While the DAP and PAS may have obediently applied for
permits to publish their newsletters, the reformasi movement has ignored such
bureaucratic requirements. Books and other publications have appeared without
printing permits and are being sold openly.

However, the hundreds of reformasi sites on the Internet to reach its
supporters have been the most effective communication tool. The Harakah
electronic version, for example, even has a web TV. In contrast, the
pro-government sites have been weak, dull and unimaginative.

It cannot be denied that the Information Ministry, through its television and
radio stations, has not been able to reach out to the public as effectively as
planned.

The reason is simple – viewership is declining because the credibility of these
stations is low. The authorities do not seem to understand that hard propaganda
material can no longer work.

On April 1, RTM was given a tall order: be credible and objective. No one can
blame the staff if they think it's an April Fool's joke.

As a government entity, the staff are expected to carry out certain directives
but leaders must understand that unless the station is prepared to be more
subtle in its approach, it will never win the trust of its viewers.

Government politicians must understand that they should give some leeway and
flexibility for such information tools to carry out their tasks in the wake of
competition from other avenues, including the Internet and cable TV.

Newspapers can ignore the Opposition but it is a journalistic sin when
statements are distorted and fabricated. One vernacular newspaper had to
apologise recently because of poor or over-zealous reporting of an event.

Age has also come into play. Keadilan's main leaders are much younger than
those in the upper echelon of the Barisan Nasional component parties. Many
Keadilan leaders are less than 40 years old.

One contributing factor of the Barisan defeat in the Lunas by-election was the
age difference of the candidates. The Keadilan candidate was 37 years old while
the Barisan contender was 59.

Previously, the Opposition had fought entirely on its own but now Keadilan has
help from outside the country. Proof of this was when then US Vice-President Al
Gore openly endorsed the reformasi movement in Kuala Lumpur.

These are new situations which the Government face. It requires fresh methods
and strategies if it wants to win back the minds and hearts of those it has
lost.

Barisan needs to reform itself to meet the people's aspirations and become a
more effective platform for greater libertarianism.

More importantly, the old guards must discard the use of communal appeal
because the Opposition has portrayed itself to be more multi-racial, at least
in appearance.

It does not make sense for some politicians to treat other ethnic groups as the
bogeymen in efforts to win the Malay votes. Umno's main problem is not the
Chinese or Indians but the Malay voters.

In all fairness, we must acknowledge the measures taken to restore confidence
in the judiciary. It is evident that changes are taking place.

The Barisan formula has worked so well that the opposition front has modelled
itself after the coalition, unashamedly calling itself Barisan
Alternatif.

The DAP, for example, has even insisted that the consensus method be practised
in the opposition front to ensure that component parties have equal powers.

In the case of Barisan Nasional, all 14 component parties have equal voting
rights although Umno is the dominant party. For instance, all it takes is one
vote to stop any application to join the coalition.

Discipline within the Barisan ranks is also stronger than that of the
Opposition.

The framework of Barisan has already given it an edge. What it should do now is
to rejuvenate itself and allow the young to shoulder more responsibilities in
politics.

Those in their 30s should be entrusted to run the various bodies to inject
freshness, such as the setting up of Puteri Umno to woo the young.

Capable young members, with fresh and bold ideas, should now be groomed and
given the exposure to contest against opposition figures in the next general
election in 2004.

Barisan needs a new image. Umno is now perceived as a vehicle for members to
enrich themselves; there is a need to revive commitment and conviction. Even
top Umno leaders have admitted these problems, particularly the practice of
money politics.

When noble goals are seen as cover-ups for abuses, then Barisan needs to relook
at itself seriously.

New situations require new strategies and that includes a rethink of our laws
and policies to suit present and future needs of our nation.

Rightly, the criteria taken into account would be the
ethnic composition in the area concerned. This is to ensure that the
sensitivities of every race are taken into account.

In Shah Alam, for over a decade, the Catholic community has been waiting for
approval to build a church. Until today, their prayers have yet to be
answered.

The reason for the long wait can be attributed to the fickle-mindedness of the
Selangor government.

An application to build the church was first made in 1977 when the Mentri Besar
was Datuk Hormat Rafei.

Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib then withdrew the approval
following objections from some residents who felt that a church in the area was
inappropriate.

The stalemate continued until Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abu Hassan Omar approved the
application. Preliminary work was carried out last year and tenders were
called.

On Dec 20, the state government, now under Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamed
Khir Toyo, withdrew approval for the construction of the church on a piece of
land opposite the Montfort Boys' Town and offered an alternative site, about
2km away.

The church committee said the alternative site lacked infrastructure and no
construction work could be carried out for at least three or four more
years.

The church is crying foul, saying that the state government had created
legitimate expectations among the Catholic community in Shah Alam.

With the building site reportedly twice relocated, the case has gone to court.
The church filed an application for a judicial review and the case is scheduled
for hearing on July 26.

These legal proceedings are meant to obtain leave from the High Court to
challenge the decision of the Selangor government which approved the original
site.

