Party president Datuk Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik told newsmen
in Kedah on Friday that if the PM was to offer any advice, he would have spoken
about the importance of party unity.

Ong, together with Youth Assembly Speaker Lim Hong Sang and secretary-general
Yew Teong Look have been blamed for the fracas at the Aug 3 MCA Youth annual
general meeting.

Last week, vice-president Datuk Chua Jui Meng was seen attending a breaking
fast gathering hosted by Dr Mahathir after chairing an Umno supreme council
meeting. Speculation went on about Chua's presence until it dawned on the press
that all ministers were invited to the function.

Chua, who was replaced as Kedah MCA liaison committee chairman, is regarded as
a potential challenger to Dr Ling in next year's party polls.

Umno leaders, particularly Dr Mahathir and his deputy Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad
Badawi, have so far refrained from making any statements on the MCA leadership
crisis.

Dr Mahathir has said he believed that the MCA leaders would be able to resolve
their problems while Abdullah advised the Barisan Nasional's second component
party to end the crisis fast.

MCA leaders have continuously spoken about the need to allow the democratic
process to settle the matter – meaning, let the party elections decide the
outcome.

But it is clear that Barisan leaders are getting more edgy with the
developments in the MCA, particularly the daily mudslinging by the rival
factions.

The lack of discipline among the younger MCA members has become a topic of
discussion at breaking fast functions hosted by Umno leaders, with some
describing this breakdown in command as a dangerous trend.

The concern of Umno leaders, privately expressed, is understandable because all
Barisan component parties share a similar structure.

While the feuding factions in the MCA would be allowed some room to campaign in
the run-up to the party polls, they should not be surprised if Umno leaders
stepped in to offer advice in order to ensure that Barisan is not
affected.

The MCA squabble is essentially an internal matter. Although the stakes are
high, MCA leaders must understand that, as in all family quarrels, they must be
able to come together once their differences are resolved.

Although emotions run high, there must not be a ''winner take all'' attitude
because talent should be recognised by the party leaders. That is essentially
what democracy is all about.

As the backbone of Barisan, Umno would want to see the ability of MCA to
continue providing stability in the next general election.

In 1999, the MCA won in 28 parliamentary and 70 state constituencies, its
best-ever performance, and also delivered crucial votes to Umno
candidates.

Under the leadership of Dr Ling, the party has essentially been able to deliver
the votes. The approval to set up Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman can be
considered a reward for a job well done.

Although Barisan has 14 component members, Umno, MCA and MIC are the only
members that have ties to the Alliance under Tunku Abdul Rahman.

It is a long-tested relationship and the presidents of these three parties have
a special bond, which other component leaders can never have.

There are six months to go before the MCA polls. Both sides will need plenty of
stamina but they must never forget that as MCA leaders their performance will
be gauged by the grassroots members and community.

More importantly, they must not allow their problems to be exploited by others.
A few Gerakan leaders, including party president Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik,
have made unfriendly comments about the MCA.

Although the rivalry between the MCA and Gerakan is well known, such statements
are ill-advised and would be perceived as rubbing it in.

MCA leaders had correctly stayed out when a group of dissidents led by then MP
for Batu Datuk Joseph Chong opposed Dr Lim during their party polls some years
back.

As in any family, there will be moments of greatness and crisis, but the
members must always remain together.

Youth Assembly Speaker Lim Hong Sang, who is implicated
in planning the brawl, has said that he is seeking legal advice and that the
report went too far.

The committee also recommended the reinstatement of Youth secretary-general Yew
Teong Look and vice-chairman Loh Seng Kok who were sacked at the AGM.

It is now up to the MCA leaders to decide whether they want to follow the
recommendations of the committee, which has no legal powers.

The presidential council committee, which met on Friday, endorsed the report by
15 of the 21 council members. On Dec 20, the central committee will meet to
discuss the report and is expected to approve it as well.

As in all investigations, there will be various versions and interpretations of
events but the party elders have raised several pertinent points.

They highlighted the possibility of non-delegates attending the AGM, saying
there was lack of proper control as ''non-delegates were present at the
meeting.''

''The Speaker admitted that he did not know whether they were non-delegates in
the assembly hall and that he could not control the event.

