gathering in a house belonging to a PAS supporter as the men
took their places in the hall.

In fact, women journalists still complain of being segregated from their men
colleagues when they cover the annual PAS general assembly.

Muslim women reporters are also required to cover their heads with
scarves.

Despite being outspoken in her views on women issues, the woman candidate was
too timid to go against the order of the PAS members, whom she relied on during
the campaign. She lost in the election and was never heard about again.

PAS has again brought up the idea of admitting non-Muslims into its fold. In
the latest issue of Harakah, the party organ, several Chinese leaders were
interviewed on the possibility of admitting non-Muslims as members.

There is little point in admitting non-Muslims as associate members with no
rights, as they will merely be window dressing. The question is whether PAS is
prepared to have non-Muslims as full-fledged members with voting rights and a
chance to seek election.

Until PAS is ready to commit itself to such changes, it will merely be wishful
thinking on the part of non-Muslim opposition supporters to expect PAS to be
progressive.

Even the DAP, which tried to have a meaningful relationship with PAS, has given
up after several bad experiences. PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic
state and has said so many times.

Well-intended Malaysians, especially non-Muslims, have invited PAS speakers to
talk about a PAS-run Malaysia. Playing to the gallery, PAS speakers often tell
the non-Muslims that if the party is given a chance, there will be no
discriminatory practices between bumiputras and non-bumiputras.

To a church or temple gathering, PAS leaders will emphasise that all religion
forbid gambling and the taking of liquor. Buddhist and Christian leaders
should, thus, support the PAS ban on gambling and drinking.

But pressed a little harder, PAS leaders will admit that in an Islamic state,
there is a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.

It is also difficult convincing PAS members that drinking and gambling are
allowed, or at least tolerated, by the Chinese community. It is a matter of
choice and rights.

Just like dressing, non-Muslims have the right to wear shorts and mini-skirts
if they want to. Under a PAS-run country, no one is quite sure whether this can
continue.

In short, under a PAS-run Malaysia, there will be no non-Muslim ministers. That
is precisely why PAS cannot have non-Muslims as members.

PAS is talking about non-Muslims as members because there is talk that Barisan
Nasional may call for a general election next year. In fact, PAS is feverishly
preparing for the elections by holding more ceramahs.

If PAS wants non-Muslims to accept the party, it should go beyond cosmetic
changes. To call for a jihad against the United States and to urge its
supporters to fight along the Taliban in Afghanistan won't win them
votes.

Neither should the party blame the media for shooting itself in the foot.
Moderate Malaysians should not expect the Islamist party to change.

Clearly, Dr Mahathir had wanted to offer his advice to
both sides before leaving for his month-long working-trip-and-vacation
overseas, besides attending the World Economic Forum in New York.

Following the meetings, both sides now appear more restrained. On Tuesday, Dr
Ling announced that the names of a million members in 4,000 branches would be
displayed to ensure transparency, with a 21-day objection period for
complaints.

The inspection period, which was usually between five and six days, was to give
party members ample time to scrutinise the list at all branches.

The party election steering committee will then rectify any proven discrepancy,
including deleting names of phantom members, if there were any.

On Thursday, Ah Lek issued a statement welcoming the decision to display the
names but pointed out the high number of new members.

Dr Mahathir revealed that he had been asked to intercede in the dispute between
what is now known as Team A and Team B within the party.

There are a few options available for Dr Mahathir, should he decide to go ahead
with the mediation.

The first option would be to allow both sides to slug it out but to ensure that
there is a level playing field. There must be a clean membership rolls and both
sides must stop their mudslinging through the media.

That means the factions should not hide behind unnamed sources when talking to
the Chinese newspapers.

There could also be an end to the large dinner gatherings and road shows. If
gatherings are to be held, they must be closed-door affairs strictly for members
only.

The second option is to let the status quo remain for the posts of president
and deputy president. The contest can go on at vice-presidency level, where
party delegates will choose four representatives and the 25 elected central
committee members.

