Barisan Nasional leaders have  regarded the state polls as a test of  public support for the Barisan Nasional since
the sacking of Datuk  Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Although the fight for votes in  Sabah
have always been robust, it  is unlikely
Anwar's sacking would  be a contentious
issue.

While Anwar has played a prominent role in Sabah Umno and could  even be credited for playing a major role in
the last state polls, federal issues matter more. In fact,  the opposition PBS has not even  bothered to link up with pro-reformasi
groups.

In a state where anything political is possible, the word is that  Barisan and PBS are already talking about
coming back together.  The only question
is whether it  should be before or after
the polls.

There is also this tricky question  of
whether the chief minister's rotation system among the three  main communities should continue.

Should the PBS return to the  coaltion,
it would be a boost to Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's  leadership.

At the federal level, the three  main
Barisan component parties   Umno, MCA and
MIC  will hold  their elections.

Umno has scheduled to hold its  internal
polls in June with the focus on the contest for the deputy  president and three vice-president  posts.

The main contenders for the  number two
slot is said to be Datuk  Seri Najib Tun
Razak, Datuk Seri  Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
and  Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

In the MCA, moves have been  made to
ensure a no-contest elections at the vice-presidency level.

Party president Datuk Seri Dr  Ling Liong
Sik and his deputy, Datuk Lim Ah Lek, are certain to win  their posts unopposed.

The spotlight will certainly be on  the
four vice-president posts now  held by
Datuk Chua Jui Meng, Datuk Ong Ka Ting, Datuk Dr Fong  Chan Onn and Datuk Yap Pian  Hon.

Should Youth Chief Datuk Chan  Kong Choy
decide to vie for one of  the four slots,
as predicted, it  means a vacancy in the
top Youth  post.

There is also talk, within the party, that a contest between Wanita  deputy chief Dr Tan Yew Kew and  secretary-general Datuk Dr Ng  Yen Yen is in the offing should incumbent
Datuk Teng Gaik Kwan  step down.

But the message from the top is  “avoid
a contest,'' an advice which  members
should consider seriously with a general election looming.

Anwar's court battle will continue to dominate the news next year  as his trial will take place from  February till June. More charges  are expected to be filed against  him.

The fate of his former tennis  partner S.
Nallakaruppan, who is  charged with
possession of ammunition under the ISA, will be known  next year. His trial has been postponed to
February.

PAS is expected to be prominent  with its
efforts to win the support  of voters who
are uneasy with Anwar's sacking from Umno.

So confident is PAS with its  plans to
make inroads into states  such as Perlis,
Kedah and Terengganu that it has started wooing the  non-Malays.

But it is unlikely that the non Malays, regarded as the deciding  factor in a closely-contested general
election, will find PAS appealing  with
its orthodox practices. Most  non-Malays
find the thought of  PAS denying Barisan
a two-thirds  majority in Parliament
frightening.

Certainly, DAP must have  gauged the
sentiments of the non Malays on the current political  scenario as evident by the DAP's  moves in distancing itself from  PAS of late.

PAS has claimed that its membership has increased five-fold and  that the circulation of Harakah has  shot to 300,000. However, few in  the media and advertising industry  believe the unconfirmed circulation
figure.

What is confirmed is that sales  of most
local newspapers have  gone up despite a
boycott by reformasi supporters.

Of interest to Malaysians will  also be
the plans of Adil, the reform movement led by Datin Seri  Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and a  group of academicians.

The movement will certainly  generate
more political consciousness. With its multiracial line-up, it  will probably find a niche among  the middle class. Whether it will  have mass appeal remains to be  seen.

Adil has also decided to leave out 
politicians in an attempt to shrug 
off public belief that the reformasi 
movement has been hijacked by 
PAS. It will have to resort to the 
existing channels of democracy if 
it wants to gain credence among 
the moderates as the use of street 
demonstrations is ill-received.

But politics would not be the  only story
next year. Economics  will share the
limelight as Malaysia attempts to fight itself out of  recession.

Despite the pessimism of this  year, the
pre-Christmas rally has  brought cheer to
local stock market investors. The crowd is back at  our securities firm, bringing some  resemblance of confidence.

Many Malaysians believe that  the bullish
trend will continue with  another rally
before Hari Raya and  Chinese New
Year.

They also believe that Bank Negara will announce some positive  steps to ease the one-year freeze  on foreign capital outflows imposed in
September, which will be  another big
news item next year.

The decision to impose capital  controls
and to lower interest rates  have brought
positive results to  the economy so far.
Many will  want to see this impact
continue  next year.

For those in the newspaper industry, its almost certain that  1999, the last lap into the next millennium,
will be a memorable one.

He was then asked whether the  denial of a scholarship, for example, to a
qualified non-bumiputra  was an
infringement of human  rights.

The moderator pointed out that  the
bumiputra who won the scholarship could be from a well-off  family.

The human rights advocate from  Suaram
appeared to be caught off guard and could not provide a reasonable reply.

The lesson here is that it is not 
possible to translate human rights 
to the letter.

If we argue literally, the NEP  was certainly
against basic human  rights. But it was a
package accepted by Malaysians, including non Malays. Some see it as positive
discrimination.

It brought along political stability and the expansion of the middle  class, particularly among the Malays. A
bigger middle class means  greater
consumption which, in  turn, will
galvanise the economy.

One of the most recent significant political developments is  greater political awareness.

Malaysians, particularly the  younger
set, have begun to scrutinise the functions of our institutions.

There is no question that there  are
flaws in our system but that  does not
mean the entire system is  wrong.

If positive changes could be  made to
laws which we think are no  longer
relevant, then we should be  open enough
to review those laws.

We should also learn to appreciate the role of non-government organisations
(NGOs) in providing  feedback to the
Government.

The entry of the Movement for  Social
Justice (Adil) initiated by  Datin Seri
Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail would be another form of  check and balance.

At this point, we are unsure of its 
programme but its multi-ethnic 
composition is certainly a step in 
the right direction.

It has a list of respectable figures, lending further weight to the  movement. Comprising mostly academicians,
Adil has given the impression that it wants to play an  educator's role.

