We shouldn't get too uptight  about the hearing. The American  public, particularly the average  Joe Sixpack, would be more interested in
football and game shows.

The hearing was poorly attended, with only three of the 21 panel  members present, reflecting lack  of interest and seriousness.

Assistant Secretary of State for  East
Asia and Pacific Affairs Stanley Roth, who was scheduled to  speak on behalf of the Clinton
Administration, did not turn up.

Three witnesses, purported experts, gave their views. They were  Deputy Assistant Secretary of  State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Ralph
Boyce, Asia-Pacific  Policy Center
president Douglas  Paal, and Dr Linda
Lim, a Singaporean teaching at the University 
of Michigan Business School.

For a country advocating justice  and
human rights, it certainly has  a strange
way of conducting a  hearing. No
Malaysians were present; many of us would want to  know if its because no Malaysian  was keen to participate or otherwise.

Dr Lim was asked to give her  views,
presumably to touch on Malaysia's strained relations with Singapore.

But that did not stop her from  giving
her views on the economic  situation in
Malaysia, particularly  the capital
control measures.

It would have made a difference  if those
affected the most  Malaysian businessmen who
have to  plan their budgets  were asked to 
testify.

To the average Malaysian who  has to
service his housing loan, the  move to
impose high interest rates  was like a
rope around his neck.

The United States should have  less faith
in an expert who has  probably never
carried out a business transaction in her life.

This reminds us of the habit of  the
foreign media in seeking the  views of
so-called experts on Malaysian politics who are based in  Hong Kong and Singapore.

Surely, the views of Malaysians  carry
more weight than these foreigners who are thousands of miles  away, relying merely on news reports, the
Internet and comment  from their circle
of contacts.

The foreign media is also fond of 
quoting anonymous Western diplomats based in Kuala Lumpur when  filing stories from Malaysia. Do  Western diplomats know better?

Hardly is there any report quoting Asian diplomats, even when  many fo them can speak the local  languages and even pass off as
Malaysians.

Interestingly, Paal admitted that  his
centre had colloborated with  Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim and had  received donations
from Anwar  and his associates.

At that hearing, Paal reportedly 
recommended to the members of  the
US Congress to maintain a cool 
relationship with the Malaysian 
Government.

Delivering his presidential address at the Umno general assembly on Friday, Dr
Mahathir was understandably upset at the hearing,  describing it as a “kangaroo  court.''

But we shouldn't give too much  credence
to such hearings. It  doesn't do Malaysia
much good  when we sometimes seem over
sensitive to visits by foreign opposition figures.

In the case of the US, despite its  talk
of championing justice and  fair-play, it
has a record of refusing to sign, accede and ratify a  long list of treaties under the United
Nations.

For example, the US is still indifferent to the International Convention on the
Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,  adopted by the UN General Assembly in
1973.

Records show that it is still  vague on
the Convention on the  Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the UN in 1979.

It is the same with the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports,
adopted by the UN  in 1985.

Malaysia is just a dot on the map  to the
American public. Not too  many Americans
are overly-excited by events here.

At the end of the day, the fate of  the
country is decided by Malaysians – not foreigners.

PAS, he added, would have to  reorganise the judicial system to  make it fall in line with Islamic  laws.

Takiyuddin also said non-Muslims would not be allowed to take  part in policy-making decisions  such as those relating to the Constitution
and the courts.

It means non-Muslims have no  say in
politics, the judiciary and 
administration.

Takiyuddin's statement may not  necessarily reflect the party's official
stand.

But those who follow the announcements made by party president Datuk Fadzil Nor
and his deputy, Abdul Hadi Awang, would realise that Takiyuddin is
consistent  with the party stand.

If PAS succeeds in setting up an  Islamic
state by next year, most  human rights
lawyers would be out  of a job. These
vocal activists, who  attack the
Government at the  slightest instance,
are strangely silent on the outrageous statements  by PAS leaders.

Moderate Malaysians have reason to be fearful of PAS intentions  because its objective challenges  the very basis of the Federal
Constitution.

It also goes against the spirit and 
composition of the Malaysian parliamentary system where non Muslim
legislators have a say in  the
formulation of any law.

In a PAS-run Islamic state, non Muslims will only have a limited  role in the country's governance   confined to matters relating to  their culture and religion.

Thinking Malaysians, regardless  of their
religion and ethnic background, should be very concerned,  if not disturbed, by what has been  decided by the PAS leadership.

DAP leaders have admitted they  are
disturbed by PAS' insistence  that the
setting up of an Islamic  state be
included in the common  opposition
manifesto.

Parti Keadilan Nasional appears  to share
the DAP's sentiment but is  afraid to
voice its stand for fear of  losing the
backing of PAS members.

These parties to the opposition  front,
however, are not thrashing  out their
differences now. Of immediate importance to them is  forming the next federal government.

Thus, they are more comfortable  talking
about general issues such  as human
rights, freedom of expression and reforms.

Many Malaysians reckon that a  strong
opposition is needed as a  check-and-balance
to the Barisan  Nasional government.
After all,  that is what parliamentary
democracy is all about.

