He was told he had to pay RM2.60  for a US dollar and RM1.78 for a Singapore dollar. If he were to buy a lot  of greenbacks, it could come up to a  big sum.

That's the immediate impact of a  weaker ringgit against the US dollar.  It also means that Teh, who is going  overseas, will have to pay more for his  shopping.

Teh, a stock market punter, has also  felt another pinch  the prices of  shares have plunged.

The high interest rates to prop up  the currency is no good for the stock  market, he was told by his remisier.

For the average Malaysian, that is  the immediate impact of the attacks  against the Malaysian ringgit, which  has been headline news over the last  two weeks.

Finger-pointing, with names openly  mentioned, has been made against US based fund managers dabbling in foreign exchange as central banks struggle to defend flagging currencies.

The worst hit has been the Thai baht  and the Phillipine peso. Indonesia's  rupiah has also been hit by regional  spillover sentiment.

Unlike in Thailand, the impact of  the ringgit speculation is still negligible on Malaysian consumers unless  the lower ringgit persists for a longer  period.

Should that happen, according to  economists, it would cost importers  more to bring in their goods and the  cost will be passed on to consumers.

In Thailand, motorists found they  had to pay more for their petrol as  foreign oil companies such as Caltex,  Shell and Esso raised their retail  prices. In the Philippines, consumers  had to pay more for wheat.

Angry with rumours that its economy could collapse, Thai police raided  the offices of two large foreign brokerage firms in Bangkok last week,  saying they wanted to investigate  whether these firms were responsible  for talks that five banks would be shut  down.

In Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian  ringgit dropped to a 33-month low at  RM2.57 against the US dollar earlier  last Tuesday, before recovering to  RM2.55. On Friday morning, it opened  at RM2.58.

But, as in everything, there's a silver lining. A lower ringgit will make  our local goods more competitive. It  will also make Malaysia a more attractive place to visit.

Moreover, the ringgit is still one of  the most stable currencies around.

On Friday, the Asian Wall Street  Journal quoted economists as saying  that the ringgit was not overvalued  and was not expected to weaken significantly from current levels.

These speculators, who are said to  make billions from such attacks, cannot be trading on the dollar-ringgit indefinitely.

There will come a time when they  will move on and start selling.

For the average Ahmad, Ah Beng  and Arumugam, they do not understand why TV and newspaper reports  about the ringgit speculations use so  much of economic jargon.

It does not help when ministers,  bankers and the media fail to explain,  in simple terms, how such speculations affect their daily lives.

For Teh, his family members have  advised him to postpone his trips.  They told him to check how many US  dollars he has left in his bank safe deposit box.

His daughter, who is no economics  expert but who understands the basics of making money, told him: “Sell  your leftover US dollars from your  last trip … make some money-lah.''

It must have been a let-down for many of these western reporters.  Nothing much seems to have changed.The immigration stamp on their  passports to register their departure is still the same. It just says  “Hong Kong Immigration'' not  SAR for Special Administrative Region.

And certainly not the People's  Republic of China although there  are now more splashes of red in  Hong Kong as Chinese flags fly  side by side with the SAR flag. Against a backdrop of Asia's  most stunning skyline, the world's  media were here to cover the end  of a part of the British empire and  the raising of the Chinese flag.The western media had expected  more.

They were ready to record the  chaos and panic among locals as  the People'sLiberation Army and their tanks entered the city.

They expected screaming pro-democracy protesters to be clubbed  and dragged away by baton-waving policemen under political pressure  from the Chinese might. All that didn't happen. And most  of the western reporters who came  to record the biggest hyperbole  must have been disappointed.

It would have been difficult to  explain to editors in some sleepy  towns in the United States that the  rain-soaked Hong Kong folk were  actually waving tiny Chinese flags to welcome the PLA.

Surely, there must be a mistake  somewhere. Those money-minded  Hong Kong people were supposed to hold placards and candles to protest against the “massacre'' at  Tiananmen Square.

Yes, there were some protests   after all, protests are still allowed  in Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems'' policy.

The scare campaign against China and the SAR flopped. None of  the western newspapers, despite  their claims to tell the truth, will  admit that the response from the  Hong Kong people to the protests  was feeble.