''Whether they were taking part in the voting or not is a question mark,'' they
concluded in their 10-page report.

The remarks are serious as there had been suspicion that non-delegates were
present at the AGM, based on pictures and videos taken by the media and party
members.

One former state Youth chairman, well past the ceiling age of 45 imposed by the
Youth movement, was said to be seen by many observers, including the media,
inside the hall.

The presence of non-delegates itself is enough to declare the AGM null and void
although the committee did not say so.

But it might be more difficult to prove other points such as the allegations
that Ong and Lim planned the fracas. The two, quite understandably, are
unlikely to take it quietly.

It is even more difficult, perhaps unfair, to prove that Lim, a lawyer, had
expected trouble with the mere presence of four bodyguards at the hotel.

But it cannot be denied that Lim, who turned up for the hearing by the
committee, handled the meeting badly.

He may have his reasons to switch off the microphones, which stopped the
delegates from speaking, as the situation was chaotic. It could be a valid
decision based on the tense situation then.

As outsiders, we will never know the actual sentiments but based on
observations and reports, it is clear that when Yew and Loh were sacked, the
voting was put to a vote by hand.

Arguing from a procedural and constitutional point of view, the veterans have
proposed that the two be reinstated and the voting declared null and
void.

There will be no end to the merits and demerits of the findings. The report, in
whatever form, will be looked at from a political angle that suits the
interested party.

On that, the veterans must be commended for their readiness to take up the job.
As retirees who do not need any form of controversy, they certainly do not wish
to be subject to any criticism.

More important, they have no vested interest. As such, those who criticise the
report should confine their unhappiness toward the findings and not the
integrity of these elders.

In reading the report, the MCA members, press and public may only be interested
in the more sensational part of the findings but we must not lose sight of the
sound advice given by the elders.

The veterans have correctly pointed out that if there is no discipline in the
party, there will only be anarchy and disunity, which will eventually lead to
the downfall of the MCA or loss of its prestige and integrity within Barisan
Nasional.

Even party president Datuk Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik has not been spared – the
elders, in fact, called for ''decisiveness in the top leadership … cannot
afford to dilly-dally any more.''

The elders also pointed out that ''the majority view of party members must
prevail and take precedence over any personal agenda, no matter what level of
leadership the disgruntled party members or group of party members may be, be
it party president, deputy president, vice-president or central committee
member.''

In the coming months leading to the party elections expected in June, more
controversy will likely arise from the feuding factions.

There will be no end to the mudslinging and accusations but the contenders must
always bear in mind that there is little point heading a divided party.

Every effort, no matter how difficult, must be made to come to a compromise.
The least they can do is to agree on the rules of the game.

It may be a war but there must be some ground rules without affecting the
integrity of the party and personalities.

In a democracy, there can be disagreements over issues but the personal lives
of the candidates must never be questioned or subject to unnecessary
allegations.

The Nanyang Press Holdings issue has been accepted by the presidential council,
central committee and the delegates at the extraordinary general meeting but
has continued to be used against the leadership.

The merits and demerits of buying the two Chinese dailies is left to be debated
by the party members – if some are still dissatisfied – but they must remember
that these two dailies have become the property of the MCA. They should not
destroy what they have purchased.

It also cannot be denied that the critics of the purchase have continued to
enjoy wide coverage in the two Chinese dailies.

Similarly, any attempt to bring up the Damansara school issue is ill-advised.
The loudest complainants have been the DAP and groups linked to it.

In the name of the Chinese community, they have exploited the issue but those
who are affected the most – the parents, teachers and pupils – are happy with
their new building.

As the election fever heats up, no MCA party leaders – whether from Team A, B
or C – should attempt to become communal heroes.

As the veterans correctly pointed out, the MCA must not be led by a group or
segment of the party, be it in the educational, cultural or social
arenas.

The outcome of the MCA poll may be decided by only 2,000 or so delegates but
the party, widely accepted for its politics of accommodation and moderation, is
being closely watched by all Malaysians, regardless of their ethnicity.

Although many analysts were surprised by the outcome of
the results, pro-Umno students had been making major inroads in campuses – a
domain for opposition parties over the past three years. At the last campus
polls, pro-Umno students were in the majority in only two student bodies.