Thus, it has announced that it  wants to
be “non-political'' but at  the same
time said it would push  for
changes.

So, like many other NGOs, it may  end up
as an armchair critic by issuing press statements, giving lectures and
publishing books.

Having said that, Adil has a fresh 
chance of being more holistic in its 
approach to human rights.

One of the greatest disservice of  some
NGOs is their refusal to emphasise economic and social rights.

It is a pity that our Malaysian  human
rights groups are not committed to a more comprehensive  view of human rights. Most of them  seek to defend political and civil  rights, as they are conventionally  understood.

Whether our NGOs are ready to  admit it
or not, we cannot help but  suspect the
powerful psychological  and possibly
financial influence  and impact that
Western human  rights groups have on
their Malaysian counterparts.

Thus, our NGOs do not see our  right to
food, clothing, shelter, employment, education and health   which are all basic needs.

For example, opposition parties  and NGOs
have fought for decades  to repeal the
Internal Security Act  during elections
but the tactic has  never generated sufficient
emotions for it to be translated into 
votes.

The reason is simple. Draconian  as it
may seem, the ISA means very  little to
many ordinary people who  are too busy
trying to feed their  families.

Right or wrong, and selfish as it  may
seem, they assume that politicians should be prepared to face  the consequences of the game.

In Myanmar, the economic sanction has led to factories being shut  down. For ordinary folk, it means  loss of jobs.

The military regime is still in  power,
Aung San Suu Kyi is still in  her
bungalow, the investors merely  packed
off to neighbouring countries to set up shop and NGOs continue their
crusade.

But we spare very little thought  for the
faceless factory workers  with families
to feed. It's all too  simple to blame
the system but for  these people, it
means the right to  survive.

Surely, there must be better  ways to
pressure a government,  even if we scoff
at Asean's constructive engagement policy.

Another flaw of our NGOs is  their
continuous approach to human rights to revolve around individuals, which is a
very Western  perspective.

In Malaysia, as in many Asian  countries,
collectivity, community  and the nation
still matter.

Thus, when we talk about human  rights,
we also have to consider our  duties to fellow
Malaysians.

As proven, the right to demonstrate, as a form of collective expression, has
gone down badly with  many
Malaysians.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, shows an  overwhelming concern for political  and civil rights.

Through NGOs, Western powers  have
created the belief that human  rights is
essentially political freedom and civil liberties.

Many of us, in fact, have become  so
convinced by such arguments  that anyone
who comes up with a  different approach
is perceived as  a sycophant of the
government.

Similarly, we need not term those  who
advocate changes and reforms  as
anti-government and unpatriotic.

We must not write off those who  do not
subscribe to our views but  we must
accept the views of the  majority. Those
who talk about the  right to dissent must
respect the  majority.

There is nothing wrong for us to  tailor
human rights according to  our needs and
situation.

Politicians and activists who embrace human rights from a democratic-liberal
approach are regarded as champions of human rights  with high principles.

Many, somehow, are willing to  forgive
them even when they are  not objective.
Everyone seems to  be biased except these
privileged  human rights activists.

So, we end up having another  warped
definition of human rights.  To be
critical of the government  means to
uphold social justice.

Thus, we continue to treat lightly  the
dominance from the West in the  form of
economic superiority, authoritarianism in international relations and the flow
of information.

Our human rights groups cannot  say their
concern is merely Malaysian. If that is so, then their understanding of human
rights would  only hamper the growth of a
more  holistic understanding of this
universal value.

Malaysians deserve the right to a 
legitimately elected government 
which can ensure political and economic stability.

And if we truly subscribe to social justice, we should also be  ready to censure any move from  the West to challenge our sovereignty.

The former PAS Youth executive  secretary stood for the Bandar Tun  Razak parliamentary seat in the  1995 general election as a PAS candidate but
pulled out at the last  minute.

Three years later, he emerged as  a
leader of the reformasi movement. Before Datuk Seri Anwar  Ibrahim's arrest, he was also seen  openly at Anwar's house coordinating the
nightly ceramah.

Last week, he announced plans to 
register the movement as a political party.

Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has thrown a challenge to the  movement, saying it should test its  strength in the elections. The  movement was told that it should  get into the arena if it wanted a  change in leadership.

But Malek has now said that it  needed to
re-think its decision to  form a
political party, and the  movement had to
strategise carefully before making any legal decision.

The entry of “Parti Reformasi''  will be
another alternative for the  electorate.
It might even expand  should it decide to
forge alliances  with other
parties.

It makes sense for reformasi supporters to seek registration  either as a non-government organisation or
political party  for the  movement to be legally recognised.

Beyond allowing their registration, the Government should provide space for the
group to explain  its policies and
programmes to the  public.

They should have avenues to give  their
side of the story if democracy  is to
function decently.

Permits to hold ceramahs in enclosed premises should be given, if  security conditions are fulfilled.

As a legitimate body, it should  also be
allowed to print and distribute leaflets bearing its symbol. By  doing so, it would be held accountable for
its statements.

It will have to face the legal consequences for any unsubstantiated  accusations.

Should it decide to go ahead with  its
plan to form a political party, 
Malaysians would be able to know 
its objectives clearer.

The movement would have to reveal its membership structure, party constitution
and aspirations.

We will then know whether it intends to be Malay-based, like Umno  or the now-defunct Parti Melayu  Semangat 46, or whether it will  open its doors to all races.

Malaysians will have a clearer  idea on
whether it intends to work  with PAS and
DAP, as Semangat  had tried through
Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah and Gagasan Rakyat.

Reformasi leaders would have to  explain
how they intend to distribute wealth fairly, as they have said  so in many of its ceramahs, and  their stand on the New Economic  Policy.

More importantly, Malaysians  would be
interested to know how  the movement
intends to take them  out of the economic
recession.

As it is now, the movement merely advocates vague ideals of social  justice and its opposition to security
laws.

