Sept 11 will long be remembered as the day when the terrorists pierced the
heart of America's financial and security hub, but many will have forgotten
that on Sept 8 two years ago a Moscow apartment was bombed, killing some 300
people.

As the US mourned the tragedy, ordinary Russians gathered
at a courtyard in southern Moscow for a similar memorial. A chapel now marks
the spot where the nine-storey brick building once stood.

The blast, which hit at 5am, reduced the building to a smoky heap of rubble and
killed 124 people, including 13 children. The attack was the worst in a series
of explosions in Russia.

There was the initial outrage but the Americans could well take a leaf from the
Moscow incident – two years later, investigators have made little
progress.

Law enforcement officials have been saying that they know the identities of the
bombers but have been unable to catch them. Topping the wanted list of terrorists
is Achemez Gochiyayev, 31, who is accused of masterminding the blast.

According to the Federal Security Service, Gochiyayev is a native of
Karachayevo-Cherkessia and a staunch Wahabbi, the follower of a strict Islamic
sect.

He was trained in camps set up in Chechnya by Jordanian-born warlord Khattab,
who allegedly ordered the blasts and paid Gochiyayev and four accomplices, who
are believed to be hiding in Chechnya.

Gochiyayev's brother-in-law, Taukan Frantsuzov, is on trial in the southern
city of Stavropol for participating in ''illegal armed formations'' in
Chechnya.

Over in Munich, German mourners also remember September as a black month. In
the early hours of Sept 5, 1972, terrorists scaled the perimeter fence
surrounding the Olympic Village.

Their target was the temporary home of the Israeli Olympic team and, within 24
hours, the terrorists had left 17 men dead. The eight attackers responsible for
the massacre were members of Black September, an extremist faction of the
Palestinian Liberation Front.

The execution had been well planned. Two of the assailants had worked in the
Olympic Village to familiarise themselves with its layout.

One had lived in Germany for five years and attended university in Berlin and
had worked at the village as a civil engineer.

As in all three incidents, the affected countries reacted angrily, victims
wanted revenge while the perpetrators claimed it was an act of war, in the name
of God, and claimed they understood the pain and sorrow of those who lost their
loved ones.

As US President George W. Bush whips up the hysteria of war, it might be wise
for him to steady his nerves and steer the same course.

He cannot afford to make the US look weak; neither does he want to see young
Americans returning from Afghanistan in body bags.

While Osama bin Laden has remained the prime suspect, no one is sure that he is
responsible for the US attacks. The US, which talks about upholding the law,
cannot act on suspicion. Bush has given the impression of wanting to squeeze
the trigger without knowing who he is pointing the gun at.

Air strikes and missile attacks over the mountainous deserts of Afghanistan
will serve no purpose. Assuming Osama is still hiding out in some cave, he will
be safe. If he has already fled Afghanistan, then the whole exercise is a
mockery.

If air attacks are made, innocent Afghans, including those who hate the
Taliban, will be killed. State terrorism will be no different from those
committed by zealots.

If the option of ground attacks is chosen, American troops should look at
history first – with the exception of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan,
Afghanistan has long been the graveyard of those who try to conquer the land.
Then, there is the danger that a conflict launched in Afghanistan could spill
over into Pakistan.

As the US decides on its military options, it must rethink its Middle East
policy, which has bred much contempt and hatred against the Americans.

Even if the US succeeds in arresting Osama, there will be more of such
people.

It is important that the US engage moderate Islamic countries, particularly
those in the Middle East and South-East Asia, in its long-term strategies in
these two regions. It is also an opportunity for the US to stop its unilateral
actions and erase the stigma of being the ''policeman of the world.''

It is best that the volume of the war drum be reduced. The world can do with
less killing in the name of politics, diplomacy or religion. There can be no
justification for the loss of innocent lives.

Terrorism is not only of local concern because it has a
vast international network. As shadowy groups, they move from country to
country, under different guises.

They may have a base country, where they operate for indoctrination, training
and propaganda purposes, but their tactic is to operate in cell groups.

In the past, countries like the US spent huge sums fighting the communists. Now
that the Cold War is long over, there appears to be a lax in security.

Security agencies like the CIA and FBI have found their budget slashed. There
is more investment in technology intelligence than human intelligence in the
gathering of information.

Now a small group of people, using low-tech methods, has successfully brought
the mighty United States to its knees. They have proven that they can penetrate
the heart of the US financial and security centres.

No nation, especially democracies, is free from such a threat. Everyone must
realise that terrorism needs to be rooted out ruthlessly. There should be no
pity or the slightest hint of support when women and children are killed. No
religion in the world condones the taking of lives.