The protesters were sparse and  they were having a good time taking pictures of each other to record  their “contributions'' to the historical occasion. The truth was that the locals had  a great time playing mahjong or  watching the celebrations on TV.

Many were out on the streets  watching the fireworks  just like  Americans do on Independence  Day.The July 1 “super holiday,'' as  the locals dubbed it, was also the  best time for shopping  another  favourite pastime in this consumer  society.

The ringing of cash registers, since June 30 midnight, for the  Great Handover Sales had never  been sweeter. Who cared about  demonstrations?

That would be really tough to explain to western editors who wanted follow-up stories about Hong Kong in danger,the doom of democracy, self-censorship of the  press and the end of civil society.

CNN, despite its international reputation, was equally guilty of  lop-sided reporting for it was more  concerned with its largely-American audience.

Anchorman Bernard Shaw, an  African-American, showed his ignorance of East Asian politics and  even disrespect to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. At one point, Shaw  told Tung “to cut out the modesty''  when, in typical Asian humility, the  latter played down his clout.

The sad part was that even a  leading local English daily in Hong  Kong was lapping up the western influence by carrying reports and  editorials similar to that of western publications. The contrast has never been  greater. Western TV was showing a  Hong Kong and Southern China “gripped with tension'' while Hong  Kong TV had scenes of celebrations.

The western media referred to Tung as “Beijing-picked'' and by an  “autocratic government.'' No one referred to Governor Chris Patten  as “London-picked'' or “appointed governor.''

Who are we to believe? The western press which spoke only to the  likes of Democratic Party chief  MartinLee who are British-trained  and liberal, or the local media  which listened to the Cantonese speaking locals who read racing  tabloids passionately while eating  chok (porridge) for breakfast?

The truth, as they say, is somewhere out there.

“Suddenly the phone stops ringing. My name no longer appears in  the newspapers, no one seeks my  opinions and, most of all, no one  thrusts the mike and tape recorder to my face now,'' he lamented.

But the media have always been the punching bag of the influential.

When pushed into a corner, blundering politicians often find it easy to shift the blame to the  press.It seems that to accuse the press  of misreporting or misquoting has become a favourite excuse when all else fails.

Recently, one politician blamed  the press for losing a by-election.  Next, he denied having said money was “missing'' from a fund,  claiming he did not even know  what the word lesap, attributed to  him, meant.

Last week, another politician  blamed the foreign media for misquoting him, apparently because he had a poor command of English.

The press was again held responsible for not giving enough publicity to Sukom 98. The media is usually reluctant to reply to such accusations or denials simply because it does not  wish to prolong the issue and see a  strain in ties with the politicians.

In March, one newspaper, however, decided to publish the full transcript of a press conference  given by a minister after his denial on toll-free alternative routes. Another politician, who had once denied a press report, told a  reporter: “I said it but I didn't  mean it'' after being confronted  with a tape recording of his remarks.One opposition politician, who is  in the habit of burning newspapers during elections, slams the  media at every opportunity but  that has not stopped him from  sending press statements to the  newsrooms of the various newspapers almost every day and most  of the statements get printed!

When his statement is not carried because of poor or libellous  content, the press gets blamed for blacking him out.

One reporter may get it wrong  but when all newspapers have the  same report, it is highly unlikely  everyone is wrong. After all, reporters today are armed with tape recorders.

But that does not mean that the  press is always right and free  from blame. Misreporting and irresponsible reporting can be damaging.

A media organisation, especially the electronic sector, in the hands  of young and inexperienced editors may suffer serious consequences.

For example, several months  ago an alleged road bully was  brought to the court by the police for a remand order. The case was given prominent  press coverage. His face appeared on television and in some newspapers without being camouflaged.In fact, he was never charged.Similarly, it was unethical to  show on news broadcasts the identities of minors alleged to be drug  pushers when they are mere suspects.This is because if there is  no case against them the damage  would have been done to them.In all healthy relationships,  there must be lots of love and understanding. I guess it's the same with the  media and the news-makers.

The latest joke making the rounds involves a politician, a self- proclaimed religious expert and a lawyer, all members of a local political party.

