Following the meeting on Wednesday, the DAP issued a tame
statement to say it was putting off a decision on whether to stay in the
coalition and would “conduct a comprehensive review of DAP's position.''

Trouble erupted last week between the two parties over the choice of candidate
for the by-election on Nov 29.

Keadilan is headed by Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, wife of Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim, which insisted their nominee Saifuddin Nasution Ismail should be
picked to contest the polls.

The two parties fought over the candidancy, with the opposition first choosing
Penang DAP assistant secretary S. Neelamekan and then quickly replacing him
with Saifuddin after Keadilan vice-president Tian Chua threatened to
quit.

When the DAP found itself outvoted, tempers flared immediately with DAP
secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock saying the DAP had been “stabbed from the
back.''

It isn't clear what will happen after the by-election as the DAP leadership
seemed ready to accept the apology from Keadilan deputy president Dr Chandra
Muzaffar.

Some DAP leaders, smarting from being played out by Keadilan, however said they
did not ask for an apology.

Lim described the incident as “the result of pure disgust at such unscrupulous
politics in the Barisan Alternatif.''

If Tian Chua was a brother comrade, he had turned into a “radical'' and a
“leftist extremist'' as far as DAP Socialist Youth leader Lee Kee Hiong was
concerned.

DAP deputy secretary-general M. Kulasegaran said the decision by the opposition
not to field an Indian candidate was a racial slur on the Indian
community.

>From the outset, the DAP grassroots had been unhappy with the tie-up with
Keadilan and PAS.

The pact, which led to the resignations of several DAP leaders last year,
caused the party to perform badly in the general election.

Besides Kit Siang, the other casualties were then chairman Dr Chen Man Hin and
DAP deputy chairman Karpal Singh.

It was simple. The non-Malay voters were not emotive with the Anwar issue.
Keadilan, to them, merely comprises former Umno members who wanted Anwar freed
from jail.

They were part of the establishment who had benefited politically and
financially for the past 16 years. Many were cronies, in fact.

Their slogans of democracy, justice and transparency sound hollow and
unconvincing, except to themselves and the foreign media.

PAS still refuses to dilute its religious extremism, coming out with
controversial statements such as barring beautiful women from working, separate
cashier's counters for males and females in supermarkets and preventing women
members from contesting in elections.

The DAP and Keadilan have both been losers. While the foreign press reported
extensively about Umno's declining support from the Malay voters, they refused
to mention that PAS has cleverly manipulated Keadilan and DAP to serve its
cause.

The longer Anwar remains in prison, the better it is for them. Parti Rakyat
Malaysia is, well, irrelevant to them.

Keadilan fared equally badly in the 1999 elections. In fact, many of its top
leaders were wiped out.

What they had done was to help PAS win more seats. PAS did nothing in
return.

The same applies to the DAP with its supporters helping to canvass for votes
for PAS in Chinese areas, awkwardly carrying the white-moon-on-green background
flags.

But what it got in return was pittance, a few Malay votes, which made little
difference. The core Chinese votes were gone.

It's the same in Lunas. Keadilan and DAP are fighting for the crumbs. It's not
even a seat that Keadilan is assured of winning but as the two sides slug it
out, they won't benefit.

PAS is watching the two parties fight on the sidelines with glee, knowing they
will become weaker and bitter foes. If Keadilan wins Lunas, the Barisan loses
its two-thirds majority in Kedah.

It means PAS will become stronger in Kedah and the prospects of PAS capturing
the state become brighter.

It will be a PAS mentri besar, not a Barisan Alternatif mentri besar. Certainly
not Dr Chandra, Dr Wan Azizah or Nasution.

Thanks to the generosity of Keadilan and DAP, the Barisan will now have to face
an increasingly strong Islamist party that has little patience for
liberalism.

The response could be the need for Umno to project a more religious appeal to win
back its support.

PAS may be willing to accommodate some multi-culturalism, including allowing
the Chinese lion dance, as showcased in Kelantan recently, but don't forget
that it's a norm in other states already.

The issue at stake isn't the lion dance or karaoke but in a PAS administration,
there is no place for a non-Muslim or a woman.

For the voters of Lunas, they have an important message to send to the
opposition front.

Do they condone such blatant display of political greed, where power-sharing
and consensus becomes irrelevant?

Malaysians will judge the people of Lunas on whether Malays should only vote
for a Malay candidate and not for an Indian or a Chinese.

If they think such racial tendencies should become a political culture in
multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia, then they should go ahead and vote
Keadilan. No, not Keadilan; PAS actually.

