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.

The party, encouraged by what it  perceives to be growing sentiments  against the Government, is no longer talking
about denying Barisan  Nasional its
two-thirds majority  but about forming
the next federal  government.

The white moon, green flags are  now seen
flying in even urban areas, not just in padi fields.

Confident of securing the Muslim votes, PAS is now trying  to win 
the non-Muslims votes.

It has even introduced a column  in
Harakah, its weekly party publication, on how to conduct discussions with
non-Muslims.

PAS believes that among the  Muslims the
line between its brand  of politics and
reformasi has become blur.

At the height of the reformasi euphoria, its leaders carefully talked  about justice and human rights.

As their confidence grew, the  leaders
have gone back to their  original mould,
preferring to talk  about their policies
and what they  want to do if they form
the next  federal government.

Those who backed PAS in past  elections
are likely to remain committed to the party.

It now hopes to garner the votes  of
supporters of  the reformasi  movement, even if some do not  subscribe to their brand of politics.

It is the same with the DAP and  PRM. In
the name of fighting a  common cause
against injustice  and for democracy,
human rights  and a civil society, these
opposition  parties are prepared to put
aside  their differences and adopt  a common platform with PAS.

A coalition of opposition parties  will
ensure a straight fight with the  Barisan
in the next general election  and  can even project itself as a viable
alternative.

But it may not be that simple. It  will
be difficult for DAP, for example, to openly tell its members and  voters to support PAS.

Unorthodox pronouncements by  PAS'
spiritual adviser Datuk Nik  Aziz Nik Mat
on the position of  women, such as
discouraging them  from working and
barring women  members as candidates,
have  raised eye-brows.

Wanita DAP chief Dr Oon Hong  Geok has
gone on record to state  the party's
objection to Nik Aziz's  proposal to stop
mothers from  working.

Strangely, some non-governmental organisations and political parties which have
been the quickest  in criticising the
Government have  remained silent on the
issue.

It is clear that these critics have 
compromised their position. They 
would be the first to cry foul if it 
was a government decision but because the proposal came from PAS,  they chose to close their eyes.

It is such double standards on  justice
and human rights that have  made these
critics questionable.

Many of them have lost their  moral
standing on many issues.  They appear to
be selective in their  concerns.

Similarly, when the reformasi  movement
talks of cronyism, it  sounds hollow
simply because  many of the leaders
themselves appear to have benefited from the 
system they now condemn.

Many have become super-rich,  not because
of their business acumen, but because of their political  affiliations.

The local media, they argued,  have
blacked out the opposition. At  the same
time, they refused to acknowledge that their publications  are publicly partisan, refusing to  even give a line to the Establishment.

The foreign media is professional and objective, by the standards  of the NGOs, because they are critical of the
Government.

The local media certainly does  have its
flaws and short-comings,  we must
admit.   But local newsmen  remain the best informed journalists, even if
their assessment of the  recent Sabah
elections that the  Barisan would win was
ignored by  many people, including academicians.

That is simply because many   whether in
opposition or Government  chose to
believe in their  own propaganda.

They believe that the silent majority are as passionate about issues as them
but not every Malaysian is pro-Mahathir or pro-Anwar.

Many Malaysians are really  turned off by
the reformasi slogans  and
demonstrations.

Similarly, they dislike the arrogance of some government leaders,  who assume they know best.

Huge turn-outs at gatherings  must not be
taken as indication of  support by any
party.

The majority of Malaysian voters  are
taking the middle path. Their  main
concerns are paying the bills,  the
housing loans and looking after  the
welfare of their children. They  spend
time with the family during 
weekends.

These are the moderates who understand the need for political and  economic stability.

Allies of Anwar have entertained  the
idea of setting up a multi-racial 
party.

In the Malaysian-context, a  multi-racial
party is still dominated by one race.

For example, the Malays dominate PRM, the Chinese the DAP  and Gerakan and the Indians the  PPP.

Assuming that the new Anwar linked party decides to be Malay based like Umno,
it will be competing for the same audience with 
PAS. Inadvertently, both parties 
will become competitors.

But there will be more obstacles  along
the way. How will a more  moderate Malay
or multi-racial  party, led by Anwar and
DAP, tell  their voters to back PAS to
ensure  a direct contest between the
opposition and Barisan.

A vote for PAS will mean an endorsement for PAS' policies. It  means a yes for its fundamentalist  objectives, which moderate Malaysians in our
multi-racial and multi religious society cannot possibly  accept.

