MANY Malaysians have long complained about job vacancy advertisements that require applicants to have compulsory knowledge of written Chinese and spoken Mandarin.

For job-seekers who are only proficient in Bahasa Malaysia and English, such advertisements must be frustrating, particularly if they feel they are qualified for the jobs offered.

At a glance, Malay and Indian applicants would seem to be the ones discriminated against, but English-educated Chinese are also in the same boat.

Many Chinese can speak their Cantonese or Hokkien mother tongues, but like their Malay and Indian brethrens, they would be rejected by such employers who must have their reasons for insisting on the ability to read and write Chinese.

On Tuesday, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak urged the private sector to stop the practice of making it compulsory for local graduates to be proficient in Mandarin.

The Deputy Prime Minister said the private sector should be more open in accepting and training local graduates without imposing certain requirements.

Employers who insist on hiring only a certain race and gender have long infuriated Malaysians. Often, these are not even offers for high positions but simple clerical or supermarket jobs.

Employers must realise that it makes good management sense to have a balanced staff of various races. Not only would they have a larger pool of applicants to choose from, but the company would also be able to deal effectively with a larger market of customers. Managing leave for staff would be easier too.

For government agencies where Malays make up the majority of the staff, it has always been a nightmare during Hari Raya Aidilfitri. If there are more non-Malay civil servants, such manpower problems would not exist.

Advertisements that impose conditions on language and race should not just be stopped for job vacancies but also those relating to rental of apartments or houses.

There is absolutely no need for employers to state such conditions openly, although there is nothing to stop them from culling candidates who do not meet their expectations in the selection process.

As a Chinese, I fall into the category labelled by some as xiang jiao ren (literally banana people: yellow on the outside, white inside – a Chinese who does not speak Chinese).

When watching Cantonese dramas or movies, I rely on the subtitles. When on holiday in China with tour groups, the English-educated ones like me find ourselves unable to comprehend what the guide is saying.

Most Malaysians are bilingual, but next to those who attended Chinese schools and who can speak three languages, we are at an obvious disadvantage.

But we have to be practical. We can either whine about it, pretend we are not affected by our lack of language skills, or we can learn these languages because of their economic value.

While people like me may find it late to start learning to read and write a new language, there is nothing to stop the younger set, especially fresh graduates, from learning Mandarin, Arabic or Spanish.

As Najib stated, the number of graduates have almost doubled from 45,000 in 2000 to 85,000 last year, but a recent survey showed that 32% of graduates today have yet to secure jobs after completing their studies last year.

No one is surprised by the figure.

The slowdown in the economy has not helped. Employers have become more cautious of escalating production costs, thereby imposing stringent rules on recruitment.

For job seekers whose degrees are not in demand in the job market, they become even more unmarketable when interviewers find that they have a poor command of English.

For many local graduates, that inadequacy is already reflected in their application letters – if they can't string together a proper sentence in English, how can employers have faith in them putting up a decent sales presentation?

This poor command of English is evident among many local graduates, regardless of race. They are victims of an education system that has neglected English. If anybody is to be blamed, it's the politicians. But unfortunately the damage has been done.

The elites can send their children for education overseas but most Malaysian parents cannot afford to do so. If one is living in a kampung, new village or estate, the children have little exposure to English, putting them at a disadvantage against urban kids.

Even in China, employers have begun to insist on fluency in English among fresh graduates in the market. If you want to do business in India, it's still English.

The reality is that English, Mandarin and Arabic would become more important in the coming years because China, India and now the United Arab Emirates have emerged as big markets.

A local company with plans to set up office in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan would insist on Mandarin-speaking candidates. A Chinese Malaysian who can only speak Cantonese or Hokkien would lose out to a Malay who speaks Mandarin and write Chinese.

Likewise, a Mandarin-speaking job applicant is useless for a company doing business in Dubai.

Good English and Arabic would certainly be an asset. Tour operators for Arab visitors to Malaysia would hire Arabic-speaking graduates.

In Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and Austria, most people there can speak at least three languages, but in Malaysia and Singapore, we do not seem to have that skill despite our plural set-up.