This is unprecedented in Malaysian legislative history.
There have been walkouts, uncouth language and challenges of a fight outside
the chambers, but never punch-ups. In Parliament, there has always been a lot
of hot air for political expediency before both sides laugh it off and walk to
the canteen for a drink. But what happened last week is a total disregard for
civility by the two lawmakers. They behaved like ruffians and certainly do not
deserve their honorifics of Yang Berhormat (Honourable).

There is no need for them to offer excuses and justification. The bottom line
is that it is wrong for anyone to be involved in a fight. Teng, the Bandar Klang
assemblyman, is telling everyone that he is the victim and that it was Zakaria
who used derogatory words on him. Zakaria, the Selat Klang assemblyman, claimed
that he was misunderstood. He denied using the words Cina babi (Chinese pig) on
Teng.

He claimed he had advised Teng that it was inappropriate for a non-Muslim to
dwell on halal (allowed in Islam) and haram (prohibited by Islam) which
concerned Muslims but Teng was offended by the remark.

He said Teng argued he had every right to use the terms halal and haram to
which he (Zakaria) replied jokingly: “Hey Cina, babi untuk you halal, untuk
saya haram (Hey, Chinese, pork is halal for you but haram for me).'' Zakaria
claimed that Teng got angry as he misunderstood the phrase used by him and
proceeded to challenge him to a fight. The uproar began when Teng, a lawyer,
had asked why the term haram was being used in illegal small and medium
industries (SMIs) since the entrepreneurs earned a living out of halal
business. Zakaria reportedly confronted Teng during the coffee-break; a scuffle
broke out and turned into a brawl.

Teng was allegedly slapped. He retaliated with a punch before an unidentified
man, said to be a supporter of Zakaria, joined in the fray.

Giving chase in the State Assembly building, Teng rushed into the room of
Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Mohamed Khir Toyo to tell him what had happened.

Dr Khir then got the two men to shake hands and make up. But the next day, Teng
said the issue was not over and threatened to lodge a police report.

The matter is, indeed, not over – as far as Malaysians are concerned. Both
assemblymen need to be censured.

The fight might have happened outside the assembly chamber but they deserve to
be suspended for their bad behaviour. The legislators seem to lack understanding
of their role. There seems to be arrogance on the part of Teng. His idea of
opposition is restricted to running down the Government. There must be some
finesse, even if one is an opposition member. Zakaria obviously needs a lesson
on religious, racial and cultural sensitivity. He ought to be more careful with
his words, particularly if they can hurt the feelings of other races.

He must be mindful that he is elected by Malaysians of all ethnic groups, not
merely by one race. He represents all communities. Racial slurs have no place
in Malaysia. In fact, it is better that our politicians learn, and quickly too,
that communalism no longer works. Questioning the patriotism of an ethnic group
might work in the politics of the 1960s – not now.

In fact, words like kaum pendatang (immigrant race) or bangsa asing (foreign
race) should be considered unparliamentary and even seditious. Making
references to China and India to a loyal Malaysian, born and bred in this
country, is unacceptable.

The DAP must understand the sensitivities of Muslims, too. Some of its leaders
may be familiar with a few Islamic terms after taking part in ceramahs
(political gatherings) with PAS but that doesn't make them experts in Islam.
Our MPs and assemblymen will earn more respect if they deliver well-researched
speeches.

Malaysians are not even asking for intellectual debate; the least they could do
is to behave themselves and set good examples.

The ruckus in the Selangor Assembly was not the only one. Recently, PAS MP for
Pokok Sena Mahfuz Omar and Barisan MP for Tampin Shahziman Abu Mansor
challenged each other to a fistfight outside the House.

On Oct 27, opposition MPs rudely interrupted Finance Minister Tun Daim
Zainuddin when he was delivering the Budget speech. And who can forget Mentri
Besar Datuk Adenan Yaakob who showed a lewd sign during the Sanggang
by-election earlier this year. Then there is PAS MP for Sik Datuk Shahnon
Ahmad, who wrote the book SHIT and used vulgarities against the
leadership.

Worse, he was supported by the party ulamaks (theologians) who preach morality.
It is best that our legislators take a hard look at themselves. They must
realise they now have a better-educated and more-informed electorate who have
higher expectations of their elected representatives.

We want to see a battle of wits, not a battle of fists, among our
legislators.

Like a sore loser, the Democratic candidate said the
election battle was not over.

In all likelihood, the results would probably be disputed and taken to court,
throwing the nation into disarray.

The two candidates are holding onto the edge of their seats for the tabulation
of several thousands of ballots in the mail from overseas. These votes would
not all be counted before Nov 17 – 10 days after polling.

Postal votes, like in the Malaysian electoral system, could now decide the
outcome of the presidential race in a complicated voting system which nobody
seems to understand – not even Americans themselves.