The three were given an envelope with RM30,000 each by their pensioner friend. They were told that they must return the money when he died. “Just put the envelopes with the money in my coffin.  Don't ask me what a dead man is going to do with it. I will try to bless you and your family in my  after-life,'' said the old man.

At the funeral, all three did as they were told. On their way home, the religious expert confessed that he had just returned RM20,000.

“I don't think he would mind. I need RM10,000 for my organisation and it's for a good cause after all,'' he said.

The lawyer next confessed that he only left RM10,000 in the coffin.“He won't mind, he's already dead. I need the money to pay my debts,'' he justified.

The Yang Berhormat became upset, scolding the two for their lack  of trustworthiness.

“How can you steal from a dead man? It's pathetic and sinful. I am so ashamed I don't think I can talk to you. As for me, I do everything for the people, for development and for the country. Yes, I took away the entire RM30,000 but I gave the dead man a blank cheque, so my conscience is clear.''

Over the last week, even sceptical Malaysians must have been surprised at the swift action taken against certain public figures and senior government officials for alleged corruption.

They include former Malacca state executive councillor Datuk Sahar Arpan who was charged in court.Deputy primary industries minister Siti Zainab Abu Bakar was sacked for her involvement in the “missing'' RM1.8 million from the  Wanita Umno accounts.

At the same time, the Cabinet has approved heavier penalties sought by the Anti-Corruption Agency against those found guilty of graft.

It is significant to note that Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has  declared that elected representatives “should not only be clean but also seen to be clean, or we will lose our credibility.''

This is not the first time that Dr Mahathir has spoken against corruption. He brought up the matter at last year's Umno general assembly, stating his views on money politics.

Dr Mahathir's warning of a war against corruption came a day after Acting Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced that all new state executive councillors must declare their assets to the ACA before taking office.

The actions of the top two leaders deserve the backing of all Malaysians. A strong political will is necessary to fight corruption. While it is often difficult to gather evidence in such cases, Malaysians want to see clear actions against  unscrupulous politicians.

The leadership should perhaps go a step further by insisting that those holding public office must declare their assets periodically.

To be fair, there are many Malaysian politicians who have given up a fortune to serve the country.

Unfortunately, there are those who believe that they would be in a better position to make more money, either legally or illegally, once they have the authority and right connections.

The time has come to send a strong message to those who spend millions on party political campaigns that there is no guarantee they will be rewarded with a government position.

While Malaysians should retain their “can do'' confidence and even be euphoric over Malaysia Boleh, a line should be drawn over matters involving ethics and public accountability and that's when we say tidak boleh.

Rightly or wrongly, some Malaysians perceive the local media,  particularly the mainstream dailies, as docile and pro-government.

But when some foreign magazines base their reports on rumours and hearsay, these same readers would regard the content as gospel truth.

On the other hand, vernacular newspapers are regarded as bold but the accuracy of their reports are sometimes suspect and they often quote unnamed sources.

Last week, two major English dailies reported on their front pages that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad needed more time to choose a clean person to take over as the new Selangor Mentri Besar.

Two Bahasa Malaysia dailies and another English tabloid reported instead that the Sultan of Selangor did not consent to the choices made by the Prime Minister.

So which is which? The Sultan clarified in a statement that there was no disagreement between him and the Prime Minister while Dr Mahathir said he did not hand in a list of candidates to the Sultan, so the question of a consent did not arise.

Surely, reporters from different dailies cannot be hearing different things from the same person.

Checking what a person said on tape is one thing. An equally important factor to consider is how the questions were phrased and asked, and in what manner or tone were the questions answered.

Was it said in jest or was his reply quoted out of context by reporters?

Sometimes, public figures make vague statements, leaving reporters with the chore of having to interpret what was said.

Further confusion arose when, approached by reporters, several Umno leaders issued statements questioning the Sultan's purported refusal to give his consent.

Their immediate response to the press is commendable but the point is their information came from secondary sources the reporters they spoke to. The politicians were not at the palace to hear Dr Mahathir or the Sultan.

The result has been a suggestion of differences between the Sultan and Dr Mahathir and an impending constitutional crisis.