The only drawback is that there  is
always a tendency to over-vote.  In the
1995 general election, the  DAP was
almost wiped out in Penang because the islanders did not  want to see Lim Kit Siang become  chief minister.

The DAP ended up with only a  sole
representative. Even Lim himself was defeated by Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh
Tsu Koon.

Many Penangites, it seemed, later felt that they should have voted  for a few more opposition assemblymen.

Realising the mistake of going  all out
for power, as the DAP did in  Penang, Lim
has said that it was  more realistic to
urge voters to  deny the Barisan its
two-thirds  majority.

But some Keadilan leaders, who  have
tasted power being in the establishment for the last 16 years,  are not keen to make the sacrifices  of the Opposition.

As Lim said, being the head of an 
opposition party is to wear a crown 
of thorns, not jewels.

PAS leaders, too, have walked  along the
corridors of power in Kelantan and no longer want to remain in the
opposition.

In exploiting the unhappiness of 
Malaysians over the political trend 
of the past one year, PAS seems 
convinced that total power is within their reach.

We have to be realistic about  promises
made by politicians.  Those who want to
vote PAS may  think they are doing so to
check  the Government but if too
many  think the same way, they may
end  up with something they do not  want.

It will be sad to enter the next  century
arguing about superficial  issues when we
should be catching  up on loss time with
the economic  recovery.

The Primary Industries Minister  found himself in hot soup last week  when he allegedly made a derogatory remark at
the Dewan Negara  about rubber
tappers.

He had purportedly said that “in  the
estate, (it is) very difficult to  see
whether the worker is working  or not …
behind the tree what he is  doing, I do
not know.''

Dr Lim's remarks came in a reply to a question from a senator in  relation to estate workers' claim  for monthly wages, a long-standing  issue.

The Gerakan president subsequently apologised “for any offence felt which was
never intended.''

His Dewan Negara remark,  which was first
brought up by  Tamil daily Malaysia
Nanban,  caused an uproar among the
Indian  community.

On first impression, one might  think
that Dr Lim was racially insensitive but those who know him  well will realise it isn't so.

A few years ago, Dr Lim earned  the wrath
of the Hainanese community when he purportedly remarked that one should not
trust  Hainanese and ghosts. It was a
figure of speech when talking about  an
opposition party at a gathering  in
Bentong.

Not too long ago, while campaigning for the Teluk Intan parliamentary
by-election, he was again  in trouble
when he allegedly said  that Gerakan did
not need Chinese  votes. He denied having
said it, but  the DAP went on to win the
seat.

So, it's not a case of ethnicity, but 
past events indicate the importance of being racially sensitive in  a multi-religious and multi-communal country
like Malaysia.

For politicians, this should be  their
priority. A decade ago, a Barisan Nasional MP from the east  coast was censured for saying that  “if one sees an Indian and a snake,  kill the Indian first.'' Many reacted  angrily, quite rightly so, to his
unthoughtful words.

Recently, former Information  Minister
Datuk Mohamed Rahmat  spoke of Datin Seri
Dr Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail's purported
Chinese  ancestry, allegedly implying
that  she was not fit to lead the
Malays.

Her husband, Datuk Seri Anwar  Ibrahim,
then refuted Mohamed's  claim of Azizah's
cap naga or descendants of the dragon.

The Chinese dailies later quoted  Mohamed
as saying that it was not  his intention
to hurt the feelings of  the
Chinese.

Again, those who know Mohamed  will
accept his explanation. His  wife is,
after all, a Chinese and he  has many
close Chinese friends.

But it's not just government leaders who have put their foot in their  mouths. Those linked to the reformasi
movement have continuously  brought up
the Prime Minister's  ethnic ancestry in
ceramahs.

His Indian background has been  used by
speakers and demonstrators to mock him and his leadership.

Yet, these are the same politicians who speak of multi-racialism  and racial unity in the same breath.

After 42 years of independence,  it is
time for Malaysians, irrespective of their status, to de-emphasise their
ethnicity. There is no  room for
communalism as Malaysians move into the next millennium.

Over the past decade, Datuk Seri  Dr
Mahathir Mohamad, more than  anyone else,
has instilled a sense of  confidence
among Malaysians.

Selangor Gerakan Youth chief  Pritpal
Singh Sidhu has initiated  the boycott of
Malaysian Nanban,  saying it was a
retaliation for what  the movement saw as
unfair reporting of Dr Lim's Dewan Negara 
speech.

The movement is understandably  upset
with the incident but it  should not look
for scapegoats.

The Hansard is there for everyone to read and Malaysians are  able to judge whether the newspaper took Dr
Lim's statement out of  context.

In the interest of Malaysia, Dr  Lim has
sportingly apologised.  There is no need
to prolong the issue as there are bigger challenges  ahead for the nation and the people.

The speakers included Education Minister Datuk Seri Najib
Tun  Razak and the respective
mentris  besar and chief ministers.

The decision seems obvious.  Umno leaders
realise the importance of keeping in touch with tertiary students and the
personal  touch always makes the difference.

Since the sacking of Datuk Seri  Anwar
Ibrahim from the Cabinet  and Umno last
year, our university  students have been
involved in  demonstrations against the
Government.

The anti-Government sentiment  is strong
in the campus with the  Malay students
being the most  critical.