The tally thus far shows Bush having won 29 states for 246 electoral votes,
Gore has 18 states plus the district of Columbia for 255, with 270 needed for
victory.

But the incomplete popular votes total shows Gore ahead with 49,145,883 votes
or 48%, and Bush having 48,940,963, also 48%.

The fate of the next US President could well be decided by a Marine standing
guard at the American Embassy in Timbuktu.

If we laugh at some illiterate Malaysian voter for drawing the dacing or the
moon on the ballot papers, rest assured that it doesn't just happen in this
part of the world.

A number of Gore supporters cast their votes for Pat Buchanan of the Reform
Party because they were confused by the design of the ballot.

For Malaysian campaign workers who shake their heads at spoilt votes, they will
be glad to know that over 19,000 votes in Palm Beach county, Florida, were
rejected because they were marked for more than one presidential
candidate.

The comedy of errors continues. Oregon, the home state of computer giant
Microsoft, is still counting the votes.

The click of the mouse isn't working there, it seems. No wonder American voters
are now saying they smell a rat in the whole voting process.

The votes in Oregon are so close, according to reports, that the likelihood of
an automatic recount was “pretty high.''

In New Mexico, the votes are now being counted by hand. The most wired country
in the world has realised that manual work is sometimes more reliable, just
like in the Third World.

You would have thought that a recount, by whatever method, would usually have a
small margin of error but the world is now hearing that results are changing
overnight.

In New Mexico, Gore may now end up the loser. This must be terribly confusing
for both candidates.

And if you have been following the American presidential race on CNN, you would
notice that most of the anchor broadcasters are horrible at maths.

The biggest boo-boo, of course, is to tell the whole world that Bush had won,
which led to a flood of congratulations from leaders of various countries for
the Republican candidate.

But the red-faced politicians shouldn't worry. Bush, we are told, is hopeless
at Geography and he may not even know where some of these countries are
located.

Gore must be upset with the brave people of Florida. Just a month ago, he had
no complaints about the voting system; now his campaigners are set to challenge
the system.

He may be right, finally. Americans are crying out for reformasi or doi moi of
the entire political system.

As in all democracy, the Americans must understand that it should be made
simple for participation by all. That's what civil society is all about –
participation in the running of a government.

A democracy is also not perfect, as the Americans are now telling everyone.
Many Commonwealth countries, which modified the Westminster system to suit
their countries, have long told them that.

The first-past-the-post system, which we adopt, seems unfair but it works. That
is the most important.

When you have a system to pick someone to vote on your behalf, as in the
electoral college, it's bound to be mind-boggling.

Americans now realise that the popular vote doesn't really count.

Whoever wins, Gore or Bush, should heed the advice of Indian Chief Commissioner
Manohar Singh Gill.

The US should invite independent observers from all countries to watch the
presidential election just as Washington does to see polls in other parts of
the world.

In fact, these observers should also have the right to reject or accept the
election results, as the Americans usually do.

Finally, if Bush or Gore goes to court to challenge the results, the Dewan
Rakyat should seriously table a motion demanding a fresh trial if we are not
happy with the verdict – particularly if Gore wins the case.

Whether they be bushed or gored, the public would have had enough of the
Hollywood comedy American Presidential Elections 2001.

The sequel, if there were to be one, would be anything but good – as with most
movies.

Its task should be to convince the other races why it
opposes the project which is aimed at national integration. Certainly an
objective of such over-riding importance deserves the support of all
Malaysians.

Under the Vision School concept, three schools of different medium of
instruction – Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese and Tamil – will occupy a common
compound and share facilities. In fact, there are already two Vision Schools
which came about because the schools involved happened to be within the same
locality.

These schools have been totally integrated under the Vision Schools but their
characters have remained unchanged.

It would do a lot of good to the Dong Jiao Zong if it emphasises less on
ethnicity.

Unless one has stepped into a Chinese school to see its facilities and how the
teachers carry out their work, one is unlikely to have the same kind of
sentiments as the movement.

Even an English or Malay-educated Chinese is unlikely to feel as strongly about
the issue as a Chinese-educated person, or a parent who has children in Chinese
schools. So, the movement must realise that the majority of Malays and Indians
would question its stand.

The movement has put on record that it supports the aim of the Vision School
project to promote national integration for unity. But what it is concerned
about is that the project would eventually erode the identity of Chinese
schools. It would better serve the movement's cause if it can provide more
convincing arguments to the other races.

Chinese schools have contributed tremendously to the country's development.
Supported financially almost entirely by the community, they have been
self-reliant.

The impressive facilities in many of these schools are acquired through the
donations of the community and the MCA.

Long before the Smart School concept was introduced, computer lessons were
already started in Year One classes in Chinese schools.