What the church is attempting to do is ask the court to set aside decisions
which infringe on established legal principles, including administrative
decisions.

The matter is now best left to the wisdom of the judges.

But there is a need for an acceptable framework to facilitate the planning of
places of worship for non-Muslims.

State authorities must seek the views of the Malaysian Consultative Council of
Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism and relevant bodies on such
guidelines.

State authorities cannot act unilaterally, otherwise they will infringe on the
constitutional rights of non-Muslims.

There has been some degree of unhappiness over the building of places of
worship because of alleged interference from overzealous officials and
politicians.

In some cases, the actions of some bureaucrats run contrary to the policy of
the Federal Government.

The right forum to discuss matters of land and places of worship is the
National Council of Local Government, which meets twice a year and is chaired
by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Abdullah is a fair-minded person and Malaysians believe that he will give just
consideration to the sentiments of moderate Malaysians.

It is good for proper places of worship to be built for the spiritual needs of
non-Muslims.

Currently, some churches are operating in shophouses, office complexes and even
cinemas. For some worshippers, these places are not exactly conducive in searching
for peace and calm.

Churches in Malaysia, it appears, have run into more bureaucracy than Chinese
and Indian temples.

Interestingly, 17 years ago, the Sultan of Selangor expressed regret that there
was no place of worship for non-Muslims in the state.

The Star quoted the Ruler as saying on June 17, 1984, that he feared
non-Muslims would eventually have no religious activities. He urged the state
government to remedy the situation before it worsened.

At the same time, he reassured non-Muslims that they were free to practise
their religion without hindrance although Islam was the official religion of
the state.

He said he was aware that portions of land had been identified for non-Muslims
as places of worship but further progress had been blocked.

For Malaysians, such statements from the Sultan, who is now the King and the
Head of Islam, and visits by the Prime Minister to homes of non-Muslims during
festivals speak well for the harmony of a multi-cultural society.

We should consider taking another step forward by setting up an inter-religious
council.

Regular meetings between the consultative council and Islamic bodies could be
held to promote inter-religious understanding.

Bureaucrats and politicians should not underestimate the high degree of
religious tolerance and mutual respect among ordinary Malaysians. It is thus
unjust and unthinkable for anyone to obstruct the rights of any citizen to
practise his religion.

Datuk Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik has announced his decision
to seek re-election as party president. He said he would offer himself for the
post if the members wanted him to continue leading the party.

The announcement by the Transport Minister has effectively killed speculations
of his political retirement.

By making known his stand, aspirants for his post – and other posts – would now
need to re-assess their plans.

For example, a party leader who has decided to contest the No.1 post would now
have to re-examine the odds against him and the chances of making it against
the incumbent.

He may then opt to contest the No.2 post instead, if Datuk Lim Ah Lek decides
to vacate the seat.

If partnerships are formed, then the aspirants would have to decide on their
running mates carefully.

In short, Dr Ling has told party members they should now decide where they
stand.

It would not be easy for some party members as Lim and his protege,
vice-president Datuk Chan Kong Choy, also have their loyal supporters.

Under a leadership succession formula, it had been proposed that Chan takes the
deputy presidency but negotiations between Dr Ling and Lim eventually
failed.

Supporters of Dr Ling said the talks fell through because he was asked to fix a
date for his retirement, when the focus of the negotiations was on the No.2
post.

Lim, the former Human Resources Minister, has denied asking Dr Ling to retire.
He accused his detractors of putting words in his mouth.

The failure of the talks appears to have been the catalyst for the current
animosity.

At the party's 52nd anniversary celebrations on Feb 25, Dr Ling openly admitted
his differences with Lim.

Both pledged to place party unity above all else but there are no visible signs
of any olive branch being offered at this point.

The regular press statements and comments made by party leaders are likely to
aggravate the situation.

Responding to Dr Ling's announcement to seek re-election, Lim said it was not
the time to talk about political ambitions but to rebuild the party's
image.

He said the party's immediate task was to restore the dwindling support of the
Chinese community.

Lim also called for a post-mortem to discuss several controversial issues
affecting the party.

On the same day, Johor MCA vice-chairman Dr Chua Soi Lek challenged Lim to
state his political plan since he had so often talked about retiring.

The next day, MCA publicity chief Datuk Wong See Wah issued the sharpest
criticism against Lim and Chan for what they reportedly said in a recent
interview with Yazhou Zhoukan, a Hong Kong-based magazine.

Wong said their actions were illogical and unacceptable to the party
grassroots, and had damaged the party's image.

Chan was quoted in Yazhou Zhoukan as saying the MCA was divided into two
camps.

Excerpts of the interview were picked up by only one local Chinese newspaper.
It almost went unnoticed but has since become a talking point among party
members.

Chan had privately told party members and the local media he was upset with the
report as it was an off-the-record briefing for the magazine.

Predictably, not all MCA leaders bought the argument, and some commented that
it was a hard-hitting statement against the leadership.

The Deputy Finance Minister was quoted as saying that Youth chief Datuk Ong Tee
Kiat had been sidelined while another vice-president, Datuk Chua Jui Meng, was
seen as a threat to Dr Ling.