Copying the reformasi movements in Indonesia, our students  see themselves as forces of  change.

The impact of this anger is serious. Unless Umno wins over these  angry students soon, it will have  serious repercussions in the elections of the
next millennium, even  if they won't
affect the coming  elections.

The critics would probably regard the Government briefings as  a form of brain-washing by politicians.

Some have questioned why two way forums have not been organised by the
ministers to hear the  grievances of the
students.

There are merits and demerits in  such
briefings. From the decision,  it is
clear that the Government  leaders want
to have the first go in  having their
side of the story  heard.

They believe many emotional issues are being bandied about and  the students have not got the right  picture.

Our students, they believed, are  being
used in an uprising against  the
Government.

Those of us who have gone  through
orientation programmes  in our local universities
know what  these programmes are
like.

Except for the Student Affairs 
Department officials, the freshies 
are left to student leaders involved 
in the orientation once they are in 
the campus.

Most of our student leaders, particularly from the east coast, are  strongly influenced by PAS. They  are the ones who are likely to dominate
campus politics.

During orientation week, the freshies are forced to wake up before  dawn to attend lectures including  those with religious inclination.

Sometimes, the religious sensitivities of other races, are ignored  by lecturers who get carried away  with their own beliefs and prejudices.

When the seniors return to campus, after the semester break, to  join the freshies, it is even worse.  That is when we read about ragging involving
the seniors and freshies.

Whether we like to admit it or  not,
university students are, by nature, anti-establishment.

Being young and idealistic, opposition figures are more popular  than government leaders.

During political forums, where  both
government and opposition  figures
debate, the former are often booed.

Students see themselves as the  nation's
future leaders. They want  their views to
be taken seriously,  and rightly
so.

Healthy involvement of students  in
current affairs enables our students to think.

It helps to nurture a sense of 
commitment and the growth of a 
thinking generation.

The universities must not be  seen as a
mere degree churning  factory but as an
institution to ponder serious issues affecting society.

There is this general feeling that  the
involvement of Cabinet ministers and mentris besar at such  seminar is akin to a sledgehammer  treatment to what is happening in  campuses.

It is an over-kill. I am sure they  have
more urgent matters to attend to. The job should be left to  speakers from the various think tanks and
prominent figures from  the various
sectors, such as business and media.

Such speakers, who are not directly involved in politics, would  have more credibility.

It would also be more appropriate for the seminar to be part of  the week-long orientation programme.

Now that the cabinet ministers  have
given their views, there is  nothing to
stop our students from  insisting that
they invite the opposition politicians.

But the students must never forget that nobody owes them a living.

Taxpayers have the right to demand that these students work for  their degree. The money for their  scholarships does not drop from  the skies.

We have read about top STPM  scorers who
cannot get into medical schools because of the quota  system.

There are many of such less fortunate students in local private  colleges, TAR and ITM who would  love to take the places of these student
hotheads in our local universities.

Their priority is to study hard  and get
their degree. There is  nothing to stop
them from becoming full-time politicians or full time loafers once they leave
the  campus.

Our students must not allow  themselves
to be used by politicians, opposition or otherwise.

They are of no use to society or  their
political idols if they fail in  their
examinations.

Taxpayers want to see our campus community produce great inventions, quality
researches,  award-winning publications
and  people with greater proficiency in  English, instead of seeing students  spending too much time in demonstrations,
ceramahs and issuing  press
statements.

I think it is not wrong to say that 
Malaysians have had enough of 
politicians and politicking. We certainly do not need students who
act  like politicians.

The unprecedented move attracted much international media
attention as the signatures were collected within a week.

There would have been more if there was a concerted move to seek the support of
journalists from outside the Klang Valley.

The petition was drawn up by a group of concerned newsmen and it did not
involve the National Union of Journalists or the National Press Club.

The memorandum called for the Act to be repealed because it "encourages
self-censorship in the newsroom as publishers are forced to apply for their
licences annually and are further subjected to the arbitrary powers of the Home
Minister."

Journalists, whether they are from Malaysia or elsewhere, are always concerned
with their credibility.

In Malaysia, the mainstream newspapers are sensitive to criticism that they
give too much coverage to the Government.

Defensive editors, in arguing their case, often say that is because out of the
192 MPs in Parliament, only 43 are from the opposition.

The majority, they argue, certainly deserves more editorial space in their
newspapers.

Whether or not their argument has any basis is debatable but the fact is that
you certainly cannot even find a filler about Britain's Socialist Party or the
Liberatarian Party of the US in western newspapers.

But public perception is important. If Malaysians think their newspapers are
unfair, publishers and journalists ought to listen to what their readers have
to say.

More than that, readers now have a choice. They have the Internet, the smaller
newspapers and the foreign publications.

It is important that Abdullah and Acting Umno Youth Datuk Hishamuddin Tun
Hussein have responded positively to the petition.

Hishamuddin echoed the Malaysian newsmen's concern, saying Umno Youth was
willing to help in the comprehensive review of laws governing freedom of speech
in the country.

Restrictive laws won't help the newspapers, the readers or the Government in
the coming years. In fact, even now.

It will be impossible to shut the plethora of views from the Internet and other
media technologies.