Fighting terrorism is about sharing crucial information and manpower within the
scope of national sovereignty. Rogue countries like Sudan and Afghanistan have
long been harbouring terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

Despite the denials by the Taliban and the fact that no one is sure who is
responsible for the New York tragedy, these countries are long-known to have
provided a safe haven for terrorists to carry out their crime against the
world.

Many militants, including those from the KMM from Malaysia, have travelled to
Afghanistan to take up weapons training. It was in Afghanistan that our
self-styled Mujahideen were indoctrinated before returning to Malaysia to
advance their causes. They have bombed churches in Indonesia, in the name of
religion.

No one can be sure what was Osama's role in the bombing and hijacking but he
has certainly inspired many terrorists. The 44-year-old Saudi, who is said to
be hiding in Afghanistan, commands Islamic militants willing to die in their
war against the United States, which he sees as the ultimate enemy.

He has been the target of a massive US manhunt since 1998 when bomb attacks on
the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224 people and injured 4,000
others. He has denied responsibility for the embassy attacks.

The world now faces a chronic and serious threat – one that is able to bring
war to any country without that country knowing who the enemy is.

All democratic countries, including Malaysia, must spare no effort and money to
fight extremism. Our security forces must be prepared and equipped to deal with
any potential threat of extremism in schools or universities.

Moderate Malaysians must realise that we cannot accept religious extremism in
our multi-racial country. We must not take for granted our liberal and open
lifestyle, worse still if we were to exchange it for one that is theocratic and
anti-secular.

Let's not send the wrong signals to the world. Malaysia should not become
another Afghanistan.

A few PAS leaders have said that they do not condone the
actions of these radicals, but most of the party leaders have chosen to remain
silent.

The MP for Sik, Shahnon Ahmad, went a step further in dismissing the KMM issue
as a creation of the Government and press. His statements would probably get
nods of approval from critics except that the similar cynical remark was used
at the height of the Al Maunah arrests.

Over the past one week, the party has gone on the offensive, lodging police
reports against government leaders and threatening legal action. These actions
were taken in the wake of press reports that the militants have infiltrated
religious groups in universities, where students were given hate lessons.

Lee's uneasiness of the growing threat of Islamic militancy and the increasing
clout of PAS is a clear indication how wrong signals have been sent to the
region. It does not augur well for Malaysia, politically or economically, that
PAS is getting stronger.

Singapore's PAP leaders have made no secret that they would rather deal with
Umno. It is not because Umno is weaker, as PAS president datuk Fadzil Noor has
chosen to believe.

PAS leaders may be strong in religious matters, but they have no track record
in modern economics and management. A Barisan Nasional government is guaranteed
to be multi-racial while a PAS government would only comprise Muslims.

Non-Muslim supporters of PAS, who fall into the Islamist party's PR exercise in
Kelantan and Terengganu, often returned gleefully that both states have temples
and churches and even bah kut teh stalls. But they miss the point – all these
are available in other states. More importantly, other states have non-Muslim
and women leaders in government, but not in these two PAS-run states.

Many leaders in this region are wary of the "loose cannons" in PAS,
who often make controversial pronouncements that also affect the civil
liberties of non-Muslims. Asean leaders would certainly be mindful of having
such orthodox leaders as their neighbours, especially when PAS leaders are
likely to be supportive of the activities of insurgents in their
countries.

Lee has warned that the region must be on alert for a growing
"anti-Zion" crusade spawned by fighting in Afghanistan, where many
Muslim volunteers had taken up arms and undergone training.

At a press conference in Kuala Lumpur last week, Lee said "it has become a
kind of internationalised anti-crusade and anti-Zion" and that such
Islamic militancy has grown in Indonesia and Pakistan, too.

"You have to watch it carefully, because if it takes root in Indonesia and
they go up to the islands south of us, or if they take root in Malaysia and
come down to Johor, then we are vulnerable."

He said the recent rise in Islamic militancy in Indonesia started when
Vice-President B.J. Ha-bibie cancelled a decree imposed by former President
Suharto, outlawing the use of Islam or Islamic symbols for political parties.
As a result, more than 20 political parties used Islamic symbols, and several
splinter groups eventually won in elections.

Malaysians have no business in the internal squabbles of Indonesia. In the name
of religion, Malaysians have gone to Indonesia to fight there. The KMM, for
example, has returned home to commit robbery and the murder of a Barisan state
leader.

Lee isn't the only one alarmed by the rise in such political radicalism. So,
too, are moderate Malaysians of all faiths.

It is sad for Malaysians to note that Parti Keadilan Nasional and Parti Rakyat
Malaysia have a lack-lustre attitude towards the KMM issue, perhaps worrying
they might antagonise opposition voters.

But political expediency should not be allowed to cloud their positions. The
background of Keadilan and PRM is not in tune with that of PAS although they
have a common enemy in BN.

They should not allow militancy to creep into Malaysian politics, and they
cannot assume that students who have been instilled in radicalism will support
Keadilan or PRM.