Although university rules forbid students from contesting under the same
banner, the contest in the public universities has long been a proxy fight
between Umno and PAS.

The campus election rules are strict. Candidates are forbidden from even
adopting similar poster design to prevent students from contesting under the
same faction.

At Universiti Utara Malaysia, where voting is compulsory, contenders are
required to put on a jacket and tie for their election posters.

But the campus fight has long been a feud between contenders wearing the
trademark PAS white skullcaps and goatees and the moderate Umno students in
long-sleeved shirts.

At universities controlled by PAS students, the authorities often had to deal
with attempts by students to bring PAS leaders to speak at forums.

In some cases, these pro-PAS leaders would block any form of entertainment in
campuses, including concerts by pop singers, claiming it was forbidden.

Several years ago, such extremist students staged a protest against a concert
by Sheila Majid at Universiti Malaya while in the 1980s, pro-PAS elements
attempted to stop a performance by the Alleycats at Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.

So sensitive were these pro-PAS students that I once found myself reprimanded
for wearing a pair of Bermuda shorts at the residential college while studying
at UKM.

The pro-PAS students have always been strong in UM and UKM because of the
active participation by students from the Islamic Faculty.

In UKM, some of the Islamic Faculty lecturers have been accused of taking
sides. PAS president Datuk Fadzil Noor and another leader, Datuk Dr Harun Din,
were once lecturers at the faculty.

At the IIU polls, the pro-government side was upset with student affairs dean
Sidek Baba, perceived as a supporter of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, because of
allegations that he had made changes to the rules that helped the
opposition.

These pro-opposition student groups became stronger when Anwar was sacked from
the Government, with even the Chinese students coming together with reformasi
and Islamist groups.

Previously, especially in UKM, the Chinese students had traditionally backed
the pro-Umno group, given the links between MCA Youth and Chinese students at
the varsity.

The pro-government students eventually lost their hold on Universiti Sains
Malaysia, long perceived as a more liberal institution.

But the recent showing by the pro-Umno students is a reflection of the
perception of the young towards the establishment.

Some academics even believe that the Sept 11 incident in the United States
played a major role as the Islamist groups appear to have lost their appeal.
They said students were now more appreciative of the political and economic
stability in the country.

If they had once been critical of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's leadership,
they now salute him for his consistency and far-sightedness.

But it cannot be denied that former reformasi student leaders, who now back
Barisan Nasional, have played a crucial role in guiding the candidates in
election strategy.

These former leaders had maintained their links and enabled Barisan leaders to
touch base with students, who got to listen first-hand what the Government was
doing for the nation.

Puteri Umno activists, some said, helped with their links with student groups
and had swung the women votes in favour of the pro-Umno contenders.

But the battle isn't over. Both sides will want to keep their hold on the
campuses because at stake are the country's best and brightest students who
will one day head the leadership of both parties.

The PBS, with its large Christian membership base,
understood the implications of working with PAS, which had never dropped its
Islamic state ambition. The DAP, failing to understand the sentiments of its
core supporters, went ahead with the partnership and paid a heavy price.

Of the 48 state seats in Sabah, at least 18 are predominantly Kadazan. While
not all Kadazans are Christians, many among the community's leaders are –
including party president Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan and his deputy, Dr
Maximus Ongkili, who is a lay preacher.

Many of the church groups in Sabah, especially in the Kadazan areas, have
played crucial roles in local politics.

One of Keadilan's biggest flaws is its inability to grasp grassroots
sentiments, especially among non-Muslims, despite trying hard to be a
multi-racial party.

This could be due to the poor interaction of its non-Muslim leaders with the
grassroots. Unlike the MCA and MIC, which have strong community links,
Keadilan's non-Muslim leaders do not have such communal networking.

Many of Keadilan's non-Muslim leaders are professionals and academics who may
represent middle class sentiments but have little contact with the working
class. The Chinese and Indian leaders are unknowns in their own
communities.

For example, when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was finance minister, he refused to
cut interest rates for loans, which hurt many businessmen and traders.

Although the currency control decision was criticised by opposition leaders,
for businessmen caught in the madness of the daily currency fluctuations, the
imposition allowed them to plan their budget better.