For example, instead of blocking the mass of information, particularly
information from the western media, we must insist on putting across our views.
We must state our point.

Countries that block information will eventually lose out. Clear, consistent
and moderate view points will always win finally.

A cacophony of voices with different messages does no harm, if they are not
libellous or inflammatory, as people will always be able to differentiate right
and wrong.

It is more effective to meet the information flood in an intelligent style and
persuasion is almost certain to be the order of the day for politicians of
tomorrow.

Young Malaysians would want to hear good views and they will know what has been
misrepresented and exaggerated.

But it wouldn't be just the politicians. The Malaysian media will have to
consistently play that role too.

Malaysians will always be different from the Westerners. Not many, for example,
will want the Malaysian press to emulate their British counterpart by
systematically tearing down the role of the monarchy.

Neither would Malaysians tolerate the paparazzi-styled journalism where the
media stalk celebraties with no regard for their right to privacy.

The British and American media, which talk so eloquently about transparency and
accountability, openly practise cheque-book journalism.

Neither do they have any respect for accuracy with their brand of journalism,
where reporters pass off personal prejudices as facts in their stories.

On that score, many Malaysians are unlikely to share the views of the New
York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, which put Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad on its worldwide list of top 10 "enemies of the press."

It is sheer rubbish. The Malaysian media may be guilty of self-censorship but
no Malaysian journalist has been jailed for their views.

And we must recognise, even with the Act, it is no longer difficult to obtain a
permit to start a publication.

For that matter, even Harakah, supposedly restricted to members, is openly on
sale to the public. An oppressive government certainly would not allow
that.

Hishamuddin has acknowleged that the most of the Malaysian journalists are fair
and responsible.

It might not be possible to remove the relevant laws affecting the media
overnight and the media should not have any pretentions about that.

Support from both sides, the Government and Opposition, is necessary to make
changes to improve the quality of journalism.

The first step could, perhaps, be the setting up of a media council, as
proposed by Senator Datuk Zainuddin Maidin, a veteran journalist.

The council could act as a watchdog for both the journalists and public to
register their views on issues relating to the media.

The proposed council, comprising eminent personalities and veteran journalists,
would also be able to monitor the reports of the foreign media.

In the final analysis, the direction of such a proposal is to improve the flow
of information and its availability to all Malaysians.

Politics should be the last criteria for the setting up of this media
council.

The book's sub-heading, Shit @  P***mak @
PM, is a little crude.  The asterisks
have been used by  newspapers to replace
three letters to make it printable.

But I have to agree with the National Laureate on certain points.  Those who have not read the book  should not criticise it.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk  Ong Ka Ting should be commended for
maintaining that the book  need not be
banned. It should just  be ignored.

We shouldn't just ban books or 
publications that we do not agree 
with, so long as national security is 
not threatened or they are not libellous.

The whole point of democracy is  that we
should defend the rights of  writers to
express themselves,  even if we do not
share their  views.

The last thing we should do is to  punish
Shahnon such as stripping  him of his National
Laureate  Award and the benefits that
come  with it.

It will be sad if the authorities  only
reward writers for having establishment views.

The fact that Shahnon has said  he is a
long-time PAS member and  that he has
spoken at a PAS ceramah, I think, is sufficient for Malaysians to make their
conclusions.

Most of us would also question  the
sincerity of PAS leaders who  reject
populist culture such as dikir barat but are quick to defend  Shahnon's work because it fits into  their political agenda.

It is the same with those who  back
violent reformasi street demonstrations but wash their hands  when the majority of Malaysians  expressed their disgust at the  damage done.

But we know and the rest of the  world
know, from the pictures  published in newspapers,
which  politician has tried to be
heroic.

There is really no point in pushing the book controversy further.  Let nature run its course as the  majority of Malaysians are moderate and
sober.

Shahnon's work, irrespective of  whether
it has aesthetic value or  otherwise, has
sent us a reminder.  It is supposed to be
a political satire.

And like all satires, it is supposed to be humorous. Never mind  if the choice of characters and  words used are not even near Tan  Sri Samad Ismail's regular political parody
in Gila Gila.

Politics in Malaysia has become  too
emotive and personal of late.

Malaysians must learn to agree  or
disagree on political issues and  what
democracy is all about.

If it is a political satire, then we 
must not lose the ability to laugh at 
ourselves.

We should not be too overreactive and sensitive, which seem to  be a problem with some of our
politicians.

Granted that national reconciliation has become more difficult  over the past one year, that should  not stop us from talking to each  other.

On that note, it is, perhaps, refreshing that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad  Badawi was gracious
enough to  open an art exhibition by
Datuk  Syed Ahmad Jamal.

Syed Ahmad is actively involved  in the
opposition Parti Keadilan  Nasional and
had designed the  “white ribbon'' logo
for Adil, the  movement linked to the
party.

That is what maturity is about.  Whether
it is art or otherwise,  there are things
which go beyond  politics. Things like
friendship.

Our politicians, whether in the  Barisan
Nasional or opposition,  must be able to
compete on a more  mature and reasonable
level.