He said Wanita chief Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen was not Dr Ling's candidate for the
party post. Dr Ng has since rebutted, saying no one should talk about camps in
the MCA.

Asked by Yazhou Zhoukan whether Lim Ah Lek and Chua would form a team to
challenge Dr Ling, Chan said that “anything can happen.''

In the same interview, MCA Youth vice-chairman Loh Seng Kok was quoted as
saying Chua might not be in Chan's side.

He described Chua as “the third force'' and said Ong “was on his own.''

He also told the magazine Dr Ling had no intention of stepping down as
president.

As political secretary to Dr Ling, Loh is no ordinary Youth leader.

The interview had appeared shortly after the MCA anniversary celebrations where
Dr Ling had delivered his analogy of a fish rotting from the head first,
meaning any problem in the party begins with the leadership and that leaders
must ensure that the “fish head'' remains fresh.

One year is a long time. We cannot rule out re-alignment among the political
aspirants.

For now, the MCA leadership problem is akin to a Chinese opera where the ending
is still a long way off. The current scene is being played to the loud beating
of drums and cymbals.

PAS, in particular, has been using these pictures to
portray itself as a non-extremist party. Since the 1999 general election, the
Opposition has been actively trying to win the hearts and minds of the
country's six million Chinese.

In that election, the bulk of the decisive Chinese votes went to Barisan
Nasional, rescuing many Umno candidates in the process.

Many Chinese voters, wary of PAS' objective to set up an Islamic state and
worried by Keadilan's street protests, solidly backed Barisan.

The MCA, helped by its strong record on community projects, put up its best
performance by winning 28 parliamentary and 70 state seats.

Aware that it cannot form the next federal government without Chinese support,
PAS has undauntingly shown a more moderate image.

The party has been issuing statements that appeal to the Chinese. It has
supported Suqiu, saying the requests had universal values, and has even said it
could accept a Chinese as prime minister of the country so long as he is a
Muslim.

Terengganu Mentri Besar Abdul Hadi Awang went a step further by lifting a ban
on pig-rearing in the state.

He has also reverted Jalan Bandar to its original name of Jalan Kampung Cina
and promised to allow the setting up of a church and Sikh temple.

The party has been organising study tours for university students and
grassroots community leaders to Kelantan. The sightseeing stops include the
town's bah kut teh shop.

The opposition efforts seems to have paid off. In the recent Lunas by-election,
the Chinese votes went to the Opposition.

The defeat was costly for Barisan. For the first time, it was denied its
two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly.

Buoyed by the newfound confidence, the Opposition has gone further. Keadilan
has formed a committee to protect vernacular schools while PAS has formed teams
to give ceramahs in the Chinese language.

These actions by PAS should sound like warning sirens to Barisan, particularly
the MCA and Gerakan which are entrusted with delivering the Chinese
votes.

The task will almost certainly become more difficult in the next general
election, scheduled for 2004.

Umno, on its part, cannot just depend entirely on its Chinese partners. Umno
leaders must understand that their statements and actions, too, would have an
impact on Chinese voters.

If the Chinese voters assume, rightly or wrongly, that the statement of any
Umno leader has unfair racial tone, it would have a bearing on their political
stand.

More than ever, Barisan component parties have to rely on each other for
support.

They cannot afford to act unilaterally, like Gerakan taking a different stand
from that of the MCA on the SRK (C) Damansara controversy after agreeing on a
Cabinet decision.

Communal-based parties such as Umno, MCA and MIC would have to constantly
remind themselves that their strength lies in being moderate in their
actions.

While protecting the interest of their respective communities has been the core
of their existence, they cannot over-emphasise their struggles, lest this is
perceived as playing the ethnic card.

That aside, Barisan needs to adopt modern election strategies to counter the
Opposition which has, undeniably, refreshing tactics.

Barisan seems slow at times to react and its methods come across as archaic and
even unconvincing.

There is a need for more openness by the Government in the building of places
of worship, including the Shah Alam church application, to demonstrate its
moderation towards a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic
society.

Many Malaysians also want to see more transparency in dealings involving
privatisation of projects.

It is still a long time to go before the next general election. Four years will
give Barisan time to fight back.

Despite the seemingly rosy picture portrayed by the Opposition, there has been
plenty of holes.

Terengganu MCA chief Datuk Lau Im Pin questioned PAS' announcement in allowing
pig-rearing in the state.

“The rule actually says that pig-rearing is only allowed for personal
consumption. How many of us rear pigs for our own needs?'' he said, adding that
there have been no applications.

The 10 Chinese schools in Terengganu, according to Lau, have not received a
single sen promised by PAS.

PAS may have toned down its ambition in setting up an Islamic state but it
still maintains its uncompromising position on other religions.

In its criticism against the Taliban for the destruction of Buddha statues, PAS
is seen to be “half-hearted.''

Nik Aziz, in fact, has refused to comment on the issue, saying the world was
silent when Hindu extremists desecrated mosques in India some years ago.