The ordinary Chinese and Indian voters, mostly in the private sector, were also
worried about losing their jobs in the 1999 recession.

Civil servants and university lecturers, who did not have to worry about losing
their government jobs, had no inkling about the sentiments of the Chinese and
Indian voters.

While enjoying their low-interest rate loans as civil servants, they did not
care about the frustrations of the non-Malays against the financial policies of
Anwar. It was with some relief for the public when Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad took over the job and made the necessary adjustments.

Keadilan leaders thought that their reformasi slogan was enough to generate
votes. They were wrong. As a result, Keadilan lost badly while PAS, contesting
in Malay-majority areas, fared well.

The DAP was humiliated in the Chinese-majority areas as they refused to listen
to the community's objection to working with PAS.

During the recent Sarawak elections, Keadilan and PAS were again beaten badly.
Until today, Iban voters still joke about a PAS campaigner, in his serban and
flowing robe, going around shaking hands while wearing gloves.

Among the Muslims in Sarawak, they found it hard to accept the hostile politics
practised by PAS and Keadilan.

In the next general election, the aftermath of the Sept 11 incident will be a
crucial factor. PAS, like it or not, is regarded as an extremist party and its
open support for the Taliban seems out of sync with the non-Muslims.

If Keadilan ignores this by continuing to stress on its link with PAS, it will
lose more seats.

If the DAP takes on Keadilan, the two parties will split the opposition votes.
Even if they work out a pact, it would not necessarily help either party – such
a tie-up will be regarded as an unholy pact.

Keadilan leaders, especially the academics, cannot expect to measure the
sentiments of the grassroots by merely reading anti-government websites and
international magazines.

The people are also aware that even as the Taliban
retreat, that's not the end of them. It is just a case of them returning and
fighting another day.

And remember that the attacks against the Taliban started as a war against
terrorism. It was a hunt for Osama bin Laden, who is still very much alive in
some Afghan cave.

Now, we have a new situation. The United States needs to install a new Afghan
government which includes the ridiculous possibility of putting up an ageing
deposed king again.

It isn't clear whether the faction heads are ready for a king which they
probably cannot remember but the world is certainly not ready to swap the
Taliban for another form of totalitarian rule, particularly one imposed by
ethnic groups from a different part of the country.

We cannot expect the ethnic factions, with their ill-repute as bandits,
murderers, looters and rapists, to change their ways overnight.

In fact, as they made their way to Kabul, the rag-tag army did not appear to
have changed their ways although they were more restrained this time,
presumably aware that the world is watching them. Understanding the need for
foreign aid and the power of foreign pressure, these tribal chiefs must have
put up their minimum best.

For now, the responsibility of administration in Kabul is likely to fall to
international diplomats. Blue helmets will be required for military security
while aid convoys need to be speeded up to stop any form of famine with winter
approaching.

The tribal leaders will need a crash course in the concept of power sharing and
the need to keep the alliance intact. The king may be used as a rallying point
but the tribal leaders are still the power brokers and they know it.

By keeping the coalition alive, that will enable them to be strong enough,
politically and militarily, to resist the Taliban.

No one should write off the Taliban. They probably gave up Kabul because of a
collapse in command and control due to weeks of aerial bombardment of
communication facilities.

But Osama is still very much alive and if he believes the Taliban is able to
protect him, then he would work with them to strike back. With winter
approaching, the chances of the western powers capturing him may now be
slimmer.

The Taliban has not yet been defeated and its diehards are sure to regroup
themselves in the mountains.

The northern alliance may have gained control of the cities and unless they
exert a stronger presence, the peace seems fragile but peace must be given a
chance, no doubt.

There is a need to encourage the western educated and enterprising Afghans, who
have fled overseas, to return to rebuild what has become a wasteland.

The social and political principles of a democracy need to be drawn up, even in
the most rudimentary form, especially when you have ethnic leaders who only
understand the language of guns and bullets.

Basic civil, criminal and commercial laws need to be written for basic
economics to function again.

Women must be allowed to attend schools, earn a decent living and discard their
burqa if they want to. There will be a need to replace poppy cultivation, which
has been the only crop farmers have to make their living, with other
agricultural produce.