Misreporting is a serious matter and, as Dr Mahathir said just last week, it's an abuse of power and corruption by the press.

Reporters are only human. They make mistakes and sometimes interpret statements and actions incorrectly, but there is no excuse for being careless. Last week's events are nothing new. Such reporting has happened in  the past.

I recall interviewing a senior minister at the height of a party feud. Being not very fluent in English, the minister often paused and broke off his sentences with “you know what I mean-lah'' during the interview.

Those who had been covering his ministry knew exactly what he meant but one reporter, though experienced, became a victim of misinterpretation because she was unfamiliar with the lingo of the minister.

It was a disaster. Her report, published on the front page the next day, prompted the minister to retort that “she obviously didn't know what I mean.''

In another incident, a minister was asked by a reporter to comment on Malaysia's stand on an international issue. Hard-pressed for time, the minister told the reporter “tunggu-lah.''

The article that was published next day stated that the minister was taking a “wait-and-see attitude'' on the issue.

In a more recent case, all the Malaysian newspapers quoted ministers and sources as saying that the Cabinet wanted a freeze on dealings with Singapore following an unwelcome remark by Senior MinisterLee Kuan Yew  about Johor's security situation.

There was much confusion when a Cabinet minister later issued an official reply, saying that the press reports were “less than accurate.''

The Malaysian press, one may say, is hard-pressed at times but it certainly has no intention of being misleading.

Western reporters have been painting Hong Kong as a place of uncertainty with its imminent handover to China.

China is portrayed as the evil empire a nation burdened with corruption, soaring crime rate and a repressive regime bent on destroying Hong Kong's brand of free-market enterprise.

Almost every news despatch will talk about China's purported plans to curb civil liberties with Beijing's Tiananmen Square incident mentioned in one breath.

Suddenly, these gwai-lo reporters, who have been working and living in Hong Kong without a need for any visa passes, are talking about democracy and freedom of speech.

For years, they made no mention of Governor Chris Patten as  London-nominated but consider it fair game, in the name of press freedom, to label the territory's Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa as Beijing-picked.

They have also completely ignored the fact that for years the whites dominated the hierarchy of the civil service, especially the police force. Many locals, despite having the qualifications, were passed over in favour of expatriates because of the colour of their skin.

It is unfortunate that most newspapers, including those in Asia, will have to depend on lop-sided reports about the territory in the run-up to the handing over because of financial and manpower constraints.

In such circumstances, Asian newspapers will have to use their judgment on what is news and what is prejudice by these Western reporters. For example, the probable use of the Chinese language after July 1 has even become an issue.

One major news agency incorrectly reported Cantonese as a language instead of a dialect. But the issue of language should actually revolve around the lack of effort by the British to teach Hong Kong folk English.

The inability to speak English deprived many in Hong Kong of jobs and promotions.

At the same time, Martin Lee, the head of Hong Kong's opposition Democratic Party and a Beijing critic, gets the kind of attention given to only selected heads of government a meeting at the  White House with President Bill Clinton.

The United States now sees it fit to lecture China on how it should govern Hong Kong after July 1 when the Chinese have taken back what is rightfully theirs after 150 years.

The amount of misinformation on China is amazing but not surprising because Americans now consider China as its chief potential threat in economic and military terms.

Many of these concerns are rooted in ignorance and misunderstanding. Among the Republicans, liberal mass media and academics, China is a threat to the Americans on the world stage.

Efforts by Asian-Americans, mostly ethnic Chinese, to have some influence in the American political system faced a setback when donations by Asians became an issue.

An article in Newsweek on Feb 17 gave an early indication of what the US media would look for on July 1. Disruptions, protests and decrying of the abandonment of the Western values of freedom and democracy would be the diet of July 1.

It is difficult to impress upon Westerners that Hong Kong is no longer the world of Suzy Wong and that the People's Liberation Army is more involved in trading than military manoeuvres, with investments in over 20,000 companies worth billions of ringgit.

Asian watcher John Naisbitt correctly wrote in Megatrends Asia that the West should talk about how much the rest of China would end up looking like Hong Kong after July 1 and not the other way around.