With great emphasis on academic performance, Chinese school students, including
those from independent schools, have always done well to the point that their
examination results are readily accepted for entry into top American
colleges.

Besides relieving the burden of the Government on education and training, these
schools have steadily produced a disciplined IT-trained workforce.

With such a reputation, it is no surprise that many non-Chinese parents have
sent their children to Chinese schools.

Chinese schools are vital in helping to sustain the survival of the community's
other institutions, such as guilds, associations, Chinese newspapers and
Chinese-based political parties.

On a broader scale, the ability to speak the Chinese language will become more
crucial with the growing importance of China over the coming years.

According to news reports, there are now over 65,000 Malay students in Chinese
schools. It makes sense for Malays to be good in Mathematics and Science and
have the ability to speak a third language. But at the same time, the Education
Ministry has cause for concern as 88% of Chinese school-going children go to
Chinese primary schools.

Education Minister Tan Sri Musa Mohamad said if children of different races
were separated at six or seven years of age, it would be difficult for them to
come together at secondary level.

Musa is right. Every effort must be made to promote national integration at all
levels.

Education is certainly one of the best ways. Those of us who went through
Christian missionary schools understand the benefits of the system then.

We were taught correct English, instilled boarding school discipline and, more
importantly, we had friends of different races.

There was also a sense of belonging and mission, which no longer seems to exist
in present-day schools.

That identity is lost. This is perhaps the fear, rightly or wrongly, of the
Chinese educationists.

Cultural pluralism in education must be seen as an asset rather than an
impediment in national unity. So is social democracy.

Policies deemed to be discriminatory will produce resentment, so the cause of
communal polarisation cannot be blamed on the school system.

Schools merely reflect the ethos and norms of the various communities.

The national leadership must be commended for its moves to strive for national
unity. It can further do so by emphasising civil and political equality of all
groups.

That aside, our education system needs a complete overhaul. Starting with
better pay to get the best people to teach.

To seriously improve English in schools, we must equip our students with the
means to learn the language critically and creatively. To make the Vision
School project attractive, the ministry could perhaps equip participating
schools with the best facilities.

The Dong Jiao Zong has a case but it must realise it cannot exist in isolation
in a multiethnic country.

Dong Jiao Zong leaders cannot only see things from their perspective. Mere
suspicion of the motive isn't enough to argue against the Vision School
project.

Superficial arguments won't win the support of the other races. They must be
convinced of the Dong Jiao Zong stand.

At the same time, the Government must appreciate the importance of cultural
pluralism. A Vision School will have no meaning if it carries only a name of a
particular ethnic group, the school library having only books of a single
language and restrictions are placed on the participant schools.

Other concerns include sovereignty of each school, committee representation,
community participation and administrative autonomy.

Then there are some racist officials who impose decisions that are against the
national policy. At university level, one read of moves to stop certain
cultural functions.

It is better that the fears of the tendencies to assimilate be discussed now
rather than when the project is fully carried out.

In the spirit of musyawarah (consensus), it is best that our educationists sit
and discuss, beginning with a common ground – and that is education standard
and national unity.

Recently, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad was met by
demonstrating students during his visits to the United Kingdom and the United
States.

In one instance, the protestors – comprising more Pakistani students than
Malaysians – succeeded in attracting international attention and embarrassing
the Prime Minister.

On another occasion, Minister of International Trade and Industry Datuk Seri
Rafidah Aziz found herself caught in a different situation.

On Sept 25, she led a joint public and private sector trade mission to New York
to attract new investment to Malaysia.

According to a report, neatly arranged outside the meeting hall were brochures
on investment opportunities and investorfriendly policies of the Malaysian
Government.

Unbeknown to the trade mission officials, inserted in the brochures were 200
pamphlets containing literature calling for the release of Anwar and condemning
Dr Mahathir.

If the report is true, then it's economic sabotage. It's no longer a question
of politicking on the part of reformasi supporters.

The Government should conduct an internal investigation as to how these
subversive pamphlets could have found their way into the promotion
brochures.

Surely, only a handful of officials are involved in such oversea trips and it
could well be an inside job.

Whoever is responsible can no longer differentiate between political activitism
and the role of promoting Malaysian investments with no political
connotations.

Umno leaders need to get their act together in facing the momentum of the Free
Anwar campaign.

It's easy to condemn Parti Keadilan Nasional leaders for being treacherous in
bashing the Malaysian leadership overseas but that is unlikely to create a
backlash against them.

Neither would the criticism deter Keadilan Youth chief Ezam Mohamed Noor and
others from continuing to travel abroad with their activities.

They are full-time political activists with influential connections in the US
government and media. They have plenty of time, money and determination to
carry on with their work.