It will not be easy, after the experience of the Taliban, and the Afghans will
need some time to adjust to normality.

We cannot expect the factional chiefs to accept western secular laws overnight
and neither should we expect the Northern Alliance to include women in their
discussions immediately.

The priority, however, is a workable framework which all factions must agree
on.

The UN may be taking over temporary administration but the US cannot just wash
their hands and walk away. The Afghanistan problem has been created by the US
and they will need to find a solution.

Capturing Kabul has been a good Christmas gift for the US as until last week,
no one was clear whether the attacks against the Taliban had produced
results.

Not all our MPs are economists or bankers. No one will
blame them if they cannot fully digest the entire speech. But as politicians,
they should be able to feel the pulse of the ordinary people better.

From reports of the proceedings, though, it was obvious that our MPs were
not very keen to discuss difficult issues. Instead, they were more preoccupied
with the ''Islamic state'' controversy.

The issue probably made better news copy – even better political sense – but
there is a recession looming. Ordinary people are more concerned with the cost
of living or the possibility of losing their jobs.

As politicians, a dose of politicking is expected and may even contribute to
livelier Dewan proceedings. But handling the country's economy is not just the
job of Dr Mahathir and Bank Negara.

Malaysians, of course, expect their representatives to raise their concerns
responsibly and debate the Bills seriously and intelligently. But parliament
debates aren't what they used to be.

The speeches of MPs then were better researched and more humorous. Not only did
the politicians then have more finesse, they were also more colourful in
character.

Perhaps, the politicians of that era were more committed to their cause. If
they did not hold government positions, their only concern was their
constituents.

MPs now, especially the backbenchers, are better off financially; many hold
positions as chairmen of various government agencies and directors in private
companies.

Previously, the lack of quorum was a rarity. Coming from all over the country,
many of these full-time politicians looked forward to debates. Whenever there
was a verbal clash inside, those taking a break at the lounge or lobby would
rush into the Dewan.

We cannot expect MPs, especially the ministers and their deputies, to sit
inside the Dewan for the entire proceedings because they have other equally
important tasks to perform.

Parliamentary secretaries are appointed to ease the workload of ministers but
when it comes to policy matters and more difficult questions, the ministers
should be present with the answers.

The malaise seems to have affected both Barisan Nasional and the Opposition.
There is no shortage of rabble-rousers in the Opposition but, except for
religious matters, PAS MPs have been somewhat lacklustre in their participation
of debates.

Still, for all their complaints of insufficient news coverage, the opposition
MPs (45 out of 193 representatives) have received their fair share of the
limelight.

The Government should seriously consider TV coverage of parliament proceedings.
For a start, it need not have to be telecast ''live'' but we should be bold
enough to air the recorded version.

The Government is understandably apprehensive of such a proposal for fear that
the Opposition would play to the gallery by creating a ruckus and disrupting
proceedings. They, in fact, tried this previously when the Budget was tabled,
knowing that it would be broadcast.

Many Malaysians are sure that attendance would improve if debates were
broadcast on television. They would treat controversial issues with greater
sensitivity, knowing that they are being watched by all segments of
society.

The voters would also be able to find out whether their MPs are good only for
village ceramahs or whether they can shine in the Dewan by speaking
intelligently and constructively.

PAS leaders have repeatedly said Kelantan and Terengganu,
both under PAS rule, are examples of what an Islamic state would be like.

It is not going to be easy for PAS. If the party produces a blueprint of an
Islamic state ala Afghanistan, then it will lose what's left of its non-Muslim
supporters. Even Parti Keadilan Nasional and Parti Rakyat Malaysia would find
it hard to defend the party.

If PAS allows the syariah and civil courts to co-exist, as is the case with
Kelantan and Terengganu, then it would be no different from the current
administrative and judiciary structures set up by the Barisan Nasional
government.

Any similarity of the existing structure, which upholds a written federal
constitution, would certainly anger and alienate the majority of PAS members
who want a theocratic state run by ulamaks.

When Dr Mahathir first said that Malaysia was already an Islamic country, there
was a degree of uneasiness among non-Muslims but they were not alarmed.