The DAP has rejected PAS' objective of setting up an Islamic  state but by working with PAS indirectly
through common issues, it is  still
helping PAS to increase its 
representation in Parliament.

The Westminster system may  have its
flaws but moderate Malaysians must do all they can to protect the system.

We should rectify the weaknesses of the system and not tear it  down entirely for another system  which we are not sure of.

There is a difference between  the forces
of democracy and the  forces of
extremism.

The villagers, predominantly of  the Foochow community, knew  each other well and many had continued with
their family business  of pig
farming.

But things have changed since  the
outbreak of the deadly viral 
disease  Japanese
Encephalitis.

Like their neighbours in Kampung Sawah and Kampung Pelanduk, Sungai Nipah
villagers depended on pig farming for their 
livelihood.

As more victims of the JE died,  the
Cabinet stepped in to find solutions.

The job will not be an easy one, 
particularly for Health Minister 
Datuk Chua Jui Meng.

After all, we are dealing with human lives and the rice bowl of the  community.

There are two important factors  here.
First, lives must be saved  and the
killer virus must be  stopped fast.

The first death caused by the JE  was in
Perak in October 1997 and  the problem
does not appear to  have ended.

The JE is not something new,  that is the
sad part. Veterinary and  health
authorities have been conducting research on the disease as  far back as 1953.

We are now told there may be a  second
virus about which we have  little
information.

The setting up of the Cabinet  task force
means a concerted action has been taken.

The strategy involves destroying the animals with the help of the  army and police; intensifying fogging to get
rid of the vector Culex  mosquito;
vaccinating the farmers  and people
living within a 2km radius of affected areas; and treating  all JE patients in one special ward  in government hospitals with specialist
attention.

The outbreak could not have  come at a
worse time as the country's economy has yet to fully recover. The industry,
which is  worth about RM2bil, has been
ravaged.

This is not the time to point fingers but to find solutions. No one  should use the JE issue for selfish  political reasons.

There is nothing more sinful  than to
politicise the issue to score  political
gains. Those who do are  merely riding on
the miseries of  the victims.

Politicians who merely issue  press
statements and make visits  to these
villages to incite anger are  not helping
the victims.

We need people who can handle  the task
and help put the farmers  back on their
feet.

It must be insane for anyone to  even
imagine that the Government  is
unconcerned about the JE problem.

There should be no racial or political considerations in handling  this problem which has, in all intents and
purposes, become a national tragedy.

It speaks well for Malaysia that  the
rearing of pigs has never been  an issue
and it should be kept that  way.

The pig farmers must understand the need to start afresh. That  means the animals suspected to be  infected have to be destroyed and  the carcasses disposed of in a hygienic
manner.

There must be proper waste disposal management as it is an important aspect of
preventing any  disease outbreak.

Every measure must now be taken to confine the disease to Negri  Sembilan. It must not be allowed to  become a nationwide epidemic.

More importantly, the industry  must be
saved. Our pig farmers  must modernise
their animal husbandry practices and go for centralised and integrated
farming.

When all this is over, the authorities should organise trips for  these farmers to Taiwan and Japan  to study the modern farming  methods there.

To help these farmers go  through this
rough patch, there is a  need to initiate
some form of self help programmes, including credit  facility to get the industry going  again.

These farmers would need to  pay off
their debts and to acquire  the necessary
capital to restart  their business.

The MCA, Federation of Chinese 
Associations Malaysia, Associated 
Chinese Chamber of Commerce  and
Industry, Selangor Chinese  Assembly Hall
and the Federation  of Livestock Farmers
Associations  must now be seen to
spearhead  help programmes for the
victims  and their families.

But we must also not forget the  consumer
end. Malaysians must  have access to
accurate information about the disease.

That means the Health Ministry  must be
open and available to the  media. The
media, on their part,  must refrain from
publishing unsubstantiated reports which may 
give rise to rumours.

There is also the educational aspect. Efforts must be made to inform Malaysians
about the correct  and effective
preventive measures  to take to check
JE.

This episode should also serve as  a
lesson, especially to the authorities, on the need to be firm and decisive in
dealing with such situations.

The Veterinary Services Department plays a key role in this area,  particularly the movement of animals. There
is obviously a need for  better
enforcement.

The nation has gone through  such episodes
before, although  probably not of such
magnitude  where human lives are at
stake.

It is better to be unpopular by  making
firm decisions in the interest of the country and the people.