Ezam has the right to air his opinions to anyone in or outside Malaysia on what
he perceives as wrongdoings of the Government.

But there has to be a line drawn in every political fight, particularly when
the rice bowls of Malaysians are affected.

Ezam can speak on issues he feels strongly about – such as the independence of
the judiciary, the role of the media, corruption and democracy – but he must be
cautious and not damage the country's economic investment climate.

At a ceramah in Kedah last week, Ezam reportedly said the movement in the US
was masterminded by himself, in Australia by party president Datin Seri Dr Wan
Azizah Wan Ismail, in South Korea by vice-president Tian Chua while information
chief Ruslan Kassim was given the responsibility of influencing Malaysian
students in UK.

Ezam, Anwar's former political secretary, has confirmed meeting aides to
powerful Republican senator Jesse Helms to exert political pressure on
Malaysia.

Keadilan has denied engaging the services of Janus Merritt Strategy (JMS), a
medium-sized Washington-based public affairs and political strategy firm, to
keep Anwar's imprisonment high on the international agenda.

JMS had been reportedly engaged in August under a four-month retainer for
US$50,000.

Keadilan leaders have said that they don't know about the firm nor need such
help.

Yesterday, however, Ezam did not dismiss the possibility that the firm was
engaged by supporters of the former deputy prime minister.

If Umno leaders want to take on the fight, they have to do better instead of
moaning about it.

There has to be more commitment on the part of some leaders because the political
battle will be on all fronts.

If necessary, it should even seek the support of non-Umno members, particularly
professionals in the various fields, to speak at overseas engagements.

Keadilan has the right to engage a foreign image consultant to achieve its
political objectives overseas. After all, these foreign experts would know
their turf better.

The Malaysian Government has done the same before. If it wants to carry out
some repair work, then it should also get a PR firm to boost the country's dented
image.

A media blitz, including editorial supplements in major magazines and
newspapers, should be carried out on the country's efforts to become a
developed nation.

Politics is all about perception and image. Good spin-doctors, whether local or
foreign, cost money but today's politics is no longer just local.

The seminar, on the implementation of Islamic laws in
Malaysia, was organised by the Johor state government and assisted by the
Malaysian Institute of Islamic Understanding.

His advice is timely as Umno competes with the orthodox PAS for the Muslim
votes. There has been some concern among many moderate Malaysians that Umno is
becoming more zealous in seeking to project an Islamic image to win back some
segments of disenchanted Malays.

Some have even said Umno is trying to seek one-upmanship on PAS, pointing out a
proposed Federal Bill on apostasy which gives sweeping powers to religious
officers to detain apostates for rehabilitation.

The proposed Bill is now back to the drawing board following protests from both
Muslims and non-Muslims.

Umno, the backbone of a ruling coalition since independence, has been able to
win every general election since 1957 because of its moderation. Its politics
of consensus and accommodation have been its selling point. Umno has a tested
record of its willingness to share power with the other ethnic groups.

In the general election last year, despite the combined opposition force, Malaysians
returned the Barisan Nasional to power because they believed only the coalition
could run the country.

Without doubt, the seminar on religion would enable government officers, young
professionals and Umno activists to counter some of the arguments on Islam put
up by PAS.

It's a good start and it shows that Umno is equally capable of clashing with
PAS ulamak (theologians) on religious issues and not merely on the politics of
development.

Religion has always been a core matter within the community and it is vital for
Umno to address these concerns. But it is also important that Umno should not
allow itself to play into the hands of PAS.

Umno stands out as a beacon of hope against the fanatical pronouncements by
PAS. Malaysians, even those who criticise Umno, must surely be able to see the
manners in which PAS has been running Kelantan and Terengganu.

It has introduced controversial decisions such as separate counters for men and
women in supermarkets, banning women from taking part in Quran recitals and
blaming social problems on women.

PAS has also refused to field women candidates for general elections,
purportedly to protect them.

Last week, over 500 its supporters, mostly in robes and sarbans, protested
against the holding of a dinner simply because a woman pop singer was
invited.

It has a consistent bias against women and there is no reason for anyone to
deceive himself by believing that Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Nik Aziz Nik
Mat was deliberately misquoted by the press. In all these controversies, it is
sad that some politicians and activists, who talk about transparency and
justice, suddenly become mute simply because they are not prepared to offend
their ally.

But Umno needs to address other issues besides religion. The rumblings on the
ground are over issues like democracy, accountability, cronyism and
corruption.

Umno must be able to tackle these concerns swiftly, directly and convincingly
to regain the lost votes.

The Singapore Straits Times reported in a news analysis on Tuesday that Umno
seems to believe only political Islam can counter the rise of PAS although the
past has shown it may not necessarily be true.