The PAS leaders' refusal to submit to materialism may seem appealing to rural
supporters, but the Chinese voters still question whether the religious
teachers can run a modern state.

The practical Chinese voters are more concerned with the present world than the
hereafter.

But Barisan leaders had better wake up now because PAS leaders, who are
becoming more adept in using chopsticks, are fast picking up the Chinese
votes.

While we are busy attempting to set trivial world
records, they are busy making a name in scientific discoveries.

Talk to the heartland Singaporeans who live in HDB flats in Toa Payoh and they
will tell you that they will vote PAP in the elections.

Dissident writers like James Gomez, who wrote Self-Censorship: Singapore's
Shame, don't represent the Hokkien-speaking heartlanders, as the grassroots in
Singapore are called.

The Western media can criticise the PAP for being dictatorial and omnipresent
but most Singaporeans believe the PAP has done a decent job in
governance.

The problem, however, is that Singapore has grown a little insensitive over the
years.

All that success has gone to its head and it becomes cocky occasionally; and
when it does, it needs a little knock on the head.

Every time Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew decides to lecture the world, many
people in the region get offended.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong seems to be the latest. His comment at a seminar
that the Malays in Singapore have done better than their brethren in Malaysia
was unnecessary.

He invited trouble. The Bahasa Malaysia media, ever ready to fly the
nationalist flag, hit back, saying that Malay Singaporeans were a marginalised
lot.

Berita Harian went a step further, insisting that Goh should apologise.

The newspaper also wanted guarantees from Singapore against bringing up such
issues again.

Not everything has gone well in the island. In November, the Association of
Muslim Professionals proposed a system of “collective leadership'' comprising
“independent, non-political'' Malay leaders who would balance and complement
Malay MPs.

The association was rebuked by Goh, who said no matter how it was packaged it
was “clearly a political challenge to the Malay MPs.''

Berating the association for straying into the political arena, he noted that
it had begun to “show an ambition beyond what the government supported it to
do.''

During the seminar, a report card on the state of the Malay-Muslim community
since 1990 revealed that more Malays earned more but were lagging behind
Chinese and Indian Singaporeans.

Malays made up half of the people receiving financial assistance to pay for
their utilities and rents in 1996 and 1997.

According to statistics, one out of four Muslim marriages ended in divorce and
many Malay-Muslim women drug addicts had at least two children.

Rightly or wrongly, the impression given is that the PAP wants to prove a point
– that the government has done much for the Malay community.

But Goh's statement comes at a time when the Malays in Malaysia are searching
for answers to their unity.

Umno politicians want PAS and Parti Keadilan Nasional to sit down to talk about
Malay unity while the two opposition parties are saying only Umno is disunited
and not the Malays.

If PAP has to worry about a general election, Umno politicians have to contend
with their party division elections starting next month.

Goh's statement may have been a godsend for some Malaysian politicians who need
to lift their standing among the community.

Goh has become a bogeyman for Malaysian politicians who want to emphasise the
point that they can best serve the interests of the community.

The underlying message is that the Malays here should be thankful that Umno
exists as the present policies, including the affirmative action plans, have
served them well.

Goh can continue to claim that his government has helped the Malays but he must
admit that the political elite is still mostly Chinese.

The spat with Singapore isn't going to be the last unless Singapore accepts the
fact that it does not live in isolation.

No one can stop Singapore from having a siege mentality, what with the usual
threat of cutting water supply, but it can learn to be good neighbour.

The present leaders of Singapore, in their 40s, have little interaction with
their Malay counterparts in Malaysia.

Except for the occasional round of golf and the yearly durian party in Johor,
the PAP leaders have never made any serious effort to understand Malay hearts
and minds.

More importantly, domestic politics should not be allowed to get in the way of
bilateral relations.

Assuming that I know more about politics than them, they often ask me about the
inner workings of government and unprintable gossip about politicians.

This time, over several rounds of drinks at the Evergreen
Laurel Hotel in Gurney Drive, they wanted to know my views about the SRK (C)
Damansara relocation issue, the Malay unity talks, the defeat of Barisan
Nasional in the Lunas by-election, the growing strength of PAS, and whether
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad will still lead the country in the near
future.

They were upset with the slide in the standard of English. Some of them spoke
about having to reject a number of job applicants, mostly local graduates, who
could not speak or write proper English.

They asked how local computer science graduates passed their exams when they
could hardly string a sentence in English.

My friends, who are in their early 40s, are well-informed and well-read. Their
jobs require them to travel extensively, especially to China and Hong
Kong.

Impressed by the pace of development in East Asia, they are understandably
concerned with the lack-lustre performance of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.
They accept that the KLSE is not the sole indicator of the country's economic
performance but they wish there was more foreign investment to boost the
market.

I was told of remisiers who have had no commission for the past six months –
zero transaction on some days – because the market is so bad. Most have taken
to selling mutual funds but it's already a crowded field now.

The sentiments of my pragmatic and practical friends must be of concern to the
ruling coalition.