That aside, we do not know what  it
intends to name itself permanently although the word reformasi  is synonymous with the movement  now. While it is easily identifiable,  many Malaysians tend to draw parallels  rightly or wrongly  with 
the violent reformasi movement in 
Indonesia.

The street demonstrations in  Kuala
Lumpur, which turned ugly a  few times,
have not helped the  movement.

By adopting a Malaysian name,  the group
would be seen to be  “home grown.''
Also, it will not invite accusations that it enjoys the  support or assistance of foreigners.

While it hopes to seek foreign  support
to pressure the Malaysian  Government,
such a strategy is  bound to elicit
misgivings. Endorsement by any foreign leader 
would surely backfire.

Despite the movement's distrust  of the
local media, it cannot rely  entirely on
the foreign media for  its election
campaign.

Opposition parties like PAS and  DAP have
boycotted newspapers  some time or other,
but they have  had to turn to the local
press in the  end.

The bad blood is sometimes unnecessary. Newspapers are still the  strongest medium of communication, even when
parties rely on the  Internet, cassettes,
video tapes and  ceramahs to reach out to
voters.

PAS and DAP have never failed  to invite
the local press to their  functions as
they are aware of the  need to maintain a
relationship  with the media.

It will be interesting to see  whether
Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail will
be the de facto  leader of “Parti
Reformasi.''

No serious politician should  write off
this possible new party.  We cannot
discount the charisma of  Anwar as a pull
factor, even if he is  behind bars. In
the past, detained  DAP leaders have
contested in  elections and won with
majority  votes.

Should Dr Azizah lead the party,  there
will bound to be sympathy  votes. The
plus side is that she will  certainly
give the movement a  gentler image.

As an opposition party, there will  be
certain limits but so far the  movement
appears well-organised  and
well-oiled.

Once the movement is registered, the position of NGOs will  also be clearer. They have, on paper,
disassociated themselves from  the
reformasi movement but their  support is
an open secret.

It is a perplexing stand. If NGOs  support
the ideals of the movement, they should say so; there is  nothing to be ashamed of.

Malaysians need not be conformists. We should be allowed to have a  second or third opinion.

Democracy is about choices and  it is for
politicians to explain in  clear terms
how they can effectively lead us into the next century.

The party was eager to shed its  extremist image. In a bid to garner  votes from the non-Muslims, it set  up the Chinese Consulative Council, which
comprised non-Malay  Muslims.

Party secretary-general Halim  Arshat,
then a state PAS secretary,  was among
the speakers.

They had expected questions  about the
Internal Security Act and  other laws
which were regarded as  draconian. These
were laws the  party readily promised to
abolish.

So confident were the PAS leaders in dealing with the audience  that they opened the session to  journalists.

But what transpired was not as  what the
leaders expected.

The non-Muslim representatives  wanted to
know how the party's  viewed fashion
shows, beauty pageants, mahjong, mini skirts and eating pork.

The PAS leaders were not prepared for these questions.

A self-proclaimed DAP supporter  asked
whether a PAS government  would allow the
staging of fashion  shows. The reply was
a vague “certain fashion shows will be permissible'', but the PAS speaker
could not  be specific.

Asked how PAS could work with 
non-Muslims when the party could 
not even work with Umno members, Halim answered that PAS was  non-discriminatory because Islam  required the party to be fair to all.

When an Indian lawyer asked  whether
Islamic laws would be applicable to all, another PAS leader  reassured him that Islamic laws  were only for Muslims.

Someone from the floor then  asked
whether civil law, which was  also good,
would continue. There  was no reply from
the PAS leaders.

Another non-Muslim wanted to  know
whether special privileges  for
bumiputras would be done  away with,
given the fact that PAS  had promised a
“fair distribution of  wealth.'' Again,
the answer was  non-committal.

What about mahjong, empat ekor  and
beauty pageants?

Halim promised that the party  would not
restrict non-Muslims  from their
practices and culture,  but asked whether
it was good “to  have anak gadis
telanjang sini (to  have your daughters
naked here),''  pointing at his arms and
legs.

He again said “PAS will not curtail your rights and tradition'' when  an elderly Chinese man asked  whether he could still have his daily bah kut
teh, 4-D and kuda (horse  racing).

Finally, Halim was asked whether PAS would hold elections after it  had won. The answer given was  that the party would let the people  decide.

The dialogue ended with a promise that Chinese and Tamil schools  would continue.

There was much goodwill as the 
participants and PAS leaders adjourned for tea. Some of the non Muslim
representatives wished the  PAS leaders
luck and pledged their  votes.

But many were not convinced by  the
answers.

To show that it was serious in  getting
non-Malay support, PAS  fielded several
Chinese Muslim  candidates such as
Mohamed Redhuan Daniel Oon Abdullah and Ghazali Ho in the Merbuk and Tanjung  Malim parliamentary seats, respectively,
while Kamal Koh contested  in the
Seberang Jaya state seat.

PAS also put up several candidates in predominantly Chinese  constituencies but the strategy  failed.

The majority of the votes went to  the
Barisan Nasional who promised  a stable
government, good constituency service, liberalisation, and  funds for Chinese and Tamil  schools.

More than 10 years later, PAS  leaders
are doing the same again.  The party has
a new set of younger  leaders, but the
leadership structure headed by Datuk Fadzil Noor  is still intact.

The party has not changed its  policies
but there are moves, albeit  cautious
ones, to amend its constitution to allow non-Muslims to become associate
members.

As associate members, they will  have no
voting rights and no influence in the party decision-making  process.

The party is aware of the possibility of non-Muslim voters tipping  the scale in a tight contest against  its traditional foe, Umno, during  the general election.

PAS has made early moves by  forging ties
with non-Muslim based  political parties
and non-government organisations, including the 
DAP, Parti Rakyat Malaysia, 
Suaram, Just, Abim, Aliran and 
Tenaganita.

It has, to some degree, successfully propagated the ideals of social justice
among young, middle class non-Malays, many of whom  were still in school when the Alor  Star dialogue took place.

PAS has also cleverly seized the 
euphoria over reformasi to gloss its 
somewhat conservative image, preferring to emphasise values and  concepts which cut across religion  and race.