It said that before falling to PAS, Terengganu was enforcing Islamic laws and
promoting religious activities aggressively during the late 1980s and
throughout the 1990s.

“But the people voted for fundamental PAS instead. The Islamic infrastructure
such as mosques, religious schools, Islamic pawn shops and other
religious-based institutions, which were set up by Umno, are being fully
utilised by the PAS-led state government today,'' it said.

In all fairness, it must be pointed out that Umno has taken its fight to other
areas besides religion. On Wednesday, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad launched
the Umno Civil Action bureau's service centre in Sungai Way, an area with over
35,000 factory workers, mostly Malays.

The centre is the first project of the bureau headed by Umno supreme council
member Azalina Othman Said. It is a good start and the choice of location is
commendable. The bureau is similar to the MCA Public Complaints and Service
Department led by Michael Chong.

The centres set up by the MCA in all states have led to strong community
interaction. Similarly, Umno should ensure the problems handed by its centre at
Sungai Way get sufficient press coverage to remind voters of the party's good
work.

In fact, Umno should go one step further by setting up service centres in all
villages and housing estates, like what the PAP has done in Singapore.

Such grassroots projects would also erase the perception that Umno leaders have
become alienated from the working class and are in politics merely because of
monetary gains.

What Umno needs to emphasise is not that PAS is bad but that Umno is better in
all areas, not just in the religious aspects.

He said his argument was that if PAS and Umno began
discussing the matter openly, what was there to stop others from doing the
same.

Before that, Umno vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and secretary-general
Tan Sri Khalil Yaacob had expressed similar sentiments.

Even PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat had his doubts about the
debate.

But Dr Mahathir said a debate on the issue should be held so that the people
would not be confused.

The debate should, in fact, be broadcast on TV. After all, the debate is of
interest not just to the Malays but also to Malaysians of other ethnic
groups.

It would be meaningless to have the audience comprising only Umno and PAS
members.

What is the point of converting the converted, after all?

If the debate were to take place in a studio, instead of in front of a large
partisan crowd, it would be to Umno's advantage.

PAS Youth chief Haji Mahfuz Omar may be a skilful village orator but appearing
in front of a camera for a multi-ethnic and multi-religious is a different ball
game.

Angry hand gestures, fiery speeches and a loud voice, the hallmark of PAS
speakers, would make him look like a lunatic on TV.

Even the application of make-up, under the studio lights, would make a
difference.

On the other hand, the soft-spoken Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein with his brand of
moderation is likely to have the edge on TV. On stage, this might not be a plus
point.

Malaysians would also want to see whether they have a grasp of complex economic
issues and their handling of details.

A large crowd is usually boisterous and the listeners often prefer rhetorics,
even if there is a lack of substance and details, to liven up the
atmosphere.

But the two leaders must also realise the various implications of their statements
and sensitivities involved.

Not only must they understand their limits, they ought to realise that they
should approach the issue from a Malaysian perspective.

It's no longer a question of which party can protect the community's rights
more effectively.

As we head towards globalisation, there is no running away from competition and
how a liberalised economy would affect this subject.

If the debate is emotionally charged, it would do no good to the country. There
is no place for racial sentiments merely to score political points at the
expense of a united Malaysia.

It is also useless to win the votes of one ethnic group but lose the goodwill
of other groups in the next general election.

Both Hishammuddin and Mahfuz should also consider having separate debates in
Bahasa Malaysia and English.

Malaysians would like to see whether these two young men are proficient in
English, a requirement in a modern world.

In 1992, the MCA and DAP youth leaders took on each other in a public debate in
Kuala Lumpur.

The then MCA Youth secretary-general Datuk Ong Tee Kiat, now youth chairman,
faced DAP's Lim Guan Eng, who was the DAP Socialist Youth chief, on the
question of political parasites.

It was held for two consecutive nights at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.
The debate, in English and Mandarin, was carried out in a mature and
light-hearted manner.

As in all debates, both sides proclaimed victory with little achieved but the
point was that the listeners had a chance to hear their views.

That is the essence of democracy. In a democracy, politicians should not run
away from debates.

In the politics of the new millennium, we should be able to express our views
without intimidation or threat.

Mature politicians should be able to voice their stand without allowing it to
develop into a racial confrontation.

The fears of the older politicians are understandable.

We should appreciate their wisdom and caution but they must not miss the pulse
of the young people.

In cyberspace, nothing is taboo or sacred. A whole generation is growing up on
the Internet, voicing their aspirations and beliefs with no limits or
censorship.

The sooner our politicians, especially those who are IT-savvy, realise this
trend, the better it is for them.

The role of the moderator will be crucial – he must test Hishammuddin and
Mahfuz on hypothetical situations. He must press the two to elaborate when they
generalise.