Logically, Dr Mahathir is right because other countries recognise Malaysia as a
progressive Muslim nation. Over 60% of its population is Muslim, the government
is headed by a Muslim, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is a Muslim and even the
Opposition leader is a Muslim.

For non-Muslims, they are more fearful of the Islamic state envisaged by PAS
than the statement by Dr Mahathir.

Non-Muslims understand that nothing has changed. Malaysia can be called an
''Islamic state'' or an ''Islamic country'' or an ''Islamic society'' but the fact
is that its Constitution assures non-Muslims a place in the country.

As the saying goes, a rose by any other name is a rose. The Communist Party of
China insists that China is still communist but its people have clearly
embraced capitalism.

Across the straits in Indonesia, politicians in provinces such as Banten, South
Sulawesi and West Sumatra have been calling for the imposition of syariah laws.
In a bid to win separatist hearts in the provinces, Islamist parties in
Parliament have been backing these provinces.

The two parties in the forefront are the United Development Party and the
Crescent Star Party. In some small towns in West Java, local administrations
have reportedly begun applying syariah laws informally, including making  it mandatory for women to wear
headscarves.

The debate over the issue of Malaysia's status, if properly conducted, is
certainly healthy as it would give Malaysians of all faiths a chance to discuss
the future direction of the country.

Non-Muslims may not fully grasp the meaning of an Islamic nation, but it
affects them as citizens. They have as much right to discuss and find out more
about such a structure.

In Kelantan and Terengganu, non-Muslims have found their rights infringed by
acts such as separating males and females at supermarket counters, the ban on
unisex hair salons and even the ban on the sale of alchohol in Chinese
restaurants.

The PAS declaration of jihad against the United States and its directive to
members to fight alongside the Taliban reflect the party's extremism. Until
today, it has yet to explain the alleged involvement of its members and
supporters in the militant KMM.

Although temples and churches are allowed in Kelantan and Terengganu, one must
point out that freedom of worship is guaranteed under the federal constitution
and those states under Barisan Nasional rule allow other religion to
flourish.

The government must thus ensure that applications to set up places of worship
should not be obstructed by over-zealous officials as that will be contrary to
the policy of the ruling government.

When Barisan MPs challenged Fadzil to give a clear definition of what a PAS
Islamic state was going to be like, the Opposition leader was lost for
words.

Running a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural country like
Malaysia is not easy. No one race or group can have its own way. The politics
of accommodation and consensus has worked well and that formula has contributed
towards making Malaysia a politically and economically stable nation.

For Malaysians, who see the chaos in Indonesia and the
worst economic downturn hitting Singapore, our political and economy stability
have been counted as a blessing, even as the government attempts to ward off
the effects of a recession.

Most Malaysians have enough work to keep themselves busy rather than take part
in massive demonstrations outside the US Embassy or search for western tourists
at hotels, as is happening in Indonesia.

Dr Mahathir has emerged as the undisputed leader of the region; the West seeks
his support and opinion in their fight against terrorism and the Taliban
regime. He has credentials which other leaders do not – he heads a model
Islamic country, led by a moderate and liberal political party.

Singapore elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew's views may be good on East Asian
affairs but it is Dr Mahathir who is taking centre stage because the war
involves the Islamic world.

But what Dr Mahathir is saying is actually nothing new. His views on extremism
have never changed. Even before the Sept 11 attacks in New York, Dr Mahathir
had been hard on religious radicals – an approach that some people perceived as
political action against PAS. Like Osama bin Laden, religion has been used to
legitimise the political agenda of these radicals. Preventive laws were used
against these militants but the action was attacked as draconian. Today, Dr
Mahathir has been vindicated.

As PAS declared jihad against the United States, demonstrated outside the US
Embassy, burnt the American flag and urged its members to fight alongside the
Taliban, the same western diplomats who used to turn up at PAS gatherings to
give moral support are looking at PAS leaders with alarm.

In the West, governments are rescuing companies and airlines in the same manner
which they once ridiculed Malaysia for what they termed as bail-outs.

As the top western leaders begin to understand Dr Mahathir, there are still
many in the western media who have to yet to grasp the diplomatic changes that
are taking place.