There is no going back. When Macau returns to China in 1999, i  will be the end of Western dominance for the first time in 400 years, every inch of Asian soil will be controlled by Asians.

The year 2000 will be the Year of the Dragon, an auspicious beginning for Asians in the new millennium.

Following the meeting, at least, two ministers readily put on record  their displeasure of events that had taken place since March 11 when Malaysians first found out the disparaging remarks made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew against Johor.

Singapore Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar has much to do if the republic sincerely wants to mend fences.

Beside making the relevant quiet diplomatic approaches, he will have a chance to meet his counterpart Datuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawi next week.

It will be their first meeting after the diplomatic row between the two countries erupted.

The two leaders will attend the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)  ministerial-level meeting in New Delhi from April 48, and an informal meeting of Asean ministers has been scheduled on April 7. Asean countries are also members of NAM.

While Asean matters will be the concern of the meeting, there is nothing to stop Jayakumar from having separate bilateral talks, officially or unofficially, with Abdullah on how Malaysia and Singapore should get on with their relationship.

As chairman of the Asean Standing Committee, Abdullah will chair the informal meeting with discussions centred on the admission of new Asean members and preparation for the summit in December.

And there is nothing to prevent other Asean members from talking about the diplomatic tiff between Malaysia and Singapore and its effect on Asean.

At the summit, which Kuala Lumpur will host, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mr Goh Chok Tong will meet and going  by tradition, the two premiers will meet separately.

It will be a heavy task for Jayakumar because Malaysia is in no mood to restore diplomatic ties to the previous level. As Dr Mahathir said, it will take time to heal.

Jayakumar will have a second shot in Kuala Lumpur during the one-week Asean ministerial meeting beginning July 24.

The two foreign ministers will be the ones to assess the situation and  make recommendations to their respective heads of government.

Wisma Putra is fully aware of how Singapore has been reacting to Malaysia's increasing economic competitiveness in the region.

The Straits Times, which often reflects the views of the republic's  political establishment, acknowledged in its recent editorial that growing economic competition was a factor in the squabble that resulted fromLee's remarks.

“The fact is that competition for markets, investments and labour is  increasingly pitting one country against the other. Mr Lee's indiscretion was, in the circumstances, a godsend for those itching to knock Singapore down a notch or two,'' it reported.

While Goh has tried to blame the Malaysian press for inaccurate reports which were supposed to have exacerbated the issue, he should also look at the files of the Singapore media.

For example, the Singapore media has on numerous occasions taken a negative stand against Malaysia for issues such as the proposed land bridge at the Malaysia-Thai border and the East Asia Economic Caucus.

Even the private sector, such as the Genting Highlands resort, a favourite holiday destination for Singaporeans, has not been spared from bad press. Such reporting creates the perception that Singapore does not wish to see its people spend money outside the island.

The Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, which is far more attractive than its Singapore rival, is another favourite target.

Such finger-pointing by Singapore leaders, instead of admitting their poor handling of relations with Malaysia over recent years, will not help to end the row.

Goh, in reacting to the tiff, quoted a Malay saying Air dicincang tidak akan putus, walaupun dicincang dengan pisau (water cannot be separated, even by a knife) which he said was the nature of Singapore's relationship with Malaysia.

It is good that Goh understands the importance of a good relationship between the two countries but he must move beyond words.

As every schoolboy knows, there is a much simpler Malay saying Sesat di hujung jalan, balik ke pangkal jalan (if you are lost at the end of the road, then you must go back to where you came from). Similarly, sesat surut, terlangkah kembali.

There is a moral to both sayings while a person must admit when he is wrong, he must also correct the mistakes he has committed.

As much as Malaysians support the Government's ban on all roadside stalls in the city, a loud sigh was heaved at the decision to relocate in stages the city's 36,500 hawkers to food courts within complexes.

The Malaysian flavour, character and colour of eating at roadside stalls, which fascinate and probably horrify outsiders, will soon disappear.

The ban on roadside hawking will be carried out in stages Kuala Lumpur first, followed by the states.

That means Penangites will no longer head for the Air Itam market for laksa, and the char koay teow roadside stall in Lorong Selamat will have to seek refuge at a nearby coffeeshop to continue business.