Not everyone will agree with this plan because some will dismiss it as merely
postponing the problem. The distrust will continue unless there is genuine
acceptance of the situation. The practicality of the proposal would come into
question.

But if that is the sentiment of the majority of MCA members and the Chinese
community, the leaders may have no choice but to consider this approach.

Some leaders have said that one faction was pushing for this option because
hopes of winning the party polls had dimmed. Although incumbents are always in
a stronger position, it remains to be seen whether such talk is part of the
psychological war waged by the factions.

Dr Ling has announced his readiness to set up an independent committee, and Ah
Lek has welcomed such a move.

If given the go-ahead, this committee will have to ensure that all steps are
taken by the headquarters election steering committee to uphold transparency in
the polls.

With over a million members in 4,000 branches, the election steering committee,
headed by party secretary-general Datuk Seri Dr Ting Chew Peh, will have to
handle every complaint. Vice-president Datuk Chan Kong Choy is also a member of
the committee.

The independent committee cannot possibly have authority over the 11-member election
steering committee or take over its role.

The composition of the independent committee must also be sensitively handled.
Dr Ling has said that it may comprise members or non-members but they must have
a fair understanding of the running of a political organisation.

There is no such thing as a squeaky-clean name list and room must be given when
examining the administration of a mass appeal political party.

The guessing game by the media will continue as both sides work out their
differences, or at least decide on the rules of the contest, in the run-up to
the party elections in June.

Enforcement officials in Kuala Lumpur's City Hall have
long complained about the aggressive attitude of Indonesian traders, who have
now dominated the Chow Kit area.

The general sentiment of Malaysians is that the country has enough foreign
workers, especially Indonesians. And many of us are questioning how these lowly
educated, unskilled workers could easily secure permanent residence
status.

It is heart-wrenching to read that Indonesian trouble-makers, including those
involved in religious extremism, have PR status when many foreign
professionals, especially those with Malaysians spouses, have difficulty in
extending their stay here.

The Cabinet has taken the right step of setting up coastal patrols to stop
illegal entries. It is long overdue and the job may even be difficult, given
our country's long coastline but effective measures are needed.

Taking immediate steps to deport them is good, but they must not be publicity
stunts to appease the public.

Long-term policies should be drawn up and implemented to stop the flow of
illegal Indonesian workers, who dominate in the construction, plantation and
service sectors.

Preventive measures by the security forces are necessary but there should also
be harsher punitive laws against employers. Laws are pointless if they are not
effective.

Everyone knows it is illegal to litter but the chances of being caught are
slim. The law says smoking is banned in air-conditioned eateries but smokers
flout the law openly because non-smokers and restaurant operators are too timid
to stop these irritants.

Employers who hire illegal workers must not be spared. Harsher laws will deter
employers from blatantly taking in those without proper documentation.
Indonesians readily attempt to enter the country because they know they can
find a job easily.

The weaknesses in the law must be plugged. Enforcement officers, including
policemen, who take bribes from illegal foreign workers should be punished and
the cases highlighted by the media.

It is not good enough to blame the foreigners because our lackadaisical
attitude has contributed to their increasing numbers.

The presence of these foreigners is no longer a labour or social issue. Besides
being a security problem, it has economic implications.

Malaysians are paying for the hospital services of Indonesian women who give
birth here and the education of their children who study in our schools and use
our facilities.

In the long term, there are political consequences. Some years back, a few
Indonesians were arrested taking part in reformasi demonstrations in Kuala
Lumpur. Now, they are found involved in religious militancy.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has given the right
advice to employers: hire Indonesians as a last resort.

He has said that we should look for workers elsewhere, including Vietnam and
Cambodia, because there has been too much trouble from the Indonesians.

There is no need to pay heed to statements from liberal groups who criticise
the Malaysian Government for deporting troublemakers.

The authorities will get the support of most Malaysians for their tough action
against Indonesians who enter the country illegally. The influx must be
stopped.

Well aware of the waning interest in Datuk Seri Anwar
Ibrahim, posters of the former deputy prime minister was conspicuously
downplayed in Kangar.