The abuse of the Internet and involvement of foreign journalists in  local politics is something that we  should be concerned about.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet  Ministers
have been accused of  stashing away
millions in an Israeli bank.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was  named by
the Philippine Inquirer  as being
involved in a gaming outlet in the country, ahead of his  wife, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail's visit to Manila.

Many of us would dismiss these 
allegations as absurd but the sad 
part is that some of us have become selective in choosing what  we want to believe.

Politicians who accuse mainstream newspapers of being irresponsible by not
giving them sufficient coverage have, ironically,  been behaving irresponsibly themselves.

If twisting facts is not enough,  they
have propagated rumours to  serve their
political cause, all in  the name of
justice.

The publications and websites  run by
these groups, for example,  have hardly
been objective, fair  and
responsible.

But that seems to be all right,  somehow,
because it serves their  cause. Some of
us have become so  partisan that we can
no longer differentiate between right and 
wrong.

On that score, it was a nice  change to
hear Barisan MPs calling for changes to the Internal Security Act and the
codifying of  laws on contempt.

Debates must be allowed to  cross party
lines if they are properly argued without the thunder and-lightning approach
adopted by  the opposition.

We sometimes forget archaic  laws can be
amended without necessarily having to repeal them  completely. For example, we can  improve laws pertaining to the  condition of ISA detainees.

No one in his right mind would  argue
against the call to improve  the police
image and to stop corruption.

For that matter, any sane Malaysian who has seen the photographs  of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim with  a black eye in prison uniform  would also have sympathy for him.

Reform is not a totally ugly  word. Being
in the opposition is not  a crime
either.

It is patriotic to make suggestions to improve things in this  country. There is always room for  the expansion of democratic space.

In calling for reforms, we must  also
realise the consequences and  risks that
we have to take. Will it  be a change for
the better?

Moderate Malaysians must ask  whether
they want to dismantle  the existing
system, with its flaws,  for another
system which can be  repressive and more
stringent.

Those who talk about cronyism  and
corruption have sometimes refused to admit that many aligned  to them have been cronies themselves and have
indulged in money  politics.

Some talk of the abuse of institutions and the media for political  gains but ignore the fact that they  had also been guilty of that themselves when
they had the political  clout.

As in all books, Malaysians  would have
to decide whether they  want to live in a
world of make-believe or in the real world.

Out of the 192 seats in Parliament, 144 seats are in the
peninsula. Of the seats in the peninsula, 
more than 70% are Malay-majority 
and over 20% non-Malay majority. 
The rest are considered racially mixed.

As the fractious opposition parties attempt to put up an opposition  front, it has been reported that the  DAP would contest in non-Malay  constituencies.

PAS, which has declared it wants  to
capture Perlis, Terengganu,  Kedah and
Pahang, will focus on  the Malay seats
while Keadilan will  contest in racially
mixed seats.

In the tussle for the Malay votes,  the
issues are simply narrowed  down to
justice for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the right to dissent  and the principle of accountability.

The voters will choose the Barisan for continued economic development and
political stability for  the
country.

In the predominantly Chinese areas, the DAP is banking on issues  relating to the jailing of former  Kota Melaka MP Lim Guan Eng.

It is uncertain to what degree the  Anwar
issue will be translated into  votes
among the Chinese voters but  they are
certainly less passionate  than their
Malay brethren.

Another factor is how  the opposition
front will take shape and  what their
manifesto and programmes will be.

It will not hurt the DAP to work  with
Keadilan which is a lot more  appealing
to Chinese voters than  PAS.

Keadilan president Datin Seri Dr  Wan
Azizah Wan Ismail has been a  crowd
puller at DAP ceramahs and  certainly
issues like justice transcend race and religion.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar, the Keadilan deputy president, also enjoys a  following among the middle-class  in urban areas.

The only obstacle for Keadilan  and DAP
will be to convince the  Chinese voters
that reformasi is not  about violent
street demonstrations.

Not many are likely to be convinced that Keadilan is not involved in the
demonstrations.

Keadilan's greatest mistake  would be to
encourage its supporters to take to the streets with its  continuous emphasis that peaceful  assembly is fine.

Even the best organised gatherings with the best intentions can  turn ugly if mob behaviour takes  over.

And in multi-racial Malaysia, the 
situation is more explosive. It is not 
simply a question of the right to 
demonstrate.

Opposition leaders cannot just 
dissociate themselves from their 
supporters when such demonstrations turn ugly.

To win over the Chinese votes,  Keadilan
needs to go further.  How  different is it from Umno with a  similar affirmative action programme  a point which the DAP  had consistently challenged in its  Malaysian Malaysia programme?

If Keadilan can provide convincing answers to the community, it  would have scored substantial  gains even before the first vote is  cast.

Still, it would be politically suicidal if Chinese-based Barisan  component parties like the MCA  and Gerakan were to dismiss the  Keadilan-DAP tie-up.

There are many unknown probables in Malaysian politics these  days. Many of the MPs from the  two parties are also incumbents in  the mixed constituencies where the  combination of Malay, Chinese and  Indian votes are almost equal.

No one is sure how the Malays,  outside
the federal capital, will cast  their
votes. After all, the scenario  in the
coming general election is  entirely
different.