Pre-empting possible criticism  that it
was working with DAP, Fadzil announced that it would not  work with any non-Malay or non Islamic party
during the polls.

Likewise, the DAP realises that  to be
seen working with PAS would  only mean
the kiss of death from  its traditional
backers in the urban  areas.

As a community-oriented organisation incapable of developing a  genuinely multi-ethnic, all-rounded  national character, it is understandable that
PAS wants to project  a softer
image.

Realising that neither PAS nor  DAP can
offer itself as a viable alternative to the Barisan Nasional,  the two parties and some NGOs  have tried to cooperate on a minimum
programme.

For the first time, both opposition parties have talked realistically of
denying the Barisan a two thirds majority instead of capturing the
government.

It is through this strategy that  they
hope to get a bonus. If enough  protest
votes go to PAS and DAP,  the two parties
may just get more  than what they hope
for.

Many PAS leaders and supporters have taken to wearing the white  ribbon instead of the party's symbol of a
white moon on green background.

Like many of the NGO leaders,  PAS has
said the party is against  injustice but
not supporting the reformasi movement.

Aware of the anti-establishment 
resentment of some Malaysians, 
PAS has, however, exploited the issue.

In some ways, PAS has succeeded if their claims over the increase  of membership and the sale of Harakah are
authentic.

The willingness of PAS to be  more open
is good for the country  as it will mean
another step towards removing communalism 
from Malaysian politics. After all, 
Umno has provided membership to 
non-Muslim bumiputras from Sabah.

But PAS leaders must realise  that the
Chinese community, in  particular, is
known to be pragmatic.

Moderate Malaysians are aware  that good
governance and political  and economic
stability are better  bets for long-term
efforts.

It is easy to be a leader of a community or to whip up emotions on a  single issue. It is harder to be a  leader to all Malaysians.

The 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec)
will see the presence of leaders from countries that matter.

We all know Indonesian President B.J. Habibie and President Joseph Estrada of
the Philippines would want to be on the world stage despite their earlier
decision to stay away.

It is hard to imagine Estrada, with his fondness for theatrics, missing a
photography session with President Bill Clinton.

Never mind if the former B-grade actor has little interest or knowledge in
economics.

There is always the diplomats to fall back on. They can be relied upon for the
prepared text. A little something like those lines from a script for a movie,
you may say.

But before that, someone ought to tell him at Malacanang, diplomacy is all
about national interest  that's the
bottom line.

Leaders can preach aloud about lofty global ideals but this won't do their
countrymen much good if they return home empty-handed.

They have to secure something tangible from the talks and  the bilateral meetings.

And then, of course, there is Habibie. For all his bravado, he has also
requested for a meeting with Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

With all the starving, burning, looting and lynching back home, it is
surprising  he still has time for other
people's problems.

Meanwhile, President Bill Clinton and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
have decided to snub Dr Mahathir by refusing to one-to-one talks.

Their decision was based on “deep concern'' over the treatment of Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim.

No matter how one looks at it, it is a blow to Malaysia. Not just to Dr
Mahathir. Let's be honest here.

But consider the bright side, too. Dr Mahathir could also ask Clinton
embarrassing questions such as his back-ache, his affair with Monica Lewinsky,
perjury and the misuse of cigars.

Clinton is more likely to thank Dr Mahathir for criticising the CNN's continual
show of Clinton embracing the former White House intern.

Should Chretien lecture Malaysia about police high handedness, it would be pure
hypocrisy.

During last year's Apec summit in Vancouver, the rights of Canadians were
violated when protesters were arrested, pepper-sprayed and manhandled by
police.

Many of the protestors from non-governmental organisations, it seemed, were
beaten to a pulp.

Suits were filed by protestors alleging their right to freedom of expression
was violated. It is all very familiar for Chretien, really.

The French-speaking leader had hoped to use the Vancouver summit to raise his
international stature.

In the end, the summit was remembered for its open display of police
brutality.

Finally, someone ought to tell them, perhaps subtly, that Malaysians expect
their guests to be gracious to their host.

It is not just an Asian value or tradition. It is a universal value, very much
like human rights.

Apec leaders need to get their focus right. There is just too much at stake
here with the regional economic crisis threatening to grow into a global
recession.

We are talking about the jobs and the welfare of the ordinary people. Apec
leaders have a responsibility to us.

There is also the danger that the US officials would be preoccupied with the
looming confrontation with Iraq.

After 10 years, Apec should not be allowed to be just another talk shop where
meaningless lengthy communiques are ritually issued at the end of the
meeting.

People have begun to question the relevance of the organisation conceptualised
in the context of growth.

But it is obvious now there are too many holes and flaws in the financial
system and that all is not well with the system, a point Dr Mahathir brought up
in Vancouver.

He was then ridiculed for his attacks on the dangers of speculative
funds.

When capital controls were introduced in Malaysia  the critics charged that such controls would
only have short-term gains.

The imposition of capital controls, they argued, would prevent foreigners from
investing in Malaysia. The point here is that Malaysians want serious
investors, not speculators.

Less talked about is the fact that no one has said that the fixed rate of
RM3.80 to a US$1 is an unrealistic figure. In fact, many said the ringgit is
under valued.

The attention of the world will also be on the American attempts to stop
Japan's US$30 billion promised aid to Asia.

The Apec summit will be timely for all thinking Malaysians to ponder what their
priorities are and which countries can be counted upon to deliver real help to
get us out of the financial crisis.

But we are living in interesting times. Foreign leaders who come to our land to
bash us are suddenly regarded as heroes by some.

Notes: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (November 12 – 18, 1998 : Kuala
Lumpur).

The most obvious was the theatrical display of
representatives from the 60-or-so legal and 
human rights groups. Some of  them
demanded preferential  treatment, that
they be given  priority over other
Malaysians.

They insinuated that without  their
presence, the trial would  not be fair
and open.

The decision not to accord  them observer
status sparked a  controversy which led
to the foreign media alleging that Malaysia was afraid to let them witness the
trial.