Last Saturday, Klang MP and  Wanita MCA deputy chairman Dr  Tan Yee Kew led a group of community leaders
to a feast of bah  kut teh to prove there
is no reason  to fear a belly-up eating
pork.

A few days later, it was MCA 
vice-president Datuk Chua Jui 
Meng's turn to lend his stomach. 
The Health Minister ate several 
pieces of roasted pork to prove 
that the publicity over the spread 
of JE had gone overboard.

The DAP obviously found it difficult to stomach Chua's bravado.  On Tuesday, 
its leaders turned up  in full
force for their bah kut teh  feast after
party secretary-general  Lim Kit Siang
had announced a  “Save Bah Kut Teh''
campaign.

“We have seen a roasted tiger in 
Kelantan, dead pigs in Seremban 
and now a dead dugong in Johor. 
We should demand a Commission  of
Inquiry,'' one DAP supporter demanded.

With the “Save Bah Kut Teh''  campaign,
he reasoned, the DAP  would be able to
impress upon the  Chinese community the
party's seriousness in fighting for their interest.

The MCA, he grunted, had been  too slow
in responding to the needs  of the pig
farmers.

Call it pork-barrel politics or 
whatever, the MCA is not amused 
by the DAP antics either. Its supporters claim the DAP is capable  only of snorting.

“The only thing they are good at  is
sowing hatred for the government,'' one member said.

Both parties are saying they are  no
push-overs and certainly no  easy meat,
as far as the JE issue is 
concerned.

Said a bah kut teh eating academician: “It's a hot issue for both  these Chinese-based parties.

“They want to prove they are  still
lean. They are eager because  of the next
general elections.''

A veteran journalist, however,  said the
JE issue should not be politicised as it was a health problem.

“Let's keep our sanity. Lives and 
livelihood are at stake here. The 
DAP should not piggy-back on the 
issue to gain votes.

“It's simply distasteful. There is 
nothing rib-tickling at all.

“The farmers must not lose their  income
and their children should  be able to
continue putting money  into their piggy banks,''
he cautioned.

For consumers, many seem to  have
chickened out, shunning bah  kut teh for
other meats.

“We would rather eat chickens  now,
although it's less fleshy. I  know some
of us are over-reacting  but we would
rather wait and see,''  one confessed.

Pig farmers are understandably  concerned
over what has been happening and they have demanded  quick and effective help from the  Government.

“We are merely demanding justice. If the authorities don't help,  they will be meat balls come election,'' one
farmer complained.

He also warned the press, especially those from the vernacular  papers, to check their facts first.

“We are disappointed with some  members
of the media who exaggerate the issue.''

But over in the Land Below The  Wind, Sabahans
have continued to  have their bah kut teh
with little  hesitation.

Said a regular eater: “It's a semenanjung problem lah. There's  no JE problem here. We are only  interested in state issues.

“We are not concerned about  dead pigs.
We're sorry to hear  about your dugong
but we only  want to talk about kataks
(frogs).

“When the election results are  out,
we'll know how the kataks performed. That's the only thing  brewing here beside my bah kut  teh.''

Bah kut teh or whatever, politics  must
be put aside sometimes. Or  else
over-eager politicians, irrespective of their political affiliations, may find
themselves in hot  soup.

In recent years, the MCA has  been able to consolidate its  strength in the government. That in  many ways is due to the electoral  support given by the community.

The party has since carried out  numerous
projects close to the  heart of the
community, particularly on education and culture.

The Langkawi project, the setting up of TAR college branches,  and promoting information technology in
primary schools are some  of the well-received
efforts.

The MCA's performance will be  evaluated
again when the present  term of the
Barisan government  ends in April next
year.

For the Chinese community, the  issue is
simple: Whether it wants to  ensure the
MCA's effectiveness in  government.

The community is already fragmented politically through several  supposedly multi-racial parties.

Until 1995, the urban Chinese  have been
perceived to be supportive of the DAP. The result was increasing weightage
given to rural  areas in the delineation
of constituencies.

The drawing of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party,  known as gerrymandering, is not  something unusual in the Westminster style of
democracy.

Before the 1969 general election,  the
MCA was rewarded with key  ministerial
positions such as the Finance Ministry and the Trade and  Industry Ministry.

These plums jobs were the result  of the
community's backing for the  MCA in the
1955, 1959 and 1964  general elections;
1969 was the  community's gravest mistake
and  the implications were felt.

Faced with the reality of having  to send
fewer representatives to  Parliament, the
community will  again have to decide
whether it  wants its representatives on
the  government or opposition
bench.