In the quest for the Chinese  votes, the
biggest hurdle for Keadilan is its cooperation with PAS,  which has openly stated its objective of
setting up an Islamic state.

Dr Wan Azizah has so far not  stated her
stand on the Islamic  state but it will
be a question which  she will eventually
have to answer.

The DAP has repeatedly said it  does not
want an Islamic state but  by appearing
at PAS ceramahs, it  has taken a
gamble.

But the biggest obstacle for the  DAP to
win Chinese votes is the  stature of
Prime Minister Datuk  Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad among  the Chinese voters.

To the community, Dr Mahathir  represents
stability. His announcement on Thursday that Malaysia is  expected to record a stronger gross  domestic product (GDP) growth of  5% next year, barring any major  economic catastrophe, pushed the  KLSE index up the next day.

And if the community hears a  People's
Budget in October, it will  make the job
of the opposition  much harder.

Dr Mahathir's liberal stance in  business
and education has been  well appreciated
by the community.

For the MCA and Gerakan, their  job would
be to remind the community of the reality of the numbers  game.

They are almost sure to tell the 
community that they should not do 
what the Kadazandusuns had done 
in the recent Sabah state election.

In the state polls, the community  voted
their leaders out of the state 
government.

The result was the community  lost their
chief minister Tan Sri  Bernard Dompok
and representation in government.

With most of the 48 parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak likely to be
retained by the Barisan, the  fight will
be in the peninsula for  the remaining
seats.

PAS is not only convinced it can  deny
the Barisan its two-thirds majority but believes it is capable of  forming the next federal government by
winning more than 96  seats.

To do that, PAS will have to convince all communities that it is a  relevant party in multi-ethnic and  multi-religious Malaysia.

PAS, he believed, would accept  the practical side of modern life  once they form the next government.

On a trip to the east coast recently to promote mak yong and  wayang kulit, he faced the harsh  realities.

PAS supporters roughed him out,  telling
him that these cultural  practices were
unIslamic.

He is said to have had second  thoughts
about PAS since then, although he still believes that reforms are
necessary.

Like some English-educated  middle-class
voters who have never established any contacts with  PAS, he was attracted to the calls  for justice and human rights by  PAS.

PAS, convinced that it will form  the
next federal government with  the backing
of Parti Keadilan Nasional, DAP and PRM, has now  openly talked about its plans to  govern the country.

In its attempts to set up an Islamic state, PAS leaders are talking about
banning the sale of liqour  and gaming
outlets.

On Wednesday, PAS deputy  president Abdul
Hadi Awang went  a step further  he said the Kuala  Lumpur Stock Exchange would be  banned.

Before this, PAS spiritual adviser and Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Nik
Aziz Nik Mat proposed that women should not work.

He also justified the party's  stand to
bar women from contesting in elections, saying it was to  protect and uphold their dignity.

Party president Datuk Fadzil  Noor also
ruffled feathers with his  remarks
linking pigs with the family name of Datuk Abdullah Ahmad  Badawi.

It is normal for politicians to  claim
they have been misquoted by  the press.
This was what Fadzil did  about his
remarks.

But even before that,  the party  had already shown how insensitive  it could be.

In a recent edition of Harakah, a  PAS
youth leader criticised Umno  for making
too many compromises  with other Barisan
Nasional component parties over the viral encephalitis issue.

In the April 1 issue of Detik,  which
carries the tagline Suara  Reformasi
Rakyat, the magazine  published a full
page write-up under the heading Mahathir Pelindung Cina, questioning the
ethnic  loyalty of Prime Minister Datuk  Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The newly launched magazine is  run by
writers who are known to  be openly
supportive of PAS in  their
writings.

While what they write may not 
necessarily reflect the party's official line, it provides an insight
into  the difficulties for parties
like  DAP and Keadilan to work with  PAS.

PAS leaders seem to have persistently ignored the realities and  complexities of multi-racial and  multi-religious Malaysia, preferring to make
judgments from their  narrow political interpretations.

Ideological differences would be  the
biggest obstacle to an opposition coalition and, even if such a  front is formed, it will be PAS that  will call the shots.

At this point, the opposition parties have announced that PAS will  contest in predominantly Malay  areas, the DAP in non-Malay areas  and Keadilan in mixed constituencies.

There are only so many mixed  areas to go
in the 192 seats in the  Dewan
Rakyat.

If the opposition challenge to the 
Barisan Nasional is of any consequence, it will be Keadilan, DAP  and PRM that will deliver the votes  to PAS to form the federal government.

If former Parti Melayu Semangat 46 president Tengku Razaleigh  Hamzah had problems grappling  with PAS, it is doubtful whether  Keadilan president Datin Seri Dr  Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and her  deputy Dr Chandra Muzaffar are  capable of reaching an understanding with its
leaders.

It will be even more difficult for  DAP
secretary-general Lim Kit  Siang to do
so, considering the  emerging unhappiness
among his  members over the party's
unofficial ties with PAS.

Surely, the DAP is aware of the 
sentiments of moderate Malaysians over some of the unorthodox  pronouncements of PAS.

Perhaps for this reason, DAP  deputy
secretary-general Chong  Eng decided to
put on record the  party's unhappiness
over Fadzil's  remark.