Political differences we may have, but moderate Malaysians must never allow
such radicalism and extremism to take root in their homeland.

At Bako, there is a Chinese temple near a Malay village but, interestingly, it
is maintained with the help of Muslims there.

With 38 ethnic groups in the state, Sarawak's Cabinet,
headed by Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, a Melanau, is also the most
multi-racial.

For Sarawakians, of greater importance is their sense of togetherness in a
state that has been regarded as a showcase of ethnic and religious
tolerance.

The people can be forgiven if they sometimes feel uneasy with the preconceived and
even condescending attitude of their brethren from the peninsula.

For Malaysians who have never set foot in Sarawak, its image is one of savages,
rivers and jungles.

Taib, who heads the Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu, has led the state for 21
years, probably the longest term of any chief minister.

Not everyone has been happy with him. There have been allegations of business
cronyism to neglect of hill people because of uneven economic
development.

His detractors claim that Taib has been able to hold on to power because the
opposition is in disarray.

It cannot be denied that there have been pockets of dissatisfaction, as in all
democracies but, generally, Sarawakians are happy with what they have,
especially their lifestyles.

The fact remains that Taib has been able to deliver the votes to the Barisan
Nasional. In the 1996 state polls, the Barisan won 58 seats while the DAP won
four.

In the 1999 general election, the Barisan made a clean sweep, winning all 28
parliamentary seats it contested.

The country's biggest state will probably be even more important in the next
general election, scheduled for 2004.

Sarawak will have its state elections this month and the bet is that the
Barisan will perform even better than the last time.

The Barisan will again focus on the politics of development and its uniqueness,
where racial and religious tolerance has been a hallmark. It will continue to
emphasise on the relevance of moderation and power sharing.

The opposition, especially the DAP and the state-based State Reform Party, are
harping on native customary rights, land issues and mismanagement.

Parti Keadilan Nasional is making its debut in the state polls but its leaders
are mainly from the DAP and who are at loggerheads with their former
party.

Both the parties have already said they eye the same urban constituencies. It
will be interesting to see how national leaders from both sides will campaign
in Sarawak.

PAS is almost non-existent in the state and its brand of politics is treated
suspiciously in a state where people have a more liberal and tolerant attitude
towards religion.

Still, the Islamist party has said it will contest.

It will not be easy for PAS to convince Sarawakians that their politics is
suitable for them. The party failed miserably in Sabah and will probably face
the same fate in Sarawak, too.

It will not be wrong to say that PAS may be successful in Kelantan and
Terengganu but their fiery speeches will be a turn-off in Sarawak.

The rocket symbol is more familiar to the voters and if the opposition can make
any dent, it is only the DAP which has several home-grown leaders but it will
have to square off with Keadilan first.

But it's the votes of the predominantly rural constituencies that will make the
difference, where land rights are emotional issues, particularly in the
transformation of the way the natives live.

The challenge of the Barisan will be to explain that the value of land will not
jump unless there is a chance of development.

Estate development, which has been promoted for years to encourage rural
farmers to participate in government land projects, will continue to be
highlighted in the polls.

Unlike the peninsula, campaigning in the rural heartland is a logistics
nightmare. Unless the candidates and their supporters have access to transport
such as speed boats and helicopters, it will be pointless to even think of
contesting.

In Telang Usan, for example, the mode of travel is river, timber track and air.
It covers the upper Baram region to as far as the Bario highlands near the
Sarawak-Indonesia border.

In areas near Limbang, it means campaigning in villages scattered along
mangrove swamps that one uses to get to Brunei.

This time, the anti-logging issue seems to have disappeared but Time magazine
and even CNN has given the issue a new lease of life by featuring
self-proclaimed Swiss environmentalist Bruno Manser's exploits in the
jungle.

He is, in fact, the cover story in the latest issue of the magazine, perhaps to
time it with the state elections.

But the focus seems to be on the challenge that former Defence Minister Datuk
Abang Abu Bakar Mustapha is throwing against the Barisan, presumably in all the
constituencies.

It sounds like a personal fight with an old score to settle. He claims to
represent Umno, but Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Abdullah
Ahmad Badawi have dismissed the claim.

It will not be easy for Abang Abu Bakar's contenders to say that they are not
against the Barisan when they urge the voters to reject the Barisan at the same
time.

And, in a rather unhealthy turn of events, racial politics has surfaced in this
election with allegations that the Melanaus have dominated the politics of
Sarawak while the Malays have been sidelined.

Nevertheless, the bet is that a landslide victory for the Barisan is imminent.
In fact, the Merdeka celebrations finale has been lined up in Sibu on Sept 16,
a few days after polling.

Sept 16 is significant because Malaysia would not have been formed, 38 years
ago, without the support of Sabah and Sarawak.