In urban areas like Penang and  Selangor,
some members of the  community want the
best of both  worlds  they want the MCA at  state level and DAP in Parliament.

Sensing such sentiments, particularly with the current political  scenario, the DAP has been low key,
campaigning along the lines  that the
Barisan is in no danger of  losing the
federal or state governments.

The hope is that there will be  enough
protest votes to bring along  a
windfall.

But the Chinese community has  come to a
crossroads. Like it or not,  politics in
Malaysia is a numbers  game.

A weakened Chinese representation will mean little or no voice in  the formulation or implementation  of government policies. It's simple  arithmetic 
less than 20% of the 
parliamentary seats are Chinese majority.

There is also the belief that the 
Chinese population is shrinking in 
size, with most families having 
only one or two children.

In addition to larger rural migration to towns, the future will see  more foreigners becoming permanent residents
and eventually citizens. This will change the racial  make-up of urban constituencies.

Even now, any form of Chinese  opposition
will bring minimal impact.

As the community moves into the  next
millennium, the stakes are  higher. The
question that comes to  mind is whether
they wish to throw  away a protest vote
or whether  they must remain pragmatic,
focussed and practical.

Unlike other countries with parlimentary rule, the Opposition plays  more than just the role of a watch dog.

Besides having a Shadow Cabinet, the Opposition has a proper organisational
set-up with the ability  to draw up
alternative policies and  to offer itself
as a viable alternative government.

Until Malaysians see that, there  is
really little choice. For the community, any dissipating of votes  will erode its bargaining strength  in government.

Despite the DAP's projection of  MCA
leaders as lame ducks in government, they have been able to influence many key
decisions affecting the community.

The MCA's disadvantage is that  it is
unable to claim credit for  many
decisions because it accepts  the fact of
collective decision-making.

As a team player, it must defend  all
Cabinet decisions, popular or  otherwise,
but its voice in Cabinet  is crucial for
the community.

There has been suggestions that  the DAP
and PAS work together, as  one prominent
academician pointed out in the latest issue of a regional magazine.

He argued that if the MCA and  Umno could
work out the citizenship issue then, he sees no reason  why DAP and PAS could not.

There is a flaw in the argument.  The MCA
and Umno remain committed to the system of Westminster democracy and both
parties  share a similar philosophy on
how  they can work out national
issues.

PAS has not committed itself to  this
political system should it form  the next
federal government. It  has, in fact,
said it wants hudud  laws in place.

Umno has been generous enough  to allow
MCA candidates to contest  in mixed or
even predominantly Malay constituencies. That is commitment to
power-sharing.

The same cannot be said of PAS. 
Malaysians cannot imagine DAP 
Chinese leaders contesting in Kelantan or Terengganu with support  from PAS.

PAS, which does not field women 
candidates, is certainly not expected to field non-Muslims as
candidates.

So, the likes of Tian Chua and  Irene
Fernandez can offer themselves as independent candidates  endorsed by DAP, PAS, HAK and  Adil if they find party politics too  partisan.

But why should the DAP support  these
activists if the party thinks  its own
members have a chance of  winning that
particular constituency?

At a recent forum involving DAP  and Adil
supporters in Penang, a  reformasi
supporter stated that the DAP should not make use of Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah
Wan Ismail.

Another speaker, presumably a  PAS
supporter, reminded the DAP  about its
opposition to the setting  up of an
Islamic state in 1990   which
subsequently led to DAP  deputy chairman
Karpal Singh's  apology at the same
gathering.

In all fairness to the DAP, it must  be
pointed out that it has toned  down its
chauvinistic image.

The younger DAP leaders have  defended
cases involving non-Chinese and it has also tried to project  a stronger multi-racial appeal.

Over the years, it has attempted  to work
with Malay-based parties  such as Parti
Melayu Semangat 46  and now, Adil.

That is, however, different from  forging
a real multi-racial coalition  party that
is capable of governing  the country
effectively.

For the Chinese, they realise the 
importance of a strong political and 
economic system  one that the  MCA has in no small part contributed to over
50 years in nation building.

DAP and PAS can present a powerful combination without
eating  into each other's turf. As
established parties, their leaders command a huge following.

Despite their complaints of alleged media blackouts, their prominence is
certainly due to continuous coverage by the local media  and not the occasional coverage by  the foreign media.

Their leaders are realistic  enough to
invite the local media to  all its press
conferences., even  when these opposition
leaders decide to deride their guests.