In a nutshell, PAS wants to set up  an
Islamic state, Keadilan wants  Anwar
installed as prime minister,  the DAP
wants to win non-Malay  seats and the PRM
hopes to make  its debut in
Parliament.

Keadilan has, without spelling  out the
details, told its non-Muslim  listeners
that it wants a fairer distribution of wealth among Malaysians.

But it still wants the New Economic Policy and the special privileges of Malays
to remain as it realises the importance of securing  Malay votes.

That is the bottom line of the entire affair. 
Any political party, including the communist party will  tell its people that it is fighting for  justice.

We should not be so naive as to  draw a
distinction between the  good and bad
guys in Malaysian  politics.

PAS politicians, with their dressing, may look pious but at the end  of the day, they are still politicians.

We must admit that there are  flaws in
our system but it is a  workable system.
Call it reform,  renewal and change,
whatever, but  we all understand that we
must  take bold steps to improve
ourselves.

The world is opening up and so  must we.
A whole new generation  has grown up
demanding changes  and we must be
sensitive to its  calls to stay relevant
in the next  millenium.

Status quo is not a dirty word.  Neither
is reform. But we must  never dismantle a
parliamentary  system that has worked
well.

We can have a European-styled 
proportional voting system or the 
British-inherited “first past the 
post'' voting system but the ballot 
box remains the answer to political 
changes.

Those who advocate political  change must
ask whether they  want to instal a PAS
government  which has no blueprint of
what the  party wants to do to administer
a  modern and complex Malaysia.

Wine, working mothers, gaming  and beauty
contests may seem superficial and trivial when compared to more lofty ideals
like human rights and justice but they 
are, nevertheless, issues close to 
the people's hearts.

After all, the daily cultural practices of Malaysians are more relevant at the
end of the day.

Anwar has yet to join PAS or  Keadilan
until now, setting off  speculation that
he, perhaps, still  harbours hopes of
rejoining Umno;  a party that will make a
difference.

More importantly, it succeeded in  ending vicious rumours on the Internet by his
political opponents.

This is not the first time rumours of 
his health had been circulated, particularly on the stock market.

We often forget that Dr Mahathir is  an
ordinary human being. He gets his  bouts
of flu, like all of us. He gets  tired
when he overworks, as do the  rest of
us.

He was admitted to the National  Heart
Institute even though he had a  lung
infection because the doctors  who
performed the heart bypass operation on him in 1989 and those who  subsequently treated him are all  based at the institute.

The saddest part is that some Malaysians seem to have forgotten human values
such as compassion and  being
caring.

On this score, it is commendable  that
Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang  had,
during the debates in Parliament, wished Dr Mahathir well.

His kind gesture led to a thank-you  note
from Datin Seri Dr Siti Hasmah  Mohamed
Ali.

But for some of his political opponents, Dr Mahathir's illness has become a
matter of making political  gains.

Websites linked to this group exaggerated his illness.  One of them even  provided an hour-by-hour account of  what would take place in Kuala Lumpur should
the worst take place.

Granted that there is resentment  among
his opponents, their attitude is 
certainly contradictory to their purported principles of justice, the
creation of a civil society and a gentler 
system of governance.

Even if we do not agree with the  prime
minister, let us not lose our  sense of
decency.

By the same token, we should all be 
outraged at the assault on Datuk Seri 
Anwar Ibrahim while in police detention even if we do not agree with
his  politics.

Malaysians must know how to separate politics and personal well-being.  There is always that invisible line we  do not cross or else we are no better than
what we describe our opponents  or
enemies to be.

Foreign news reports on Dr Mahathir have also given rise to much  speculation.

It is certainly not unusual for doctors to impose a no-visitors ruling but  one news agency chose to describe  the decision as one that “raised
eyebrows.''

It even gloated about the prime 
minister's health, raising questions 
about his stamina in facing the general election.

If the restriction was not imposed  by
the hospital, there would have  been no
end to the streams of visitors, 
defeating the purpose of letting him 
recuperate.

But he still met top leaders, including Abdullah and First Finance Minister Tun
Daim Zainuddin.

The speculation surrounding him  could
have been avoided if there were  detailed
information on the nature of  his
treatment.

Much as we accept that he is like  the
rest of us in terms of health, he is 
unlike us in that he is the prime minister.

The concern shown by Malaysians  is
understandable. Though the nation's economic and political stability  does not hinge on him alone, his well being
can help maintain confidence.

It has to be accepted that any uncertainty caused by the speculation  on his health 
will affect the nation's 
political structure.

Whatever it may be, Malaysians  should
learn from the episode that Internet news is unreliable.

Despite having experienced before  how
the Internet has been abused to  spread
lies and rumours, many Malaysians are still prepared to swallow  everything that appears on their computer
monitor.

Those behind these vicious lies  apppear
to be those who had complained loudly about the mainstream  media's lack of credibility and
objectivity.

Yet, when they spread such blatant  lies,
it is condoned by their leaders.

Granted that national reconciliation  is
more difficult now, in the wake of 
current political developments, it is 
time for moderate Malaysians to say 
no to those who cannot exercise political self-restraint.

Moderate Malaysians will not accept those who advocate street chaos,  assassination and hurl curses at our  leaders.