Just a year ago, they had all voted for Barisan in the general election. Now,
they say they need more assurances from our national leaders.

They still regard themselves as pro-establishment but want the government
leaders to pull up their socks and tackle issues with greater sincerity.

On discussing the SRK (C) Damansara issue with me and those who now live in
Petaling Jaya, my Penang friends were upset that a relocation matter had turned
into a national controversy.

In fact, it had become an international issue, I told them. In its report, a
foreign news agency had given the impression that the Government wanted to
close down the school.

The matter was linked to the Vision Schools project. What the news agency
failed to state clearly was that 95% of the parents wanted to move temporarily
to SRK (C) Puay Chai II. Neither did the report give sufficient information on
the poor condition of the Damansara school.

My old friends were disgusted with those adults who used children in staging a
demonstration and forcing the kids to study in a make-shift classroom in a
nearby temple.

Still, they wished the Education Ministry had handled the matter better. They
felt there was not enough consultation and explanation to the villagers,
resulting in confusion.

The DAP, they said, assumed it had taken up a popular cause, forgetting that
the majority of the parents concerned were also voters in the constituency.

My friends' bashing of the Education Ministry continued with their unhappiness
over the lack of political will to arrest the deterioration of the English
Language among our students.

I cannot help but agree with them that it's all talk and no action from our
decision-makers on this issue.

It's pointless to keep on lamenting that students are doing badly in English.
Drastic measures are needed to cure the illness.

What disturbed my friends the most is the exploitation of communal issues. They
are bewildered how some politicians and vernacular newspapers still believe
that the use of communal sentiments will regain lost votes.

They were unforgiving over statements made against the Chinese community,
particularly with reference to being an ungrateful lot. Neither were they
amused with an opposition politician's perception that they were
unprincipled.

My friends think some of our leaders, including those from Barisan, are out of
touch with the feelings of common folk. Although unhappy with these politicians,
my friends don't consider the alternative as being convincing enough for them
yet.

But they have noticed that in recent months, the Opposition has been trying to
make itself look moderate and fair.

PAS and Parti Keadilan Nasional have talked about national unity instead of
Malay unity because they seem certain of retaining the Malay votes. Both are
now preparing to win over the Chinese votes.

The fight for the next general election, due in 2004, has begun – and it's
getting tougher each day. For Umno, it has to win back the Malay votes without
losing non-Malay votes.

My friends wonder how the ruling coalition will tackle several issues and what
steps will be taken to gain the support of new voters, especially those below
30 years old.

Not too long ago, the Prime Minister announced that Umno leaders would now sit
with ordinary party members when they attend functions. The leaders are not to
huddle together at the main table.

It is good for leaders to hear what the ordinary rakyat has to say, and help them
understand grassroots sentiments.

This practice should be extended to all Barisan leaders and top government
officials. It's time they hear the aspirations of the rakyat in order to
formulate more effective policies.

My friends reckon that the Year of the Snake will be a politically interesting
one. The snake has been perceived as a dangerous and untrustworthy creature but
also an intelligent, quick and useful reptile.

Likewise, we can look at things in a positive or negative light.

Wanita MCA chief Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, a trained family
doctor, disputes the findings of a recent survey which listed 16 reasons why
Chinese women did not want more children, including a fear of pain and loss of
beauty from giving birth.

The survey of 374 Chinese women nationwide was conducted by academician Dr Niew
Shong Thong.

The reasons spelt out in the survey findings are certainly trivial.

Talk to people in the Chinese community and they would have plenty to say why
couples are having fewer children.

More Chinese couples are marrying later in life and, in many cases, they opt
for a small family or not to have children at all.

For many young Chinese professionals, career has come first – with marriage and
raising a family taking a backseat.

And having a large family is costly, especially in the urban areas. Among other
cited reasons are the lack of child-care support, unwillingness to spare time
for a big family, increasing cost of living, and stressful urban life.

But one overriding factor curbing family size is rising education cost.

Besides buying education insurance policies, Chinese parents save hard to
prepare for their children's tertiary education, realising the difficulties in
getting into local universities.

Unless the Government becomes more liberal and flexible in some policies, the
community will continue to be cautious in wanting to increase its size.

Over the years, the burden on education is somewhat lesser with the setting up
of more private colleges but going private is still expensive.

Latest statistics show that the 5.59 million Chinese make up only 24.6% of the
national population of over 22.7 million.

It has been reported that of the 550,000 babies born in the first half of 1999,
only 111,000 were Chinese while Malays accounted for more than 365,000.

While figures are not available yet, more Chinese babies were probably born
last year as it was the auspicious Year of the Dragon.

In 1988, when the MCA organised a seminar on the “Future of the Malaysian
Chinese,'' Datuk Chua Jui Meng forewarned that out of four projections on the
declining ratio of population in the peninsula, the best forecast indicates
that by the year 2100 the community's ratio would have fallen from 34% in 1980
to 23%.

The MCA vice-president said the worst projection shows that by the year 2100,
the Chinese population ratio would fall to 13%.

According to the Health Minister, the Malay population ratio will increase
because of their higher fertility rate and younger age structure.