But it cannot be denied that Keadilan did put up a fight against Barisan.

As in any by-election, the focus is sharper. A smaller area also makes the
fight more intense.

In the case of Indera Kayangan, political gatherings were held several metres
away from each other. Often, speakers could hear each other's speech.

The allegations and counter-allegations were quick and fast, with both sides
calling for press conferences at midnight when the press deadline was well
over.

But the trend of campaigning in Indera Kayangan is certainly worrying. Both
sides have been exceptionally aggressive.

The mudslinging was often unsubstantiated and involved character assassination,
including an alleged incestuous relationship 26 years ago. It then took on
racial and religious undertones.

Malay voters were told by the opposition not to vote for Barisan's Oui Ah Lan
because she is a Chinese while PAS allegedly claimed that it was religiously
correct to support Khoo Yang Chong because he represented Keadilan.

The Chinese education movement joined in the fray by campaigning for Keadilan
during the last lap.

The SRK Damansara issue in Petaling Jaya was dragged to Perlis, even if it had
little relevance to the people in Indera Kayangan.

The idea was to anger the Chinese voters, which made up 46.4% of the 7,976
voters in the constituency.

In fact, both sides harped on national and even international issues, such as
the Sept 11 tragedy in New York in this campaign.

But Malaysians must not forget that our country has been stable and that the
democratic system should never be taken for granted and abused.

Democracy has no meaning if racial and religious issues are used for political
expediency.

In the aftermath of an intense campaign, we should reflect and take stock of
the situation for the good of the nation.

As Barisan leaders criticised Muhd Zahid, Keadilan
leaders have refused to be drawn into the controversy. Party president Datin
Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and vice-president Azmin Ali have also not
responded.

We can conclude that the two have endorsed Muhd Zahid's remarks with their
silence. PAS leaders, with their self-proclaimed high moral ground, are
tight-lipped too. Always quick to project themselves as righteous leaders, this
time they have refused to speak up against what is clearly wrong.

As opposition leaders, they understandably need to score political points
against Barisan and Shahidan in the heat of a by-election. But it is most
despicable when politicians exploit the tragedy of a family, particularly when
members are still mourning the death of a loved one.

Shahidan's youngest son fell to his death from a condominium in Kuala Lumpur
recently. Instead of extending their condolences to Shahidan, Keadilan has
chosen to capitalise on it. In the name of political expediency, the party
leaders appear to no longer be able to draw the line between right and
wrong.

Granted that Muhd Zahid is a featherweight in the party but its leaders have
the responsibility to apologise on the party's behalf. The least they can do is
to say that Muhd Zahid's remarks do not represent the views of the party.

This is not the first time that Keadilan has committed a wrong and refused to
acknowledge it. Not too long ago, the party implicated the Government in an
alleged plot to poison Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

There was no shortage of Malaysians who believed that incredulous allegation.
Anwar, of course, is still very much alive.

More recently, we read of Anwar's need to seek medical treatment overseas.
There were enough reports in some pro-opposition Internet news websites that if
he were not treated, he would be in grave danger. That, of course, is no longer
an issue because it was merely a stunt aimed at gaining political
mileage.

To PAS and Keadilan, it was all sandiwara when the Al-Maunah members staged
their arms heist and killed security officers. When Kumpulan Militan Malaysia
members were arrested, they did not believe it either.

PAS should not blame Malaysians if they perceive the Islamist party as
extremist because several KMM members are PAS grassroots leaders.

PAS, we can all remember, was quick to declare jihad (holy war) against the
United States for its war in Afghanistan and approved of its members joining
the Taliban forces.

The party was also supportive of the destruction of the Buddhist statues in
Afghanistan by the Taliban. And the party has not changed its stand on the
setting up of an Islamic state ala Taliban.

Last week, DAP deputy chairman Karpal Singh challenged Keadilan and Parti
Rakyat Malaysia to state their stand on the PAS Islamic state, saying both parties
had been unclear.