The cooperation between DAP  and PAS is a
sensitive issue to both  sides because it
can be a double edged sword.

It makes good political strategy  but at
the same time allows the  nemesis of the
two parties to attack  them.

There is no love lost between the  MCA
and DAP as both try to outdo  each other
to win the support of the  Chinese electorate.

As much as it tries to project itself as a multi-racial party, the  DAP is predominantly-Chinese in  membership.

PAS, on the other hand, is rural based and boasts strong backing in  the east coast. It now hopes to bank  on the resentment among Malay  voters over the sacking of Datuk  Seri Anwar Ibrahim to gain electoral
mileage.

Following Anwar's ouster, both  parties
have worked on the question of democracy, human rights  and justice with other parties and  NGOs.

DAP leaders have also appeared  at PAS
ceramahs at their Gombak  headquarters
and in other states.

That has been enough for Barisan Nasional leaders, especially  those from MCA, to challenge the  DAP on its stand regarding the setting up of
an Islamic state  an  ultimate objective of PAS.

The apology by DAP deputy  chairman
Karpal Singh over his  “over my dead
body'' remark in the  1990 general
election, and subsequently front-paged in Harakah,  did not help clear the confusion.

But in all fairness to DAP secretary-general Lim Kit Siang, he has  reiterated several times that the  party is against the setting up of an  Islamic state.

It must be pointed out that he has  also
said that the DAP will not have  any
electoral pact with PAS in the  next
general election.

Lim is well aware of the sentiments of party members and the  community on the issue. That, perhaps,
explains why the party leadership is agitated over the constant  demand by the MCA for an explanation on its
cooperation with PAS.

MCA leaders are now claiming  that the
DAP is evading the issue  by attacking
the performance of  party president Datuk
Seri Dr Ling  Liong Sik as Transport
Minister.

They have also questioned why  Karpal
Singh should make the apology, asking whether it was aimed  at appeasing PAS supporters.

On Friday, Lim said that he  would
convene a meeting of political parties, NGOs and prominent  Malaysians on March 16 to examine and study
the threat of a purported biased mass media to democracy.

The press, he said, had attempted  to use
the issue of Islamic state and 
misrepresent the DAP's stand on 
the Islamic issue.

The DAP leadership should not  blame the
press, which is merely  reporting
statements by Barisan  leaders
challenging the DAP to explain the status of its cooperation  with PAS.

The party cannot claim there is a  media
blackout if its rebuttals have  no direct
relevance to the original  issue.

Malaysians can judge for themselves the merits of the case by  reading the full transcript of statements
issued by the party on its 
website.

Whether the issue has been ignored by the press or not, the subject is likely
to surface during the  election
campaign.

Barisan and the DAP should cut  their
rhetoric, press intimidation  and
name-calling over the “opposition pact'' issue. Malaysians are  more interested in the substance of  the argument.

One way out for the DAP is perhaps to cut all linkages with PAS  and to concentrate only on HAK  and Adil.

The Islamic state issue aside, the  DAP
has also put to test its decision  to
support the reformasi campaign.

Chinese-based Barisan component leaders seem convinced that  Chinese voters are not as passionate as their
Malay brethren on the  Anwar issue.

Some have even said that the reformasi movement, especially with  its demonstrations in the early  stages, were equated, rightly or  wrongly, with the protests in Indonesia which
led to racial riots.

They argued that the Chinese  voters have
a phobia about luan  (chaos) and that
their concern  would be political and
economic  stability.

The DAP protest against toll  rates was
more practical as the  matter had direct
impact on people's pockets, which explained why 
the MCA and Gerakan joined in the 
protest.

Cooperation with groups supporting the reformasi issue is another  double-edged sword for the DAP.

The move may win the support of 
liberals, particularly the English educated urban middle class, but  among the Chinese grassroots, the  scenario is less clear.

Still, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah  Wan
Ismail is convinced that the  support
from the Chinese is there,  saying the
community had given  her family “quiet
but firm moral  support in this critical
time of trial  and tribulation.''

The DAP is also sure that any  form of
injustice and the lack of  transparency
will be sufficient to  generate protest
votes at the polls.

It also hopes to get the support of  the
voters by highlighting the imprisonment of Kota Melaka MP  Lim Guan Eng.

In the spirit of Gong Xi Fa Cai, 
Malaysian Chinese politicians must 
remember that they can disagree 
on many issues but they must never be personal in their
politicking.