In Singapore, many speak English and Mandarin but cannot speak the Malay language, while in Malaysia, most of us are merely bilingual but the trend is that many are becoming monolingual, which is something that we need to check.

Nobody owes anyone a living. We should not expect the Government to give us a job as a pegawai in the civil service, simply because we are graduates.

What we should do is improve ourselves to become more marketable and adaptable to the requirements of a demanding world.

Learning does not stop once we step out of school or university. Learning is, to borrow a phrase, a "lifelong" process.
 

TWO brickbats in two days – first, the police have been criticised for beating up several protestors at a demonstration against the increase in electricity rates at the KLCC. While the newspapers have given only scant mention to the protest, the Internet websites had run pictures of bloodied demonstrators.

Yesterday, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar found himself in an embarrassing situation. A critical report, meant for internal circulation, was posted on the police website.

The 12-page report contained strong, even intimidating, proposals by the police against the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The document stated that the setting up of the IPCMC was "unconstitutional, prejudicial to national security and public order, victimised the people, and could cause a state of anarchy which would undermine the ruling coalition's power".

The report, which has been circulated among members of the police force, said the IPCMC would "undermine the IGP's administrative and enforcement power" but what has become a controversy now is the proposals by Senior Police Officers Gazetted Association if the body was formed.

They included voting for the Opposition in the next general election, asking the Opposition to speak up for their causes in Parliament, working to rule, demanding that the top police brass quit, allowing crime rates to go up and mass resignations of investigating officers.

The association also expressed its disappointment that the Home Ministry had remained silent on the issue, and questioned why the police force had to be singled out for reforms.

These emotional demands, while not out in the open, are a reflection of the simmering unhappiness in the rank and file of the police force since the proposed setting up of the IPCMC.

In a private meeting with the Prime Minister, they had expressed their frustrations. On March 25, in his Police Day message that was read out at all police contingents, except at the event at the Police Training Centre where Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Bakri were present, the IGP had rejected the setting up of the IPCMC.

He said the police force and police associations rejected 24 of the proposals of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, including the setting up of the IPCMC.

But the posting of the internal report on the website, which the police have found to be a mistake, has been untimely. It will not help the image of the police. It is even more unfortunate for Bakri, who is expected to retire in three months.

The Opposition has seized the opportunity to attack the police, with DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng pressing for the PM to act quickly against what he termed as a police "revolt" and that "only the IPCMC can stop the crisis of authority and discipline".

There is now an urgent need for the PM to look at the increasingly vocal call from the public for real reforms in the police force and at the same time, pay heed to the concerns of the force.

The security of the country must not be compromised and the police have cited weaknesses in the recommendations of the commission. For one, we should not expect the police to hand their confidential documents to anyone.

Politicians, for one, can hardly be entrusted to be the commissioners of the IPCMC with imposing powers on the police. That would spell the end of neutrality, professionalism and a people-centred police force. The police also refused to accept that the IGP's authority would be subservient to a layperson.

Royal Commission chairman Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had proposed the IPCMC should be made up "of seven members, appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and chaired by a person with a legal background" and that its commissioners "should not be serving or former members of the police force".

These genuine fears are stated in their report. Why should the police want to be judged by those with zero knowledge of the running of the force, especially in dealing with criminals and terrorists – people with evil minds who may portray themselves as angels?

But at the same time, times have changed. The public expects better accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance principles. Our policemen have questioned, quite correctly, why they should be singled out when there are worse government bodies.

Neither can the police accept the powers of the commission to take disciplinary action including discharge, suspension and demotion of a policeman.

Unfortunately, the practice of corruption, which some would say is rampant within the police force, has not helped its cause.

There is unlikely to be much support from the public despite the many convincing arguments put up.

An independent body, along the lines of an Ombudsman, may be the answer. Different countries, even within the Commonwealth, have different systems of such a body. In India, there are states with two Ombudsmen with the powers of a judge, while in some Canadian provinces they enjoy little power.

But there is a hunger, among the public, for a body to channel its grievances over what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the excessive power of the police force.