That was in 1988. For 2001, the Malays should also be concerned with the
increasing number of Indonesians giving birth in Malaysia.

Unless they are illegal immigrants, these Indonesians will remain here and have
an impact on the political landscape in years to come.

Unlike the Chinese, these immigrants are unpredictable and probably more
aggressive politically, bringing with them different values and political
culture.

On the other hand, Malaysian Chinese voters have always been moderate,
pragmatic and have played a crucial, even decisive, part in elections.

Chinese associations have talked about setting up funds to give incentives to
young couples to raise more children but it is difficult to sustain such
programmes in the long run. Such monetary considerations are not
practical.

Even carrying out campaigns to encourage the Chinese to have more children
isn't likely to make much of an impact.

The best example is Singapore, which faces the same problem. The most it will
do is to instil an awareness.

It is important that efforts go towards building a community that is educated,
skilful, competitive, multi-lingual, self-reliant and IT-literate.

Despite Singapore's small population, it has been able to produce the best
brains in the world because of its efficiency.

Malaysian Chinese need to sharpen their entrepreneurial skills and become
strong global players, using the Chinese network.

More importantly, the community needs to forge a consensus on political and
educational issues, taking into account our multi-racial, multi-religious and
multi-cultural context.

Malaysian Chinese groups must be conscious of the community's minority status
and be more tactful and realistic in its requests, lest they backfire. The
Suqiu memorandum controversy is one example.

Chinese politicians must be prepared to sacrifice self-interest for the good of
the community.

They shouldn't waste their energy on inconsequential matters such as bickering
over whether SRK (C) Damansara, located near a squatter site and along a
highway, should be relocated.

Such issues sap the energy of Chinese community leaders and one wonders why the
Chinese dailies give these stories so much prominence.

The Chinese should get their priorities right. There are more important issues
at stake than the relocation of a school.

There are only so many follow-up stories that can be
written about Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim since his sacking in 1998. International
viewers must be sick of seeing the same file pictures by now.

The bad news is the world is in danger of forgetting us. As the saying goes, it
is better to be in the news than not at all.

A certain degree of notoriety doesn't really hurt. The only spark of excitement
was when a group of Filipino Muslim rebels abducted 21 people, including 11
foreigners, from Pulau Sipadan in April.

Malaysia was suddenly in the news. The limelight was, however, shared with
Manila each time a hostage was released, which seemed to take ages.

No one is sure, until now, who paid the millions in ransom to the rebels.

All the governments denied paying money to the kidnappers. They don't condone
kidnapping, remember?

Realising that kidnapping was a profitable business, the Abu Sayyaf group
abducted three more Malaysians from Pulau Pandanan on Sept 11.

What has happened to these greedy, gun-toting kidnappers after a series of high
profile attacks by the Filipino army? Enjoying their ill-gotten gains somewhere
safe on a resort island, possibly.

Besides the Abu Sayyaf, the Al-Maunah deviationist group made international
headlines.

On July 1, 15 men posing as army officers allegedly stole at least 100 M16
rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition and other weapons from two army camps
in Perak.

Five days later, the group of 27 men surrendered before killing two hostages,
ending a tense standoff with the authorities.

For a while, the Opposition accused the Government of staging the incident.

Quite a number of Malaysians who proudly proclaimed they no longer believe what
they read in the local newspapers did just the opposite – they incredibly
believed what the oppositionists had claimed.

It was a lack-lustre year for political writers. Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad
and Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi won their respective posts in Umno
unopposed in March.

On Aug 10, Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Abu Hassan Omar quit, citing health
reasons and family wishes. For a while, rumours flew about a sex
controversy.

Within months, Abu Hassan had became a footnote in Selangor history as he
stayed out of public life.

There were three by-elections: Barisan Nasional won in Sanggang (April 1) and
Teluk Kemang (June 10) but lost in Lunas on Nov 29.

Again, except for the local press, none of these by-elections went beyond a
filler in the foreign media since they had no impact on the political
structure.

Continuing the Malaysia Boleh (can do) spirit, more Malaysians attempted to get
their names into world records.

We have lost track of the number of people who stayed in glass cages with their
pet snakes and the number of times the Penang Government has hosted the longest
buffet spread.

It has gone stale, really. We need to be more imaginative and more inspiring.
It doesn't look very good on us when Singaporeans are making world headlines
with new discoveries in the sciences.

The only time we made it into the world press last year was when we discovered
that we have sex the least often in a survey of 27 countries, according to the
2000 Durex Global Sex Survey.

The survey found that Malaysians had sex only once a week or an average of 62
times a year.

Of course, most of us questioned the accuracy of the findings, saying it did
not reflect the sex pattern of the whole nation. Understandably, more than
national pride was at stake.

Sure, we have been busy with work and more work, neglecting marital duties in
the process, but it's difficult to explain to foreigners why so much effort is
put into trying to break the next snake record.

Barisan and opposition politicians tried to outdo each other in threatening to
resign from their posts but predictably stayed on.