(An observer is recognised by  the court,
gets a reserved seat  and can possibly
meet defence  and prosecution counsel.
Lawyers holding watching brief, particularly for witnesses, can raise  points of law in court.)

Three uninvited Filipino lawmakers also created a furore  over their inability to get a place  in court.

In the end, most of these foreigners managed to enter the  space-constrained courtroom  when they began queuing up,  along with Malaysians, at 6am  each day.

These representatives are  right up to a
point. It is certainly  unusual to reject
applications for  observer status; doing
so gives  the impression that they
have  been shut out intentionally.

It is unprecedented in Malaysian legal history. And since it is  an unpopular decision, Malaysia  must be prepared to face the  criticism and bad press.

But we shouldn't be unduly  worried. The
trial has gone on  smoothly. Local and
foreign  journalists have reported the  case at length. In some reports,  full-page transcripts have been  printed.

Anyone who has attended  court
proceedings would know  that the
goings-on outside the  courtroom are
sometimes more  interesting.

It has been a field day for fashion-conscious witnesses and  even some politicians.

PAS president Datuk Fadzil  Nor and his
party mates turned  up at 10am and
expected to get a  seat.

The fact that he did not get a  seat was
good enough for him to  create a ruckus.
Naturally, he  did not disclose why he
was late.

Then, the fuss over whether  Bahasa
Malaysia or English  should be used was a
case of  much ado about nothing because,  finally, both languages were  used interchangeably.

Ironically, on the table of High  Court
judge Datuk S. Augustine  Paul is a sign
declaring Gunakan  Bahasa Kebangsaan  and it 
has been there for years.

It must have been a relief to  most
people, not just foreigners,  that the
first prosecution witness   Datuk Said
Awang, the outgoing Special Branch director  
chose to give his evidence in English.

Even then, the foreigners received invaluable translation  services from volunteers, mainly law
graduates.

Others complained that the  proceedings
have been painfully  slow. The judge
writes down every single word said in the proceedings.

It must seem archaic to representatives of human rights and  legal groups who are accustomed to seeing
stenographers in  American and Australian
courts.

Aliran has proposed that the  trial be
televised live to discourage Malaysians from gathering  outside the court in their attempts to follow
the proceedings.

It is an attractive idea but the 
Malaysian judiciary is still conservative. Unlike the American  court system, the British system  which we have inherited still  does not accept cameras in  court.

Photographers are not allowed  in the
courtroom, let alone TV  crew.

Our legal officers still go to  court in
their black garb, bib  and, until a
decade ago, some of  the judges wore the
horse-hair  wig.

For the public, Said's testimony offered a rare peek into the  operations of the Special Branch.

He told the court that he was  ordered by
Anwar to obtain retractions from two people who 
wrote letters to Prime Minister 
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad alleging Anwar's sexual  misconduct.

The police, he said, went ahead  to
“neutralise'' the two “targets''   Ummi
Hafilda Ali and Azizan  Abu Bakar.

One foreign representative described the testimony as “chilling'' but those of
us who follow  the work of the CIA are
unlikely  to be surprised by such operative
words.

What is more important, however, is whether it will be a fair  trial 
not what language is  used, how
many foreign observers are allowed in, or live telecast of trial
proceedings.

The essence here is justice.

And because of the nature of  this case,
the nation is also on trial, rightly or wrongly. World attention is on the
country's institutions.

Every word printed by the media, both local and foreign, will  be scrutinised and their credibility will be
on the line. The public  deserves nothing
but the truth in  the media
coverage.

On this point, it is highly regrettable that the Asian edition  of Time magazine has printed a  survey based on 76,908 Internet  votes.

According to the report, which  will
appear in the coming issue,  93.7% of the
respondents found  Anwar guilty, 6.52%
voted innocent and 0.39% said they don't 
know.

Although the magazine acknowledged that the poll was not  scientific, the survey will only  aggravate the anxiety of those  involved in the trial.

It is best for the media to keep  to
straight-forward reporting,  without
having to resort to unnecessary commentary which  may be sub judice.

We should let the legal process  run its
course and not jump to  conclusions at
this point.

We should also not cast doubt  on the
judiciary. For those who  do, they might
find it hard to eat  their words if the
verdict favours them.

These street protests have, in  fact, taken on a more ugly dimension with
people getting hurt and  property
damaged.

As expected, both sides have  pointed
fingers at each other. The  police have
said the gatherings  were illegal and
that the demonstrators turned up prepared.

The protesters, in turn, have  claimed
that it was the police who  provoked them
with high-handed  tactics, resulting in
violent retaliation.

There is obviously a need to end  this
impasse. The police have, in  the past,
allowed opposition parties  to hold
political gatherings involving thousands of supporters.

PAS, for example, regularly  holds
gatherings at its headquarters while the DAP prefers dinner  ceramahs at restaurants and forums in hotels
to discuss controversial issues.

Often, opposition parties have  got away
scot-free with their illegal gatherings. The police would  allow the speakers to proceed and  then ask the crowd to disperse.

Since last month, the police have 
rejected applications to hold such 
gatherings on security grounds.

The proposed pro-government  rally by the
Barisan Nasional  Youth at the National
Stadium in  Bukit Jalil was rejected
outright.

The sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from the Government  and Umno has been an emotional  and divisive issue with many taking a
partisan stand.

In discussing the issue, many  Malaysians
find themselves having to take a stand despite their reluctance.

There is no such thing as being  neutral.
Everything is black or  white, with no
grey area. You are  either pro-Anwar or
pro-Mahathir.

The impression given by certain 
non-government organisations now 
is that freedom of expression has 
been denied. The street demonstrations, they argue, is the only  option left in the absence of such  an avenue.

It is obvious that we need to consider some form of channel for dissidents to
let off steam.

Fighting for human rights is fine  but
traders in Jalan Tuanku Abdul  Rahman and
the surrounding areas  are upset that
their right to earn a  living has been
affected. Taxi drivers and tour operators have also  complained of a drastic drop in income.