In their news reports, many still have the misconception that Malaysia is
anti-US and supportive of Osama. CNN has not helped clear this cloud of
confusion. For example, it leaves out Dr Mahathir's strong line against
terrorism but highlights his objection to the US retaliations against the
Taliban.

In reality, the lines of communication between Kuala Lumpur and Washington have
increased in frequency as Dr Mahathir and US President George W. Bush meet at
the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit.

The US Embassy here, with access to correct information, has taken great pains
to clarify inaccurate reports, swiftly sending out notes to the press. At a
recent luncheon with over 100 American businessmen last week, Dr Mahathir was
given a standing ovation after a question-and-answer session.

Malaysia is fast emerging as a reliable partner because Dr Mahathir enjoys
strong ties with most West Asian countries. As efforts are made to hold an
international conference on terrorism, Asean has already decided to host such a
conference, the first in the region.

On the home front, those who have written off Dr Mahathir are re-evaluating
their predictions. The opposition front, which confidently sees itself taking
power in the next general election, is breaking up.

The DAP has pulled out from the front as top leaders start to
"resign" from Parti Keadilan Nasional. PAS, the dominant party in the
opposition front, is now regarded as an extremist party, even among opposition
backers.

The alleged involvement of PAS supporters and members in the militant KMM has
tarnished the image of PAS while many have questioned how the party intends to
set up an Islamic state.

During the recent Sarawak elections, the DAP, PAS and Keadilan openly fought
each other but all were defeated by Barisan Nasional, even as some analysts and
observers predicted that the political landscape in the state will change once
these three parties win some seats.

Sitting in the comfort of their air-conditioned offices and sipping drinks in
Bangsar to exchange political stories, they could not see the humorous reaction
of the Ibans in the longhouse when greeting a PAS leader. In his robe and
turban, the PAS leader insisted on shaking their hands with gloves on.

At ceramahs in Bandar Kuching, DAP and Keadilan campaigners traded verbal blows
openly as they criticised the existing political structure, saying their
alternative should be given a chance. Within Keadilan, leaders who have quit
have talked about returning to Umno, believing that their struggle is futile.

The talk now is that the Prime Minister will call for a general election by
2003 – and there are good reasons for it. The opposition front has lost its
direction and the broad-based nature of Malaysia's economy should provide a
strong buffer against the recessionary winds.

The implications are grave because Malaysia cannot afford
to send the wrong signals to the world, in the wake of anger against countries
that are regarded as a haven for terrorists.

Next, an Associated Press reporter quoted Dr Mahathir out of context,
erroneously reporting that the prime minister wanted the US and Britain to
attack Israel. Nowhere did Dr Mahathir state that Israelis were terrorists, as
the article implied.

But that was not the only damage. The New York Times, quoting unnamed
officials, alleged that Osama had been bolstering Islamic insurgency in
Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.

The report said that terrorists tied to Osama's network and based in these
three countries were among the likely targets of future covert and overt
American actions.

Another unnamed official said the Pentagon was developing a list of potential
targets beyond Afghanistan where Osama associates live. The three countries
were, again, among several countries named.

Although the US Embassy issued swift clarifications, denying these
non-attributed news reports, Malaysia is understandably peeved.

As a moderate country, which is strongly against any form of terrorism, such
stories will wrongly put us in a negative light in the eyes of the world.

New Zealand, for example, has reportedly advised its nationals not to travel to
countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Who would want to travel to Indonesia, for example, with CNN showing daily
street demonstrations and Muslims signing up for jihad (holy war) in
Afghanistan.

It's a case of the Indonesians shooting themselves in the foot. They cannot
afford such negative publicity. Why should western tourists spend their money
in Indonesia if their lives are at stake?

Some Malaysians, though, have seemingly joined the battle cry. The declaration
by PAS that its members were on the way to fight in Afghanistan may help the
Islamist party score points but will eventually add to the gloom.

Tourists and investors will be turned off by such reports. The ordinary trader
and businessman in Kelantan and Terengganu will be affected by the actions of
PAS members who burned the American flag at its party headquarters on Wednesday
night.