If Barisan leaders must tolerate 
dissent, oppositionists, who make a 
career attacking the government, 
must sportingly accept the knocks 
when their turn comes. That's democracy.

There is now co-operation 
among the opposition parties and 
some non-governmental organisations.

Still, the DAP has come out  openly to
declare its objection to  the setting up
of an Islamic state  as advocated by
PAS.

Both parties have ruled out an  electoral
pact in the next general  election
because of their differences.

But in the same breath, the two  parties
have also said they will  work together
on other issues.

For strategic purposes, it  makes sense
for both parties to  work together to
fight the Barisan.

Besides projecting a united opposition front, 
their emphasis on  common issues
will provide a  sharper focus to their
campaign,  thus generating greater
response.

The two parties have also tied  up with
Adil, the movement led  by Datin Seri Dr
Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail.

It will come as no surprise if  DAP, PAS
and Adil also join  hands with the
yet-to-be-registered HAK, initiated by allies of  Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The tie-up is pretty clear as  Adil is
open to all races while  HAK is only for
Muslims, with  non-Muslims as associate
members.

Associate members have no  right to vote
or to hold positions,  thus their
presence will provide  them with almost
no clout.

There is also the Parti Rakyat  Malaysia,
which has failed in every election, in the loose coalition.

The combination of DAP, PAS  and HAK may
seem to be a  strange brew but its impact
can  be strong.

The strategy appears quite  simple. PAS
hopes to get the non Muslim votes and the DAP the  Muslim votes.

PAS, PRM and HAK are banking on the Anwar issue to score  while DAP hopes to exploit the  imprisonment of Kota Melaka  MP Lim Guan Eng.

But at the end of the day, the  biggest
beneficiary may well be  PAS  which has cleverly taken off  its Islamic cloak to put up its reformasi
image.

Instead of talking about hudud  laws and
Islamic state, it is temporarily stressing democracy  and human rights.

Democracy and human rights,  after all,
have a more universal  appeal
acceptable  even by the  yuppies with their liberal political
inclination.

Forget about HAK or DAP, the  only party
which can do serious  damage to Barisan
is PAS, and  the fight in the rural
heartland  may be more intense.

For the electorate, it is not just  a
question of Umno versus PAS.  It is also
more than just about  democracy and
justice but a  question of the kind of
political  system that we,
Malaysians,  want to live in.

Can moderate Malaysians accept the kind of self-styled, self righteous moral
practices advocated by PAS leaders in multi-religious plural Malaysia?

It is highly unlikely that liberals will accept the dogmatic  changes in Kelantan under the  PAS administration unless we  accept segregation of sexes in  supermarket queues, lights-on in  cinemas and even dikir barat  ban, among other religious-moral moves.

The present system of government, with all its flaws, is still  the best kind of system.

Malaysians may vote against  the
government for what they  perceive to be
injustices inflicted on individuals but they must  never dismantle the very parliamentary system
which allows  them to vote.

Our constitutional and legal  rights need
to be strengthened,  not eroded. We have
a right to  know what kind of positive
political and economic changes our 
politicians can bring us.

Transparency is not just confined to the government. We  have a right to information from  opposition parties too.

Integrity and credibility are  also
something we expect from  politicians,
opposition or otherwise.

Malaysians cannot put their  future at
stake on some vague  promises made by
politicians.

It is not the time to experiment. We all deserve to know exactly what our
politicians want  to do to put Malaysia
back on  track economically.

By that, we mean politicians  with
impeccabble experience in  modern
management, economics  and administration
that will  bring us into the next
century  competently and
effectively.

We should also ask whether  the next
federal government can  last or will
collapse within  months after winning
because  the coalition partners have
stark  differences.

We must never lose sight of  our
direction, that is to create a  mature,
fully developed, liberal  and tolerant
society in which the  ethnic, political
and civil rights  of all Malaysians have
a place.

Any attempt, whether subtle  or
otherwise, to set apart and  separate our
present system of  parliamentary
democracy will  be a grave mistake.

It is always easy in a politically charged atmosphere to cast a  protest vote but Malaysians  must ask whether it will threaten  the existing political and economic
framework.

We must never sacrifice our  spirit of
tolerance and goodwill  and must reject
any form of intolerance. Moderation, in demands and speech, is the key to  success for Malaysia.

We can talk about the right to 
demonstrate as a form of freedom of expression but we only  need to look at our neighbour to  understand the kind of mess  they have got themselves into.

Beginning from now until the  elections,
politicians will promise anything but from now, we  must assess their pledges with a  level head.