The police have to seriously consider allowing groups to hold ceramahs in
designated areas.

Organisers of such gatherings  can work
closely with the police to  ensure that the
security and logistical aspects are taken care of.  They will also have to keep to the  time limit and the number of  speakers allowed.

If these conditions are not met,  the
police can immediately call off  the
gathering. If necessary, a deposit must be placed with the owner of the
premises and the police to  pay for any
property damage.

We cannot ignore the importance  of
allowing Malaysians to express  their
legitimate concern in a democratically-elected society. It is a  right that must be respected.

But we must also not be so naive  as to
believe that a well-intended  gathering
will not turn violent.

In a crowd of 10,000 people, all  you
need is a group of rabble-rousers to charge the atmosphere.

The police may have good reason  for not
issuing a permit  from  the security aspect which we may  not be privy to  but where security threat is unlikely, people
must  be allowed to gather.

This will earn the authorities  much
goodwill as it will rebut allegations that police are curbing basic freedoms.

However, demonstrators must  realise that
when they attend such  gatherings, they
should be prepared to face the consequences.

A demonstration is not a picnic.  It
holds elements of danger and  risks.
Bringing children to the  street to
demonstrate is obviously  the height of
irresponsibility.

There is certainly a need for the  police
to restrain themselves, even  in a tense
situation where the likelihood of injury is real.

At the same time, we must admit  that a
certain degree of force and  fear is required
when dealing with  a mob.

It is not right to say that the police have not given enough warnings to the
protesters.

The weekly demonstrations have  been so
well-organised that their  time and place
are known to the  public in
advance.

Warnings are given by the police  through
the press, through the information ministry van and  through loud hailers on the spot.

Arrested demonstrators often  claim
innocence and say they are  mere
bystanders. The point is: If  you have no
business to be there,  stay away.

That aside, democracy has no  meaning if
we deviate from democratic norms.

It is the right of the Opposition  to
check the Executive and to question any decline in freedom and democracy.

In the past, massive signature  campaigns
have been successful in  mobilising
public opinion on such  issues as Bukit
China, the Societies  Act and the
Official Secrets Act.

Public demands contributed to  the
Government's decision to review various aspects of these issues.

Groups could also lobby MPs to  push for
their concerns  which is  why NGOs should forge a coalition  among themselves rather than  with opposition parties. Government
backbenchers would be more  accommodative
with NGOs if they  are not linked to any
opposition  party.

In issuing statements, NGOs  must realise
that they can influence the people, either directly or  indirectly. Public condemnation of  street violence by oppositionists  and NGOs would not help if they  themselves were contributing factors to such
irresponsible actions.

We Malaysians must constantly  remind
ourselves that we are one,  irrespective
of political differences.

Let us not be quick to criticise  those
who genuinely wish to see  greater
democracy in this country.  At the same
time, let us not throw  away in a moment
of haste what  has been achieved over the
last 10  years.

While NGOs have long been a  feature of other countries which  emphasises civil society, they continue to be
viewed with suspicion  here.

They are perceived, rightly or  wrongly,
as being antagonistic and 
confrontational towards the Government. They are seen to be quick  to criticise the Government but  turn mute when it involves the  wrongdoing of the Opposition.

Human rights group Suaram, for  example,
has been in the forefront  in pushing for
greater democratic  space.

It has actively sought to make  the
development and governance  process more
transparent and people-oriented.

Other NGOs which have taken  similar
roles include Aliran, Hakam, Tenaganita and Abim.

It will be wrong for us to view  groups
fighting for the cause of  human rights,
environment, consumer rights, women's rights, minority rights and democracy as
enemies of the state.

Dissent must be part and parcel  of
democracy. Divergence of  views in a
rapidly expanding middle class will continue to be a feature of Malaysian
politics.

Important changes are taking  place in
Malaysia and politicians  will have to
accept open debate to  seek consensus and
common  ground.

It is only natural that as society 
becomes more exposed, there will 
be more individuals with a critical 
outlook.

Having said that, some of our  NGOs, too,
need to evaluate themselves before they can be accepted  and, hopefully, operate in a more  open environment.

The current stance of some  NGOs, which
openly ally themselves with the Opposition, has not  endeared themselves to the Government.

These NGOs lose their right to  question
others when they work  with political
parties  either in  the Opposition or the Government.

They lose all their claims of being non-partisan when they see  themselves as pressure groups to  foment discontent.

It's worse when they break the  laws by
organising illegal gatherings.

Then, there are those who  claimed that
their decision to set  up NGOs was a
result of their disdain for politics.

But how do they justify their decisions to work with opposition  parties?

Some NGO leaders are, in fact,  actively
involved in opposition parties. They will have more credibility if they forge
coalitions against  any particular issue
among themselves rather than with political 
parties.

Confrontional strategies are 
counter-productive. Worse, such 
strategies have given NGOs a stereotype image.

NGOs can play a complementary  role. They
don't have to be in collaboration with the Government  but they need to adopt a more neutral
stand.

NGOs must be part of the democratic process. They must be seen  to be strengthening our democratic
institution.

If they can stand out as being impartial, then they will be more  readily accepted for being able to  provide feedback, including criticism, to the
Government.

They can still play their role in  making
the Executive more accountable to the public without the  pretence of representing the people.

NGO leaders are not elected representatives; they should not have  the illusion that they speak for the  people. They don't have the mandate and many
of them are, in fact,  no more than
one-man organisations.

One NGO leader, for example,  demands
transparency from the  Government but has
failed to submit the organisation's accounts for  three years.

For the matter, the financial position of many NGOs remains a  mystery to members of the public.

It is understandable that NGOs  are often
short of cash but their  position is
compromised when they  seek financial
assistance from foreign sources.

Not all NGO leaders are paid but  some
are said to draw handsome  salaries in US
dollars through contracts with foreign bodies.

A major complaint among NGOs  is the
limited coverage by the  press, which
they said had led to  the poor
understanding of their  role by
Malaysians.

It is often easier to blame others.  The
press does have its reasons for  not
using NGO press statements  sometimes
because they do not  have a blank cheque
to talk about  any issue under the
sun.