Malaysia is already feeling the pinch of an economic slowdown in the aftermath
of the Sept 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

The stand of the Malaysian Government is clear – the attacks by the US against
the Taliban will not solve the terrorism problem. Innocent Afghans, who play no
part in the politics, should not have to die.

Until now, as the US continues to shell Afghanistan, Osama and the Taliban
leaders are still alive but the Afghan people are suffering and fleeing from
war.

On the local front, Malaysia has come down hard on extremists, including those
from the KMM who have vowed to topple a democratically-elected government and
set up an Islamic state by force.

The KMM leaders, many of whom are PAS members and supporters, were reportedly
trained in Afghanistan. They have been placed under the Internal Security Act
while action is being taken against the remnants.

The US media, which has criticised the Malaysian Government over the arrests –
claiming they were politically motivated – now appears to be taking a
re-look.

Western diplomats, who used to be critical of Dr Mahathir and had secretly
flirted with PAS, now see the Malaysian Government in a positive light because
Barisan Nasional has proven to be rational and moderate.

Sections of the Western press have begun to take a more balanced view towards
Malaysia, acknowledging that there is a price to pay for stability and
peace.

On Sept 18, the AFP headlined a news item ''Malaysia offers alternative view of
terror attacks'' which reported that Malaysia was baffling Westerners to
examine what it calls a ''model Islamic state.''

''That is how Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad describes his country, and many
in the multi-cultural and multi-religious society agree enough to have voted
him back into power for the past 20 years.''

It went on to report that ''the stereotypical view of Islam as a dour and
repressive religion which breeds hatred for infidels or unbelievers would not
survive the length of time it takes to drink a cup of coffee.''

It is perhaps timely for Malaysia to invite journalists from major western
countries to see for themselves what a modern Islamic nation, with its unique
pluralism, can offer.

With each passing day of inaction, interest among the
media has waned; they cannot possibly keep maintaining that the days of the
Taliban and Osama are numbered.

Although there have been reports of deployment by the US Army to undisclosed
destinations, there has been no swift action.

The window period for the US to attack Afghanistan has become smaller as the
weather in the mountain terrains turns harsher with winter approaching.

Muslims will begin their fasting month from mid-November. It is a period of
abstinence from food, drinks and desires of all forms, and a time for Muslims
to reflect on the blessings of their faith.

It would certainly be insensitive for the US to attack Afghanistan during that
time.

In December, the US and its western allies celebrate Christmas, which would certainly
not be a good time to be at war.

But more importantly, the anger and grief of the Sept 11 attacks have been
replaced by calls of restraint and moderation.

There have been reservations, if not opposition, about attacking Afghanistan
because innocent lives will likely be lost, although British Prime Minister
Tony Blair has expressed that only terrorist training camps and hiding places
would be targeted.

As the West contemplates its actions, the protests from pacifists and church
groups, who question the legitimacy of war and the need to seek justice in the
midst of terror, have become louder.

The US Government, these groups say, has the power of the sword to preserve
order and justice but it must be tampered by the restraints of the ''just war''
doctrine.

The message is that the response to the attacks has to be proportionate so it
doesn't create a greater evil and shed the blood of the innocent.

The US itself now sees the importance of winning the hearts and minds of the
ordinary Afghans in the war against terrorists with food aid for the
refugees.

Psychology warfare is necessary because the Afghan refugees must be seen from a
humanitarian point of view. It is about helping a fellow human being and
nothing to do with politics.

Taking these factors into account, military action by the US has to be quick
and precise.

A delay in acting against the Taliban would allow the extremists and radicals
to build up their resistance.

The Taliban, for example, have been able to whip up sympathy by using religion
as a legitimacy with the West Asian countries as the target audience.

Even in Malaysia, some activists of a political party have claimed that the
attack on the World Trade Center was a ''Jewish conspiracy'' – for on that
fateful day, thousands of New Yorkers of Jewish descent had turned up late for
work and were thus saved.

Many of these claims have no basis but they form part of the disinformation
campaign by those who support the cause of the Taliban.

As the world debates whether there should be war, frightened Afghans have fled
to the Pakistani and Iranian borders.

If we truly believe in justice, then, we – regardless of our faith and
political belief — must do our part to help these people. They deserve the
same help as the families of those who perished in the New York tragedy.