Many of us pride ourselves on  being
educated and able to think  but at times,
we let our heart  rule our head.

While the LDP users, especially residents in the affected
areas, will save 50 sen per trip,  they
and other taxpayers will  have to
shoulder the burden of  paying RM85mil in
compensation to the concessionaire for 
that road alone.

Motorists have been told that  there will
no new highways until  the people want
them and are  willing to pay.

Generally, users are willing to  pay for
better quality roads. The  contention has
always been over  the amount of toll
charges.

The over-riding factor now is  that the
Government can no  longer afford to
subsidise road  users.

With scarce funds, subsidies  used to pay
these toll operators  should by right be
used to pay  for development
projects.

Thanks to an unprecedented  period of
economic boom, we  saw the expansion of
the middle  class. More Malaysians
began  owning a car or two.

Bus operators may pass the  cost of
increased toll charges to  passengers but
the amount  would be minimal.

Taxis and buses pay half the  charges for
commercial trucks  and private cars,
leaving a mild  effect on the lower
income.

Motorcyclists don't have to  pay toll.
Likewise, if you take the  commuter train
or the LRT.

The biggest beneficiaries are  car
owners. Not only do city folk  travel
more, there is wider use  of highways for
economic activities.

Like the LDP protest and the  Cheras toll
issue some years ago,  the loudest
complaints came  from the
residents.

Generally, motorists do not  mind a small
increase in toll  charges for inter-state
roads but  they are likely to be more
angry  when it comes to city roads.

The reason is simple. Motorists feel cheated when they have  to pay for short trips like sending their
children to school or going marketing.

A wage earner may feel the  pinch of
having to set aside  RM150 to pay toll,
besides his  other obligations.

Rather than stop building highways, the Government should  perhaps concentrate on inter state link
roads.

We cannot ignore the fact that  highways
have cut our travelling  time, which
means lower fuel  consumption and less
wear and  tear on vehicles. And most
accidents occur on trunk roads, not 
highways.

Remember spending six to  eight hours on
trunk roads to balik kampung during festive seasons? When an accident
occurs,  the traffic jam can be
horrifying  because the roads are too
narrow.

In the case of a breakdown,  there was no
one to turn to for  help. Now, we take
for granted  the back-up service from
PLUS.

Neither can we forget those  embarrassing
toilets at unhygenic coffee-shops and roadside 
restaurants.

With the highways, long-distance travel has become so much  pleasant.

There's always a price for everything and sometimes we tend  to forget the larger picture.

To refresh our memories, we  had opted
for privatisation because it was felt that the private  sector would be able to carry out  projects quicker and more efficient.

The North-South Highway was  one example.
We wanted a  world-class quality road
never  before seen in Malaysia, and we  got it in record time.

The idea was to let the private  sector
build these road linkages,  with the
Government imposing  some conditions in
the agreements.

Once the roads are built, the  operators
must maintain and upgrade them. Such an obligation  runs to hundreds of millions of  ringgit.

Like all businesses, concessionaires seek to make money,  too. The Government, on its part,  must honour all business deals if  it is to be viewed positively by  the business community in attracting investments.

For future agreements, it may  be
worthwhile to provide a longer concession period but with  lower rates.

It will also be worthwhile for  the
Government to insist on the  maintenance
of alternative  roads.

If we operate on the open-toll  system
concept, meaning not every motorist would have to pay  the whole amount, then alternative roads are
necessary.

Obviously, there are political 
ramifications when toll charges 
rise. More so with the general 
election looming. And, aware of 
ground sentiments, Barisan Nasional component parties also objected to
the toll increase.

Those supposedly present, Datuk Ibrahim Ali and Tan Sri
Rahim  Thamby Chik, could not recall  such a meeting taking place.

The Straits Times quoted a Malaysian official as saying the purported leaked
document was based  on a transcript which
had been  posted for more than a month on  one of the reformasi websites.

Quoting from the document, the  Business
Times report also said  the circulation
of a national Bahasa Malaysia daily had plunged, a  falsehood perpetuaed by certain  quarters.

The fact is that almost all national newspapers recorded an increase in their
sales since September, as verified by an independent  audit body.

There are many such documents  and
letters, purportedly official, in  the
“disinformation campaign''  against the
Government.

Foreign reporters, who do not  verify
their stories either due to  complacency
or sloppiness, are  likely to fall prey
to such lies.

Those familiar with Malaysian  politics
will tell you political discussions, of all level of politicians,  take place almost nightly.