We are Malaysians. If you cannot  respect
the prime minister, you  should at least
respect the chair.

Malaysians have reasons to be  concerned with political developments in
Indonesia.

The strife in our neighbouring  country
is much too near for our  comfort.
Kalimantan is just at  our
doorstep.

The madness saw 12,000 Madurese refugees sweltering in Pontianak with many
attempting to  cross to neighbouring
Sarawak  recently.

Authorities had no choice but  to block a
boat carrying 411 Madurese refugees from landing to  discourage a flow of boat people.

As ethnic violence flares,  threatening
the country's already fragile fabric, the political  temperature in Jakarta, too, has  shot up.

Indonesian students who protested against the shooting of  student demonstrators last May,  clashed with the police last week.

It was the first violent clash in  almost
a month.

Many of us in this region are  watching
closely the political developments ahead of the June  elections.

As the students pressed for  President
B.J. Habibie to hand  over power to a
transitional government, the main contenders 
have gone on the last lap of the 
campaign.

The scenario is as chaotic as  the waves
of religious, ethnic and  social tensions
sweeping the  sprawling archipelago with
no  clear-cut winner until now.

Habibie is harshly dismissed  by his
opponents as the mad scientist who says the wrong things  at the wrong time.

Abdurrahman Wahid is the  blind leader
from Naddlatul Ulama, the largest Muslim organisation, who wants a secular
nation.

At the same time, he has said  he would
not back Megawati Sukarnoputri, another presidential  runner, because she is a woman.

Megawati is regarded by many  as a
housewife with no vision.  Her opponents
insist that her  backers are banking on
her name  but she doesn't run the
show.

Then, there is university lecturer Amien Rais, who has been  widely criticised for soliciting  support from the Americans and  Europeans.

Most of us in the region want to  see a
return to normalcy in Indonesia as political and economic  stability is vital to the progress  of the country.

What happens in Indonesia also  has an
impact on neighbouring  countries. If the
situation there  worsens, wrong signals
will be  sent to many countries.

To many Americans and Europeans, there is little difference  between Malaysia and Indonesia.

There are some local politicians and non-governmental organisation leaders who
are not  comfortable with the way
the  media has played up the
violence  in Indonesia.

Reminders by government  leaders on the
need to avoid chaos and uncertainties, they argued, was a form of intimidation  among the people.

It was unfair to allege that the 
violence was caused by the reformasi movement in Indonesia  when a large part of the violence  was planned and executed by  certain groups within the Indonesian
army.

These politicians said the conditions in Indonesia and Malaysia  are different.

They are right. From the start,  it was
their tactical mistake to  imitate the
reformasi movement  in Indonesia.

The Malaysian reformasi supporters chanted the same slogans, wore the same
headbands  and staged similar
demonstrations.

Many of the reformasi leaders  fled to
Indonesia as self-imposed  exiles.

They were also eager to gloat  over the
Indonesian reformasi  ability in toppling
Suharto and  wanted the local version to  achieve the same with the Malaysian
leadership.

Indonesian leaders like Amien  Rais and
their mass media openly criticised the Malaysian Government and went on to
endorse  the reformasi movement in
Malaysia.

Unlike the more passionate Indonesians, the response towards  the demonstrations among Malaysians were
different. Most  Malaysians were unhappy
with  such illegal assemblies.

Moderate Malaysians could not  accept the
torching of two motorcycles belonging to policemen  and the beating up of reporters  during the demonstrations.

Like in Indonesia, the local 
demonstration organisers were 
quick to blame it on provocateurs 
and the police whenever the so called peaceful assemblies  turned ugly.

But when US Vice-President Al  Gore came
to Kuala Lumpur to  back the reformasi
group, the silent Malaysians finally roared 
their anger.

There are further differences  between
Malaysia and Indonesia.  Unlike
Indonesia, which will be  holding its
first presidential election, we have a strong tradition  of parliamentary democracy.

The army has no place in our  Dewan
Rakyat, PAS gets to capture a state government and  openly sells its official publication meant
only for members.

Large ceramahs are held all  over the
country, in many instances, with no permits.

It appears now that groups who  are
uncomfortable with reports  of violence
in Indonesia have  realised it was a
mistake right  from the beginning to copy
the  Indonesian reform movement.

Of course, many will argue  that more
democratic values  should be injected
into our system.

Positive changes are necessary  to
strengthen the existing political system. Irrespective of  whether these changes come  from the Government or reformasi group, we
must not be  afraid of change.

Flaws, which stand in the way  of
progress, must be rectified.  Archaic
laws, which are no longer relevant, ought to be amended  or even repealed if the need  arises.

There has been too much black  and white
in gauging political  sentiments. Let's
not forget those  in the middle.

If Malaysians do not want to  see the
chaos in Indonesia take  place in
Malaysia, it is not because of press reports or perceived intimidation.

Let's not insult the intelligence  of
Malaysians. They know who  are the
backers of street demonstrations.

If anything, everyone will have  his own
perception of what and  how the nation
should go in becoming more democratic.

Preachers of democracy and  freedom must
not forget that democracy and freedom is not only  for them. It is also for those who  disagree with them.