Old habits die hard. Some Malaysians argue that in Paris, for example, the city takes great pains to promote their roadside cafes and patrons prefer to sit outside regardless of the weather.

So why can't our local authorities impose cleanliness rules and enforce them strictly without having to ban street stalls?

It will probably take time for Malaysians to get used to the idea of  having to go to a shopping complex for teh tarik which will come in a  styrofoam cup.

And it will take even longer for many Malaysians to pick up the habit of using disposal bowls and chop sticks for bah kut teh. It may be more hygienic but certainly politically incorrect since they are  environmentally-unfriendly.

But the days of Malaysians eating at roadside stalls, declared rodent breeding grounds by the authorities, will soon be over.

Last week, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ordered all new complexes to have food courts, saying the relocation of roadside stalls to such centres was a move to reduce littering and ease traffic congestion.

These measures would eventually be applied to towns and cities throughout the country. Anwar said roadside hawkers and petty traders were responsible for 500 tonnes (or 17 per cent) of rubbish collected in the city.

With 200,000 licensed hawkers and countless unlicensed ones in the country, the authorities probably have no choice but to call for an  integrated approach to solve the cleanliness and congestion problems caused by hawkers.

The decision to set up food courts with proper facilities in strategic  areas is based on various factors, including having water supply, proper refuse disposal, and ensuring that stall holders are properly dressed and hygienic.

Malaysians somehow place more importance on the flavour and taste of their food than on the hygiene standards of food vendors.

It will be difficult to argue against the merits of the national hawking policy, introduced by the Housing andLocal Government Ministry. Besides cleanliness and orderliness, the aspects of health, safety and beautification of the country come into play.

No responsible government can allow the existence of uncontrolled  roadside stalls by both locals and foreigners who clog the drains with  leftovers, leaving a trail of health headaches.

With the Asean Summit, Commonwealth Games and Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation summit all taking place in Kuala Lumpur over the next few years, thousands of visitors will converge in the city.

The last thing the city fathers would want to see is Malaysians eating nasi lemak at a roadside stall, which uses only one pail of water to wash 100 plates, next to the Petronas Twin Towers.

So, Malaysians have no choice but to eat roti canai with flimsy plastic forks and spoons.

It will be tough, and too much like eating in Singapore. It's just too clinical for my liking.

Finally, the Aussie lost his cool at his friend's suicidal tendencies,  demanding to know whether he had gone bananas. The Malaysian smiled, reassuring his friend that he was perfectly sound.

Beating the traffic lights, he reasoned, was the Malaysian thing to do  just like having teh tarik or nasi lemak in the morning.

“Don't worry-lah. In Malaysia, every time I see a red light, I try to  shoot straight. Very normal, all my family members do that, sure no  accident-one,'' he told the Aussie.

As they continued their journey the driver suddenly came to a screeching halt when he saw the green light at the next junction.

The confused Australian asked why he stopped abruptly. His friend turned and smiled at him.

“I must stop because my mother is passing on the opposite side. Family thing-what.''

This joke was shared by a listener during a recent Radio 4 talk show hosted by Patrick Teoh about traffic woes.

Funny as it may seem, the police are saying it's no laughing matter when it comes to dealing with Malaysian drivers, who are reputed to be inconsiderate, rude, reckless and dangerous.

Last week, Internal Security and Public Order Director Datuk Ghazali Yacub said police were now just as wary of motor vehicles as they were of guns in the wrong hands.

“Our men are trying to prevent people from injuring themselves and others, Now, they themselves have become victims of accidents they are trying to prevent,'' he told reporters after presenting a cheque for RM10,000 to traffic Kpl Abdullah Mohamed from Kurnia Insurance (M) Bhd at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital.

Kpl Abdullah was knocked down by a bus in an accident at the Seremban-Kuala Lumpur Expressway on Feb 17.

Since 1995, five traffic policemen have been killed and 116 injured when they were knocked down by vehicles while on duty.

With the media highlighting the growing social ills involving teenagers, the road bully issue seems to have received less attention but recent cases seem to suggest nothing has changed.

Many Malaysian drivers still go around bashing up other road users. Age and gender are no barriers.