Karpal Singh should know. After all, the DAP spent three years with the three
parties in the opposition coalition, attempting to change them from
within.

As the Keadilan candidate in Indera Kayangan, Khoo Yang Chong must state his stand
as to whether he agrees with the setting up of an Islamic state and the
policies of his fellow PAS brethrens who marched with him to the nomination
centre.

He was, after all, a four-term  chairman
of the Perlis Buddhists Association.

His father, Por Swee Giap, 84, has the distinction of
being the state's first Chinese executive councillor. Even Dr Por was a state
secretary.

The Por family has a strong traditional link with MCA. But Keadilan is bent on
changing that. The prize is the Indera Kayangan state seat.

So far, Dr Por has enjoyed the wooing from Keadilan leaders who, it is
believed, include party deputy president Azmin Ali and Penang deputy chief
Cheah Kar Peng.

The doctor has been non-committal but the temptation may become greater.
Unfazed, the party is sending party president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan
Ismail to sweet-talk him into accepting.

It's certainly a tough decision for a small town doctor – more so given his
family's political history and the pressure from his friends and
relatives.

Being a well-respected figure, it's also hard to reject outright the carrot
that is being dangled – a shot at being elected a Yang Berhormat.

But that is not the only consideration. Dr Por must ask himself whether he
believes in the political agenda of Keadilan.

The party has claimed to fight for justice, democracy and accountability but
critics have said its sole objective is to free Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from
jail. Even one of its founding leaders, deputy president Dr Chandra Muzaffar,
has questioned the credibility and dedication of its leadership.

If Dr Por or other candidates do not believe in the party, it becomes a mockery
for them to contest under the Keadilan ticket.

For Dr Por, the situation is even more serious. If he gives in to persuasion,
it will be regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a political one-night stand.

Both Dr Por and Keadilan are strangers to each other. The test will be on Dr
Por and his principles. At stake is his credibility and integrity he has built
over the years.

It is normal for potential candidates to have a change of mind even after their
posters have been printed, or to find that they had been dropped.

Barisan Nasional's Oui Ah Lan, 58, found herself sidelined in the 1999 general
election after getting ready to join the fray. The Perlis Wanita MCA chairman
is now the Barisan candidate for Indera Kayangan.

Chinese candidates contesting the seat for Keadilan will also have to grapple
with the question of whether they believe in PAS' ambition to set up an Islamic
state ala Taliban.

As a Keadilan contender, do they support the pact with PAS that is rejected by
the majority among the Chinese community? Even the DAP is prepared to severe
its link with PAS because of the Islamic issue.

Keadilan is still vague on the issue but as a candidate, the person cannot run
away from being queried on his stand. More so because he will be supported by
PAS an

d will march to the nomination centre along with green PAS flags.

Still, the by-election will not be a walkover for Barisan. The opposition has
already used the age factor against Oui. At 58, the opposition has said she is
past her prime and should make way for younger leaders.

The argument has some merit. But with age also comes wisdom and experience.
Opposition figures like PAS president Datuk Fadzil Noor and DAP chairman Lim
Kit Siang are past 60.

Are these critics suggesting that Fadzil or Lim should also retire from
politics?

Oui, a former headmistress, has served as special assistant to Mentri Besar
Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim and she understands the ground sentiments
well.

She was undaunted after being dropped in 1999, and continued with her community
work unselfishly.

Umno and MCA campaigners must work doubly hard and not be lulled into complacency.
All the might with and well-oiled machinery of the coalition will come to
naught if the workers are not united.

The MCA leadership crisis will be exploited in the campaign. All MCA leaders,
whatever their differences, must be seen to campaign side by side.

In a by-election, voters tend to sympathise with the opposition. The argument
is that an extra opposition representative will not affect the political
equation in the state. Barisan will need ready answers for such tactics.

The voters of Indera Kayangan have a serious task, even as pundits predict an
easy Barisan victory. They have to choose between the politics of moderation
and the politics of extremism.

They have a message to send to moderate Malaysians: this country has no place
for extremists of any faith and ethnicity.