It will be more appropriate for  an NGO
registered as an environment group to stick to its scope of  interest.

In the case of the Consumers Association of Penang, consumerism  is its concern. It is registered for  that purpose but when it gets involved in
Gerak, it becomes more  complicated.

The rules are applicable to all.  NGOs
are no different.

If you have a licence to run a coffeeshop, you don't turn it into a  karaoke bar selling liquor. That  comes under another set of rules.

Similarly, if Cuepacs or MTUC  wants to
talk about other things besides workers' rights, it shouldn't  go overboard.

As the MTUC found out the hard  way,
workers may also be consumers but consumerism should be left  to CAP and Fomca.

Our NGOs need to seriously re evaluate how their quest would  help in nation-building.

For example, the newly-formed  People's
Anti-Homosexual Volunteer Movement (Pasrah) seems  odd.

It claims to be apolitical but it  will
have to do a lot of convincing,  given
the present political circumstances.

Pasrah has said it wants to curb 
homosexual behaviour among Malaysians, which is fine, but it  should not give any impression  that it will go on a witchhunt  against the gay community.

If it does, then it is no different  from
the religious bigots.

Neither should Pasrah send any  wrong
signal that homosexuality  has gone out
of control in Malaysia.

NGOs should realise that they do  not
gain automatic respect by  adopting an
anti-establishment  stand.

Those which are pro-government will lose their credibility if  they merely echo government  views without taking into account  ground sentiments.

NGOs must always remember  that while
they are for the people,  they are not
necessarily of the people and by the people.

Another report, in the same Oct  15 issue, carried a story about  singer Rafique Rashid with his latest spoof
on the country's political  events.

Both pieces gave the impression  that
Malaysians were now defying  authorities
and were finally willing  to speak up in
a country where  freedom of expression
supposedly  never existed.

The truth is that taxi drivers and  kopi
tiam customers have been  talking
politics openly for years.

Rafique and the Instant Cafe  Theatre,
for instance, have been  making a lot of
money over the  years by taking a dig at
the establishment.

Thanks, in many ways, to a decade of unprecedented economic  growth. There was a lot of money  around and many Malaysians could  afford their high-priced comic  acts.

Over the past one month, we  have been
hearing the cry for freedom of speech and expression. And  the cry has been loud.

Freedom of speech and expression is what all of us cherish and  well-meaning Malaysians would  certainly want such liberties to be  given more leeway.

Without doubt, a democratic government must be ready to face  public scrutiny. It must be held accountable
for its actions.

While at times it must make unpopular decisions, the government  must also be sensitive to the sentiments on
the ground.

The people, on their part, must  also
abide by the laws. Their grievances must be within legal parameters.

Besides the ballot boxes, we  must let a
responsible, vibrant,  credible and fair
press grow, without forgetting the country's sensitivities.

With or without the reformasi  movement,
there can be no dispute  that greater
efforts need to be  made to create a
civil society,  where the people can
participate  more actively in the
governance of  their country.

There is certainly room for democratic expansion. Freedom of  speech is thus a basic tenet of any  democratic country to ensure  there are no abuses by the Executive.

Various legislations, such as the 
Internal Security Act, the Official 
Secrets Act, the Printing Presses 
and Publications Act and the Sedition Act have been described as
repugnant to the meaning of democracy.

For many Malaysians who have  had the
benefits of liberal Western  education,
these laws are regarded  as draconian and
repulsive.

Their stance is further reinforced by the many foreign news  reports they read.

Unwittingly, they judge Malaysia in the context of the social conditions of the
country they studied  in.

It will be difficult justifying the  need
to maintain these laws but we  must admit
that they have served  the nation well,
in several instances.

Some of us shout ourselves  hoarse when
oppositionists are detained but look the other way when  drug traffickers, religious extremists and
forgers are locked up under the ISA.

Still, laws shouldn't be static. If  they
need to be reviewed to suit  the times,
they must be reviewed  and amended, at
least.

At the same time, we must also  deal with
the fact that the economic, education and exposure levels  of Malaysians are still very much  behind the Westerners.

Just recently, a mere rumour on  the
Internet about foreign immigrants rioting was enough to panic  Malaysians.

Those who rushed to stock up on 
foodstuff included many educated 
Malaysians who pride themselves 
as being “critical and thinking''.

Many of us, unfortunately, were  unable
to differentiate between rumour and fact from the mass of information in the
Internet.

The Kampung Rawa temple mosque incident in Penang is also  another recent example of how  fragile we can be.

The reality is, unlimited freedom  of
expression has never existed 
anywhere.

Freedom of expression comes  with
responsibilities. That is why  the laws
of slander and libel exist,  even in the
most advanced nations.

This democratic tenet becomes  more
difficult in a multi-racial and 
multi-religious country like Malaysia.

Malaysia has a history of racial  riots,
including the May 13 incident in 1969. In 1987, we almost  saw a similar explosion of such  ugly racial sentiments.

In both cases, racial slurs and  demands
by politicians using racial slants were contributing factors.

Many politicians clearly used  ethnic and
religious sentiments to  win votes
without givig a thought  to national
security and unity.

They include many of those who  now wear
the cloak of reforms,  talking about
social justice and  freedom.

Against the backdrop of such experiences, Malaysians need to ask  themselves whether the freedom  of speech should be unlimited per  se or do they still believe some  form of legal restraint is required.

The biggest dilemma for Malaysia is that freedom of speech can  also become a source of destabilising factor
if not exercised correctly.

Our opposition parties, for example, have little in common except  in seeing Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir  Mohamad as a common enemy.

PAS, the prime mover of the Malaysian People's Justice Movement  (Gerak) has openly said it will not  work with any non-Malay and non Islamic
party.

Strangely, many well-intended  liberals,
caught up in the current  political
euphoria, have not given  any serious
thought as to what will  be in store if
PAS were to come to  power.

The fact is that there is no real  sign
of the Opposition offering itself as a viable alternative.