The public finds it frustrating, even powerless, having to report against the wrongdoings of the force to another policeman, and assumes it will not get a fair hearing from the start. Even though that may not be the case, perception, trust and confidence are important when one seeks justice.

These wrongdoings would include allegations of corruption, abuse of powers, intimidation, allegations of sexual misdemeanours and plain incompetence in the force.

The Government has not helped, with its seemingly dragging image of the proposed IPCMC. It has been more than one year since the proposal.

Having raised the anticipation of the people, it then said the IPCMC's implementations were unlikely because of police objections and worse, some Barisan Nasional backbenchers then objected to the proposal. Many of us will still recall the similar chorus of support when it was then politically correct to support the setting up of the IPCMC.

The Government has found itself in a tight spot – meeting the demands of the people for real reforms and tackling the unhappiness of the police officers, whose roles are so essential in maintaining the country's security.

A re-look at the proposals and the views of the parties involved may be necessary, so that everyone can see eye-to-eye on the issue, for the larger interest of Malaysia.
 

THERE has been no official word but the talk is that preliminary meetings have been held to get Disneyland to Johor.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was in Japan for a five-day working trip, reportedly met officials from Oriental Land, the Japanese partner of Tokyo Disneyland.

The plan, according to speculation, was to bring Mickey Mouse and the fantasyland to the proposed 9,645ha Nusajaya, a massive new township in the southern Johor corridor.

The state is said to have set aside 960ha and investments worth RM2bil for the plan, which could create 20,000 jobs.

Interestingly, in April last year, Abdullah said he had no objection if Disney were to come to Johor.

Following that remark, Singapore's Straits Times contacted Michelle Nachum, the spokesman for Disney theme parks in California for a confirmation but all she was prepared to say was that Disney constantly evaluated strategic markets around the world.

She would not confirm or deny that Johor was on the list.

No one is surprised that Singapore is keeping a close watch on developments in neighbouring Johor. The Lion City, in fact, almost got its own Disneyland in the Seletar area but the plan fell through.

It was reported last year that negotiations went so far as identifying the site and the government was even prepared to add another station to the North-South MRT Line, with the reservoir as a backdrop.

Singapore Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kang was quoted in the Straits Times as saying that in the end, it did not work out because Disney wanted a 300ha chunk of land and was not prepared to pay for it.

Lim told Parliament that this happened in the 1990s when the government was keen to attract a major theme park like Disneyland or Universal Studios to set up in Singapore, saying "theme park operators are actually content providers, they really only provide the software and the intellectual property."

He said they wouldn't "want to put in too much of their own money" and that "they earn a development fee even before the theme park operations starts" – management fees would be added when operation started, followed by a cut of the gate takings.

Johor, on the other hand, has plenty of land. It is ready to offer up to 1,000ha of land and in comparison to Hong Kong's 70ha and Singapore's reluctance to give up 300ha, the southern state has a distinct advantage.

But running theme parks is not easy, especially in South-East Asia. The humid weather obviously works against us in Malaysia, especially when visitors have to do plenty of walking and waiting in a sprawling theme park.

The theme park in Genting Highlands is successful because of its cool weather and not forgetting the casino element.

The Sunway Lagoon's wet concept is also successful, given the fact that Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, which have no beaches, have a big market.

The present Disney locations are in California, Florida, Paris, Hong Kong and soon, Shanghai.

Florida has warm weather but it is not humid, unlike Malaysia, and can be windy at times.

But our hot weather need not necessarily be a minus point.

The Formula One race in Kuala Lumpur is now touted the "hottest race on earth" and even the monsoon season in Terengganu has helped put Malaysia on the world map with the Monsoon Cup.

Singapore has had two bad experiences – the 12ha Tiger Balm Gardens, set up in 1935, which later became the Haw Par Villa. It had over 1,000 statues depicting Chinese legends but visitors found them gruesome.

It lost RM72mil.

The Tang Dynasty City was another flop, with one report finding the place too hot on sunny days, having too much concrete with too few shelters and people having to queue up for 40 minutes for a boat ride.

It was part of a comprehensive finding by National University of Singapore's Associate Prof Peggy Teo, who does research on tourism.