He must relate the question of Malay rights and privileges to modern economy
and management.

Let's see whether they are leaders capable of running the country or merely
good at talking.

It is obvious that those left out were not prepared to
fork out their own money for the trip because if they were ready to do so, they
could have attended the conference.

State Executive Councillor Dr Teng Hock Nan, in an attempt to rationalise the
situation, advised the others to wait their turn.

Dr Teng, who heads the Local Government, Environment and Traffic Management
Committee, said that only councillors who had served more than three years were
allowed to go on overseas study trips.

These councillors were also unhappy that only four island councillors went for
the conference, compared with 12 of their counterparts from Seberang Prai who
went on another junket trip in Fremantle 
the twin city of Seberang Prai.

Dr Teng revealed that both councils requested for all 24 councillors to be
allowed to visit the cities.

Some common sense prevailed when the state government reduced the number of
participants.

Taxpayers in Penang have a right to know whether the trips were at the expense
of the two Australian cities.

If it wasn't, then how much will the two trips cost Penangites, who are already
grumbling about council taxes.

No one can deny that overseas trips will expose our councillors to the ways of
administering a modern city.

We do not want our councillors to have a katak di bawah tempurung (country
bumpkin) outlook, with over-confident Malaysia Boleh (can-do) attitude, when
they could learn from others in more advanced cities.

Such exchange of views encourages networking among councillors and is vital for
cooperation between the cities.

By attending conferences, the councillors will appreciate better the importance
of modern city planning.

But there has to be accountability and a social sense of responsibility. The
country's economic crisis may be over but it does not mean that local
authorities can freely send their councillors on junket trips.

According to Dr Teng, the ministry circular states that study trips are only
allowed for the councils' twin cities.

Circulars may not be very popular in this age of information technology, but
there is at least something on record to remind councillors of existing
rules.

Relations between Penang and Adelaide have always been unique. Captain Francis
Light founded Penang in 1786 while his son, William, discovered Adelaide 50
years later.

Some of the younger councillors may not be aware that in 1975, a delegation
which included hawkers visited the city on a promotion tour. The Penang
hawkers  with their char koay teow and
satay  were a hit Down Under, not the
politicians.

An Adelaide Week was in turn organised by the state government in Penang where
the same controversy arose: how much did the affair cost Penangites?

The Australians, according to reports, met most of the expenditure of RM750,000
of their goodwill visit including hotel accommodation.

Ties between the two cities were at a all-time high during that period.

The premier then, the late Don Dunstan, was married to a Penangite. He often
began his speech in Bahasa Malaysia and ended with kam siah (thank you) in
Hokkien.

Over the past three decades, much has been achieved between the two cities,
particularly in terms of people-to-people relations and tourism arrivals.

But councillors must know that city folk do become more demanding, not only for
efficient services from their local authorities but also greater
accountability.

As our councillors are political appointees, the public will judge them for
their commitment in handling constituency services.

It is a training and testing ground for those with political ambitions.
Penangites should remember them for their services and not the scrambling for a
place in an overseas trip.

If there is going to be any similar tale from the two cities, this is likely to
be the one.

According to ACA director-general Datuk  Ahmad Zaki Hussin, the Oct 15 date is not
an  extension of the Sept 26 deadline
given earlier.

He explained that the latter was meant for 
the RTD officers and driving school personnel involved in the scam to
come forward.

Irrespective of his clarification, Ahmad 
Zaki should not expect an avalanche of people surrendering their
“flying licences.''

Many Malaysians are sceptical with the 
warning given by the ACA, assuming that 
they do not have sufficient information.

Some have even called it a bluff. Whether 
they are right or wrong remains to be seen.

Prosecutions of dirty RTD officers will 
certainly help to convince errant personnel.

Motorists who had bought such illegal documents, or had asked someone else to
sit for  their driving tests, must be
prepared to face  the consequences.

Some segments of society have this misguided perception that only RTD
officers  and driving school owners
should be brought  to book. The law of
demand and supply is  obvious. If there
are no bribe-givers, there  will be no
takers.

The ACA has been criticised by some 
quarters for going after the RTD, saying 
these are small fishes and that such corrupt  practices have been going on for some
time.

We should not lose sight of our focus. Instead of merely picking up one or two
officers, the ACA has cast its net for a swoop.

To launch such a big-scale operation is 
certainly not easy, whether they are small or  big fishes.

In any case, Malaysians have hardly been 
forthcoming to lodge reports against corrupt officers.

In fact, if the number of “flying licences'' 
is as big as reported, most of us are guilty by  having contributed to the corrupt
practice.

It is better late than never. We should support the ACA in its efforts to right
a wrong.