The possibility of a real challenge to the present leadership  seems remote although the intensity of
people's protest has been unprecedented.

Ironic as it may seem, under his 
leadership, Dr Mahathir has allowed the media industry to flourish more
than any prime minister  before
him.

There are now more TV and radio stations, more newspapers including the
Harakah, the official  publication of PAS.

Malaysians who refuse to read  local
newspapers, for what they  perceive as
being biased and pro government, still have a choice of  foreign magazines.

They still get to enjoy CNBC  and CNN
despite the two TV stations' hard-hitting and distorted reporting on
Malaysia.

Neither is there any restriction  on the
number of circulated copies  of regional
magazines, unlike in a  neighbouring
country.

For non-Malays, we remember  we were
entitled to only one Chinese and Indian movie a week on  TV. Today, there is no limit to our  choices.

In the 1995 general election, the  DAP
admitted these liberalisations  by
adopting a slogan pushing for  greater
liberalisation.

Yet, Dr Mahathir has probably  received
the hardest knocks for  his purported
moves to stifle the  freedom of speech,
expression and  information.

In many ways, the Prime Minister has become a victim of his own  success. More than anyone else, he  has single-handedly pushed the  country to greater heights.

The kind of confidence he has instilled in Malaysians has also led to  the young to speak up and to demand for
more.

His outspokenness has led Malaysians to shed their inferiority  complex.

National unity has never been  greater.
Thanks to a large economic cake, there has been a single mindedness among the
population.

But lest we forget, politics and 
economics are inextricably linked. 
National unity can disappear overnight if we believe too much in
opportunistic politicians.

In a multi-religious and multi-racial society, governance becomes  more complicated. It goes beyond  slogan-shouting.

As academician Dr Colin Abraham puts it aptly in an article, people cannot eat
freedom of speech.

Rafique Rashid and the Instant  Cafe
Theatre, we believe, will admit that talent and a good script  are not enough to draw the crowd.

In conservative Malaysia, such allegations are viewed
seriously. Morality aside, the political implications are enormous.

The expression of anger and disbelief by his supporters are understandable in
such circumstances.

And now, the sacked Deputy Prime Minister has appeared in public with a bruised
eye. He has alleged that he was punched and slapped by police until he fell
unconscious.

No person in his right mind would condone such actions. If his allegations are
true, then swift action must be taken against the culprit or culprits.

The police have taken the right direction by setting up an independent team to
investigate the allegations.

It is in the interest of the police to ensure that the truth prevails. The
negative pre-trial publicity generated by allegations of police brutality has
been a bad start for the authorities.

Pictures of Anwar with his blue-black left eye have appeared on the front pages
of local and foreign newspapers, marring the charges levelled against
him.

The beating, if true, serves no purpose for the police. Now, the police need to
clear their name and the sooner the investigations are completed, the better it
will be for us.

Many people, including politicians, have been detained under the Internal
Security Act but this is the first time Malaysians have heard of a detainee
being beaten up.

Former ISA detainees, who have written about their experience, talked of
psychological pressure while under detention.

Under the law, the police can detain Anwar up to 60 days before deciding
whether to release him. The usual procedure would be to send the detainee to
Kamunting camp in Taiping.

Anwar alleged that he was beaten on the first day in custody. Malaysians have a
right to be concerned as this is a high-profile case.

In all fairness, it is pertinent for us to note that Anwar was given the opportunity
to let the court hear his complaints against the police. He was also allowed to
lodge a report against the police.

It is natural for Malaysians to speculate how Anwar sustained his injuries but
it is best that let the due process of law take its course.

Similarly, we should let Anwar's team of lawyers, which is said to be the best
in the profession, handle his defence.

Like the allegations of police brutality, we must see the charges against him
as allegations at this point.

It is the job of the police to provide the evidence for prosecutors. That is
how the legal system works, and should be allowed to work without
prejudice.

There should no longer be any concern that Anwar may be denied a fair trial.
Besides the foreign media, representatives of foreign missions have been
present in court.

They will be able to see for themselves how the trial will be conducted under
our British-inherited judicial system 
and handled by mostly British-trained lawyers and judges.

It is easy for us to be distracted along the way. Malaysians now get to read
both local and foreign news reports.

Credit must be given to the government for allowing free circulation of these
foreign reports, despite their distortions.

That is the essense of democracy. We may not agree with what you say but rest
assured we will defend your right to do so.

The Singapore-based CNBC Asia's correspondent here should ask himself why he
still gets to report negatively on Malaysia.

If Malaysia is a third-rate banana republic, he would have been booted out long
ago. He has injected his emotions and prejudices into his stories and
continuously run down the country on every possible issue  in the name of fair reporting.

Although there are no more riots in Kuala Lumpur, that has not stopped the foreign
media, particularly CNN, from using old footages of protests.

In the final analysis, Malaysians will be able to judge for themselves how much
of what they read or see is factually correct.

If they truly uphold the principles of fair play, then Malaysians cannot accept
foreign news reports that refuse to let the Prime Minister be heard as
fair.

Objective reporting isn't about emphasis on dissidents and opposition figures
but also the establishment.

It is not for reporters to decide who is right or wrong. Our job is to report
as objectively as possible under the circumstances.

According to the foreign press, the tight security in Kuala Lumpur has turned
the country into a police state.

But for most Malaysians, the visibility of these policemen has given some form
of assurance for us to go about our daily business peacefully.

By Western standards, demonstrations are normal expressions of grievances by
groups of people. Western reporters are therefore perplexed as to why permits
are required for such gatherings.

Many Malaysians, too, are sometimes critical of the authorities. But before we
readily embrace this concept totally, we must not forget that we have a history
of such gatherings becoming racial as they progress.

Young Malaysians should ask themselves whether they can risk allowing the
country to plunge into chaos.

For those of us who have been scarred by the experiences of the past, we see
the need to have a more cautious perspective.

The recent events have shown how difficult it is to run this country. It is
easy to change a leader but more difficult to find someone who can provide real
leadership.

It is also easy to become a leader of a group or community but to be a leader
of all Malaysians, that's tough.