These unofficial chit-chats are  never
minuted, let alone put in formal reports. Often, there is no follow-up to matters
discussed.

Our politicians often do not refute such inaccurate news reports,  preferring to dismiss them.

But the danger of such an approach is that without a denial,  these news items can sometimes  be accepted as true.

It will be better for the leaders  to put
their foot down and insist on  a
clarification or ask for their  stand to
be published.

Last week, some foreign media  took a
hostile reaction towards the  changes in
the Cabinet.

Some implied that the changes  are a
sinister ploy to strengthen  the Prime
Minister.

There's nothing unusual about  the
changes. No sane leader would  appoint
rivals to key positions. It's  really
stating the obvious.

It is normal to reward loyalists, 
whether in business or in politics.

There have been suggestions  that
Malaysia should consider imposing circulation curbs on the foreign press to
counter negative reporting.

The administration cannot be  blamed if
it suspects the foreign  press of having
a hidden agenda.

For the past 18 months, foreign  reports
have been carrying quotes  and comments
from the same government critics.

The views of these academicians  and
leaders of non-governmental 
organisations are taken as gospel 
truth.

Their motives and how representative their views were had never  been questioned.

But we should not just blame the  Western
reporters with their dial a-quote methods and predictions of  riots and a collapse of the Malaysian
economy.

Even some Malaysian newsmen  working for
these foreign news  agencies sometimes go
overboard  in running down their own
country.

A human rights activist, unheard  of
until a few months ago, has been 
upgraded to be “a leading opposition dissident'' and a politician  with a record of being rejected in  every election has been labelled as  an opposition leader.

Neither do these reporters point  out
that in multi-religious and  multi-racial
Malaysia, the political  inclination can
be very segmented.

The views of people in Kepong,  Gua
Musang and Sentul can be  very
different.

The foreign media, for example,  must
find out why the majority of  Malaysians
are against demonstrations.

Despite criticism of the Government being authoritarian, has the  foreign media admitted that Harakah and
Rocket are sold openly although the rule insist that these  publications are only for members.

Surely, a harsh government will  not
tolerate such abuses. In fact,  no
officials from these parties  have been
hurled to court.

There is this feeling now that to  make
them more accountable and  accurate in
their reporting, the international media must bear the financial and legal
implications of  their reports.

At the same time, our ministers  and
officials must learn to make  themselves
readily available to put  their views
across.

It might not be a good idea to  curb the
flow of information as the  same versions
of these publications also appear on the Internet.

What our leaders need to do is to  insist
their side of the story  is published, in
the form of letters to the  editors, if
they feel the need to correct a false report.

The National Economic Advisory  Council,
for example, has taken the  right step by
setting up a media  team to monitor print
reports  worldwide.

The team, which includes former 
journalists, has made it a point to 
clarify inaccurate reports.

We must accept that there will  always be
a cacophony of media  voices. We cannot
shut off all these  contradictory views
but we can insist the official views be carried 
alongside.

False reporting by the foreign  media has
led to people overseas  forming wrong
conclusions about  Malaysia, as in the
case of US  Vice-President Al Gore.

It has also affected the economy.  Fewer
tourists are visiting the  country.

Reformasi taxi drivers who bad mouth the country to their passengers ought to
understand the consequences of shooting themselves  in the foot.

The Government must deal with 
contradicting views intelligently, 
with hard facts and convincing arguments.

Our ambassadors, for example,  must
cultivate the friendship and  support of
newsmen in their countries.

Even prejudiced foreign newsmen can change and be more impartial in their
reporting if they  understand the
background of a  particular
development.

Rhetorics from opposition politicians and NGOs may be appealing  but in the end, the voice of reason  will prevail.

Moderate Malaysians, who form  the
majority, appreciate the need  for
compromise in a multi-racial and multi-religious country.

Democratic rights certainly need to be expanded in Malaysia. Even our local
media must admit  its weaknesses and take
a serious look at itself to improve its image.

We must realise political and economic stability will always be our
priorities.

If the foreign press is truthful, then they must admit that the country,
Government and economy have remained intact.

As we visit our Muslim friends during the traditional Hari Raya  open house this week, we must not forget that
racial harmony still  prevails.

There have been no massive retrenchments, no sharp hikes in the  prices of food items but an improved stock
market as we go  through the
recession.

All these are not too bad for a country which has been written off  by the critics.

Only if we can see all this will we realise that there is mala fide, or  bad faith, on the part of the foreign press
in its reporting of Malaysia.