On Jan 30, a 20-year-old male clerk in Klang was reportedly slapped by a woman motorist when he showed her his fist.

A motorist in Ipoh reported on Feb 17 to the police that he was assaulted by an elderly motorcyclist with a walking stick following a minor accident.

On Nov 8, an unarmed police inspector was beaten up by three bullies in Klang after a row over a parking lot.

No one is quite sure what to do with road bullies. We seem to have  forgotten about such thuggery.

We may not consider the bad attitude of our drivers as a social ill but it's a sad manifestation of our lack of social grace.

The affluence that comes along with our rapid economic development has not helped us to be more courteous on the roads.

Somehow, we do not know how to wave our hand to thank fellow motorists who give way to us. Instead, we are quicker at showing the middle figure on the slightest provocation.

Malaysia may have made quantum leaps in its technological advancements but Malaysians still have a long way to go when it comes to moral and social development.

Suddenly, almost every public figure has become an expert in parenting, lecturing the public on the need to spend quality time with their children.

Everyone seems to have one theory or another. Beyond blaming parents and warning them that the book could be thrown at them for the misbehaviour of their children, no one has actually been able to explain convincingly what they mean by good parenting skills.

There are statistics available on the various categories of social ills  involving the young but there is no real study on why they have resorted to such actions.

There are only sketchy theories and a lot of hot air. Just a month ago, bashing the kids was a favourite national pastime. This time, it's the parents' turn.

The general tone seems to be greater discipline, law enforcement and punishment.

Along the way, as we tried to rationalise the problems, we find ourselves distracted from the real issue, talking instead about whether the police should handcuff juveniles and whether the press has sensationalised the matter.

But what has the ordinary Malaysian to say about the issue, besides the many self-appointed guardians of morality who often get quoted in the press?

Judging from the countless letters and faxes received from the public, most parents believed that punishing parents for their children's crime will not help reduce social ills.

One touching letter came from Madam Chin Hee Fong from Kuala Lumpur. Describing herself as a busy career mother for 13 years, she is now a company manager after seven years of hard work.

“Parents are always exhausted after a long day's work. How much energy is there left to educate the children or undo all their wrongdoings?'' she asked.

Accepting her predicament that she should spend more time with her children, Chin wrote that too many children were left to their domestic maids or baby-sitters.

“Though I have achieved some material success and recognition at work, I found I have also lost so much,'' she said.

According to a report from the National Unity and Social Development Ministry, 60 per cent of Muslim women arrested for vice activities between 1990 and 1995 were divorcees with children.

It's easy to lock them up but who will be responsible for taking care of their children. Certainly not the men who abandoned them.

We seem to have overlooked many things. One important point raised by Chin, for example, is our preoccupation with material success, so much so that many important aspects of life have been neglected.

Simple things in life such as sharing, love, filial piety, honesty,  integrity and character-building are no longer emphasised.

How many parents will encourage their children to be in service-oriented jobs such as teaching, counselling and nursing, which were held in high-esteem in the past?

Despite the push for a caring society, how much more compassionate have we become? We exclude instead of embrace those who fail.

Many Malaysians prefer their children to be “career-minded'' sometimes a euphemism for being materialistic and selfish instead of compassionate and caring.

Thus, joining the Rotary or Lions Club for networking is preferred to  than joining a non-governmental organisation.

Spending quality time is one thing but what we teach our children is another.

At the office, back-stabbing to climb the corporate ladder has almost become a norm.

There are root causes which we seem to ignore. Sending our children to a three-month course will certainly keep them off the streets. Parents will know, at least, where their children are and how they spend their time.

But let us not expect a drastic transformation within that period. Most parents may not want to see themselves accountable for offences committed by their children but they cannot run away from the responsibility of teaching them the right thing.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim correctly pointed out that the tendency now was to highlight the role of teachers and schools when students have social problems.

Parents have to be the real minders, not the schools or authorities. That aside, our children need good role models to emulate.

As one academician pointed out, what kind of message do we want to send to our children when politicians buy votes and enrich themselves; when civil servants live beyond their means, while men rape their daughters.

Like it or not, leaders have to lead by example. It's time to look at  ourselves honestly before we start blaming parents and children.