There was no shortage of politicians who readily put their feet into their
mouths. Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Nik Aziz again provided guffaws by
blaming women for the cause of social ills in the country.

He was not alone. Pahang Mentri Besar Datuk Adnan Yaakob gave Malaysians a new
meaning in hand signals with his infamous foul gesture during the Sanggang
by-election.

MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu vowed that he would not return to Kuala
Lumpur if Barisan lost in the Lunas by-election. When the Opposition won, he
said he could not remain in Lunas because of the tension.

To wrap up the year, we had the Chinese and Malay groups who seemed to be stuck
in the 50s with their communal stand and postures.

Hello! We are in the new millennium. Malaysians no longer buy communal
politics.

These groups have gone silent for the time being, probably because of the
festive season. Let's hope they continue to do so as we usher in 2001.

We as a nation should steel ourselves for the rough ride ahead as the world
economy remains unpredictable.

But for tonight, at least, forget your worries and enjoy yourselves.

Happy new year!

But here we are, starting the new century, still caught
in the politics of the 50s.

We are shamelessly debating openly, with some hostility and anger, issues
championed by politicians who are now retired or dead.

The same political script is being played by a different set of politicians.
This time it's worse because this old broken record is being played by young
aspiring politicians.

The same intolerance and ignorance are being shown by the groups
involved.

On one side is Suqiu, a Chinese group, which has refused to regard the
perspectives and sensitivities of others. It has refused to be part of the
National Economic Consultative Council (NECC), which would have put to test
their ability and willingness to compromise and accommodate. Seeing how ugly
their 17-point memorandum has become, the group has now talked about the
importance of dialogue with Umno Youth. Suqiu should have realised this
earlier.

Then there is the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), with its
confrontational stand. Their stubbornness in wanting to hold a gathering of 100,000
Malays in Bukit Jalil isn't helping to ease tension.

In fact, many Malaysians are wondering whether some of those who issue the
statements have actually read the memorandum or are merely reacting to get
their names in the newspapers.

It's troubling to see how Malaysians are reacting to issues these days. What
began as a noble idea has degenerated into mindless controversy.

Take the Vision Schools concept. How can any reasonable Malaysian argue against
placing Malay, Chinese and Tamil schools in the same premises?

The Chinese educationist groups protested, not because they were against the
idea but because they feared losing their independence and identity.

It's understandable that there may be some confusion – even fear – in anything
new.

However, they didn't and couldn't explain their case well. They may have done
so superbly to the Chinese dailies but it's the wrong audience.

Their concerns were over-zealous ministry officials down the line who interpret
policies according to their prejudices.

Who can blame these Chinese educationists when they read about the ban on
Chinese festivals in campuses.

The case has been badly handled because of the unreasonableness of the Chinese
educationists, the inability of the Education Ministry to reassure them, and
plain political expediency.

So, the Vision Schools project has lost its shine. And many of us get so caught
up in the debate, we forget the most important point: the quality of
education.

The standard of English has gone down the drain. Both teachers and students are
unable to speak the language these days and yet the same zeal is not shown by
our educationists and politicians.

There are now more universities and colleges but are we asking ourselves
whether we are nurturing the mind and heart, particularly in producing
graduates who care about society.

We should be angry that our universities are not producing brilliant minds
capable of coming up with prize-winning inventions of international
standards.

Our lecturers seem capable of only presenting the same unimaginative papers at
seminars while our students are busy with reformasi and nothing else.

It's the same with protests, memorandums, appeals and signature campaigns.
There are a few ways of handling these requests or demands: accept the petition
and throw it into the dustbin, accept and seriously implement them, or create a
controversy out of it.

We seem to have taken the third option. Suqiu and GPSM can submit a 1,000-point
memorandum because it is their right as citizens to suggest how the country
should be run. They may have links to certain political parties but they must
remember they are mere non-government organisations. Yes, their views should be
respected and studied, but that does not mean they must be accepted. They do
not represent the government or even elected parties. Neither should they
assume they represent their communities, as claimed.

There are many in the silent majority who actually think this issue has gone
out of hand.

Elected politicians, before jumping on the bandwagon, should send out their
people to gauge the mood on the ground.

As we move forward, Malaysia should be showing to the world that we have become
more mature, more liberal, more tolerant and more open.

A new Malaysian mindset has emerged. It is best that the elite understand and
hear these young people.

Communalism is no longer appealing. It might have worked in the 50s, but it
means little to many Malaysians born after the racial riots of 1969.

Democracy is no longer about choosing candidates for Yang Berhormat (elected
representatives) every five years. It now involves civil participation.

We have taken many steps to move in the direction of a Malaysian consciousness
but we need to do more.

Some Chinese groups still do not understand the significance of Malay as the
official and national language, and the position of Islam as the official
religion.

Just the same, there are Malay groups which fail or refuse to realise the
implications of a multi-ethnic society and multi-culturalism.

They do not see the role of non-Malay languages and religions and why it is so
important to promote them.

The dialogue between Umno Youth and Suqiu, irrespective of its outcome, is an
effort towards a better understanding of ethnic issues.