Criticism has also been levelled against 
Transport Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ling 
Liong Sik for corruption in the RTD. These  critics can't see the forest from the
trees.

It should be noted that the ministry's functions are not merely confined to
conducting  driving tests. The scope of
duties is wide,  ranging from road safety
to securing more  shippers to use our
ports to getting more  landing rights for
our planes.

Today, our ports and KLIA are among the 
best in the world.

While the RTD comes under the Transport 
Ministry's jurisdiction, the general public is  unaware that the issuing of commercial
vehicle permits, including taxi licences, is under the ambit of the
Entrepreneur Development Ministry.

For the record, the Transport Ministry has 
been supportive of the ACA actions.

As citizens, we should give moral support 
to the ACA  and not debate whether
the  crooks are only small fry or whether
Dr  Ling should resign.

It is significant to note Datuk Seri Ong Ka 
Ting's statement that the Cabinet has directed all enforcement agencies
to take concerted action to weed out illegal video arcades.

The Housing and Local Government Minister has a message: It is not just the job
of  the local authorities but also the
police.

Malaysians would certainly like to see the 
ACA sustain its high-profile fight against  corruption after the “flying licence''
case.  There will be renewed faith in the
graft busting agency if it continues to work with  such zeal.

Students of the university had been holding the lantern
festival for the past decade without any problem.

Then, suddenly, someone misguided by narrow ethnic views decided to stop it on
the flimsiest grounds.

The reason given was that the university did not want the activity to
overshadow its anniversary celebrations.

The reason is strange as the celebrations were held last year.

The university also objected to the theme Malaysiana which, it claimed, was a
concept used by the DAP.

The DAP slogan is a Malaysian Malaysia.

The term Malaysiana means the geographical and cultural aspects of Malaysia as
a whole, reflecting the country's rich diversity.

Credit must be given to UM Vice-Chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Annuar Mohd Zain who
put things right by saying that such festive gatherings should be encouraged to
promote social integration.

His statement is most reassuring as it will put to rest any suspicion that the
UM leadership is bigoted and racist.

The issue is more than just about a lantern festival.

A university is supposed to be an institution of higher learning where
intellectuals are nurtured in an open, liberal and tolerant atmosphere.

As the oldest and premier university, UM has to take the lead to demonstrate
that it embraces multi-culturalism and act as a showcase of the country's
unique plural society.

Malaysia is special because the various ethnic groups believe in the politics
of accommodation and moderation.

In celebrating its 50 years, the university has more reasons to make the
lantern festival a part of its celebrations instead of sidelining it.

Dr Annuar's statement is significant because the decision of the student
affairs department is not reflective of government policy.

The Education Ministry has circulated a letter to all universities directing
them to allow the use of university facilities for cultural activities.

Even Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, set up to promote Bahasa Malaysia as a
medium of instruction, has supported the annual lantern festival and Indian
ponggol (harvest festival).

As a student involved in organising such functions in UKM in the past, I
remember the encouragement and support given by then Vice-Chancellor (Student
Affairs) Datuk Dr Yusuf Nor for such activities.

He was open-minded enough to approve the application to set up a Chinese
canteen selling halal food following a memorandum from the Chinese
students.

My contemporaries – including Loh Seng Kok, who is now MCA Youth vice-chairman
and political secretary to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik, and
MP for Bentong Liow Tiong Lai – have never forgotten that gesture.

We were also able to secure the support of the predominantly-Malay student body
in holding such functions, particularly the Students Representative Council,
making sure student leaders were invited as guests-of-honour and patrons.

The present student leaders could take a leaf from our experiences to work with
all groups to ensure the success of their functions.

There will be officials who do not properly understand government
policies.

Worse still, there may be those who refuse to carry out government policies in
the wake of current political sentiments.

These few racist officials should not be allowed to hold to ransom the rest of
the university.

What is important is that while universities have some autonomy in
administrative decisions, there must be some guidelines on sensitive matters
relating to race and religion.

Officials, for example, should not sit on applications from students to hold
cultural gatherings.

Some students have complained that insensitive lecturers insist on holding
examinations immediately after an ethnic festival, thus spoiling the festive
mood.

Universities have the right to stop communal-based societies but that does not
mean stopping cultural gatherings. They are two different things.

For example, in February, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia banned its students
from holding a cultural exhibition to celebrate Chinese New Year.

Our university administrators must get their priorities right.

Their commitment is toward academic excellence, particularly in research and
producing the best brains.

Academicians must also remind themselves they are not politicians, even if some
have political ambitions.

Malaysians are sick and tired of lecturers who turn their classes into
political forums, assuming that only their political alignment is right.

Instead, they should be seriously promoting racial integration in our
campuses.