The long drive home to join loved ones this holiday period is a good time to
think and reflect what we have to do.

The road towards Malaysian unity may be long and winding but it can be built.
There is still hope; we can start by building national consciousness.

We could still have a happy holiday. Just ignore the bigots – and pass on the
message of national unity during open-house gatherings.

Here's wishing all Malaysians a Merry Christmas, Selamat Hari Raya and Happy
New Year.

A further dent to its image was the public fallout
between the DAP and PAS over controversial statements made by PAS leaders,
including the ban on women taking part in Quran recital contests, separate
payment counters for men and women in supermarkets, and discouraging beautiful
women from working.

DAP leaders then openly criticised Keadilan over the choice of candidate for
Lunas. Pressure mounted on the DAP to leave the opposition front.

But the opposition victory in Lunas seems to have changed the mood. The DAP,
whether they wish to admit it or not, must have misread voter sentiments.

Except for the last lap, when DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang appeared at Lunas,
which could have helped garner some Chinese votes, the fact is Keadilan
successfully pulled the Chinese votes on its own.

With or without DAP, Keadilan and PAS must now believe that they can get
Chinese support if they adopt a populist approach.

They have learned from last year's general election – no community can win on
its own. For PAS, even playing the Islamic card isn't sufficient while for
Keadilan, the Anwar issue can only generate Malay interest.

This time, the opposition front backed the Chinese education movement on the
Vision Schools project.

Umno, the dominant Barisan party, seems unsure of what it should do. It needs
to stop the eroding Malay support but it should be cautious of trying too hard
to portray itself as the guardian of Malay rights and privileges. Neither
should it imitate PAS by becoming more Islamic.

Its strength, since independence, has been its moderation. Its politics of
compromise has been tested and well-accepted.

But it seems to have ignored the real grievances on the ground – calls for more
democratic space, transparency, openness and to fight corruption.

Unless the Umno leadership is prepared to tackle these issues head-on, the mood
isn't likely to change. The clock ticks on.

Malays who back the Opposition are not questioning Umno on Malay rights and
religion. They are seeking Umno's commitment and the willingness to listen to
ground feelings.

Last week, a group of university students, almost all Malays, attended a forum
on human rights organised by Suhakam at the Putra World Trade Centre.

A prominent figure who attended the function said he noticed that all the
students who spoke up were anti-establishment, criticising the Government
openly.

But what was of concern to him, he said, was that Umno Youth members who
attended the function did not remain long in the hall.

He felt that Umno Youth members should have listened to these students and,
perhaps, held discussions with them.

He said many of the Umno Youth leaders left after Foreign Minister Datuk Syed
Hamid Albar opened the forum.

The turnout of Keadilan members was not only bigger, according to him, but they
remained until the forum ended.

Recently, in a news interview, PAS president Datuk Fadzil Noor confidently
predicted that the Opposition could take over the federal government in the
next general election in 2004.

The Opposition may be riding high at this point and the Barisan appears
uncertain, in the eyes of the public, in reacting to the new challenges. But
anything can happen in four years.

The Chinese voters, while fluid, may not necessarily back the Opposition in a
general election.

In the case of Lunas, the stakes were small and the Chinese voters wanted to
send a message to the Government that their support should not be taken for
granted, that education was dear to them and that they were hurt by strong
statements against the educationists.

In a general election, where the stakes are high and the question of economy
and political stability comes into play, the Chinese voters may opt for status
quo.

The Government has shown its willingness to compromise by promising to
implement the more-acceptable Pupils Integration Plan, where national, Chinese
and Tamil schools within an area take turns to host competitions and
parent-teacher gatherings.

It will not be easy for the Opposition to win at least 90 parliamentary seats
in the 193-member Dewan Rakyat.

The Opposition now has 45 seats shared among PAS (27), DAP (10), Keadilan (5)
and PBS (3). To form a government, 97 seats are needed – a simple majority of the
total number of seats.

The Opposition has the best shot in the peninsula (145 seats), particularly in
Malay-majority states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Perlis and
Kedah.

It will be tough-going in Sabah and Sarawak, where PAS and Keadilan are virtually
non-existent.

In Sabah, the mostly-Christian voters are still wary of PAS while the PBS are
not interested in joining the Opposition.

Geographically, Sarawak is bigger than the peninsula. Unless the Opposition is
able to take campaigners by helicopter and boat into the interior, it can
forget about winning, let alone contest.

And in the interior, national issues used by the Opposition mean little to the
electorate.

The most the Opposition can hope for is to win a few seats in the urban areas
with only the DAP having any real chance of making some gains.

The Opposition can seriously dent the Barisan campaign in the next round. It is
obviously banking on new voters, estimated at two million by 2004, and
political sentiments.

It certainly hopes that the Barisan will continue to use the same tired formula
of development.

If in the past many of us laughed off the opposition challenge as being remote,
we will now have to give it some attention.

Every statement, policy and decision made by both sides would have a bearing in
the next round.

The fight for 2004 has begun.