Since then Singapore has played safe, preferring the air-conditioned indoor kind of theme parks such as Underwater World and Snowcity.

Malaysia has taken the right direction by planning new tourist attractions as scenic spots and shopping malls alone won't do, especially if we wish to get repeat visitors. That was the view of some Arab tourists, interviewed by a newspaper here recently. Our country should also not be in the category of short-stay destination.

More attractions need to be created as the tourism industry becomes more competitive.

Huge sums of money have to be invested to shift world attention to Malaysia.

For example, Brazil paid more than US$1mil (RM3.6mil) to the Rolling Stones for a one-night concert recently. Although the city treated its people and tourists to the free concert, it drew world attention. Shanghai also paid for the ageing rockers.

But in Malaysia, our politicians and some sections of the people may not be so receptive; but it is a small sum to pay for assured global advertisement.

As travelling becomes easier, tourists have also become more demanding. They expect their tour guides to know what they are talking about, having done their research on the Internet before they started their visits.

If they wish to visit a zoo, it must be like San Diego Zoo, a world-class outfit, or a safari park, where animals are allowed to roam freely and not locked up.

Snakes and crocodiles are also passe now.

Plenty of homework needs to be done, especially on the financial prospect of attracting regional visitors, if we wish to set up world-class theme parks here.

Malaysians would surely like to see Mickey Mouse in Nusajaya but we believe careful planning and plenty of common sense are needed as massive public funds would be involved, so that no one takes the mickey out of us.

LET'S be honest about how we view the outcome of the Sarawak
state elections. The Opposition rocked the Barisan Nasional by winning
nine seats – completely wiping out the coalition in the state capital
of Kuching – in the face of an almost fortress-like Barisan campaign
machinery simply because many voters believe that some Barisan leaders
have overstayed their welcome. 

It's already one week after the
polls, but not many Sarawak Barisan leaders seem ready to grab the bull
by its horns, so to speak, to address the real causes of the electoral
casualties. They want to play the nice guys by ignoring the problems
rather than risk upsetting the powerful.  

But the writing has been on the wall for the voters to see. Some
Barisan leaders chose to ignore it, believing that they could pull
through the election again with another massive win. After all,
election results in Sarawak have always been predictable. 

Or they simply believed that they are indispensable and that they
really expected the younger voters to accept their oft-repeated mantra
that their work to help the rakyat is still not completed. Or they are
still in the process of grooming their successors. 

Without doubt, the Barisan has a strong two-thirds majority.
Democratically, the opposition has not been a formidable opponent, but
given the complexity of Sarawak politics, the Barisan leaders have
plenty of reasons to be worried. 

The massive swing to the opposition is unprecedented. We are not
talking about pro-Barisan independents but real oppositionists.  

The DAP grabbed six seats, and even Parti Keadilan Nasional won one.
The number could have been higher, as the winning margin in several
areas was only in the three digits. Even PAS, which many expect to lose
its deposit in the single seat it contested, garnered over 1,000 votes.

There has been loud grumbling. Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he sensed even before the elections that
there was "something amiss" in the state, that there was something
"quite wrong" in Sarawak. 

He said he would give the reasons to Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib
Mahmud in private. Well, that is simply because the Prime Minister is
being polite and diplomatic. Abdullah's few sentences are telling
enough.  

Sarawak Barisan leaders must not just wake up, as Taib has said, but
they must snap out of their state of denial. If there is to be a real
shake-up, then they must address the reasons for the rejections. 

It is not a rejection of the Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) alone
but a rejection of the Barisan. Painful as it may be, and not many
politicians would want to shoulder the blame, that is the crux of the
matter that must be addressed.  

For Umno leaders, they are upset with the entry of Keadilan into
Sarawak. It is a lease of life for the opposition party, which has been
struggling to keep itself intact for the past two years.  

The focus has been on the Chinese voters in urban areas but just take a
cursory look at the protest votes in the rural areas. They may not be
enough to unseat the Barisan but the trend should upset the federal
Barisan leaders.  

We have to accept that the old ways of doing things are over. Barisan
politicians cannot hope to talk about the need for development and
unity at their ceramah and believe that they have done enough.  

They must stop believing that seeing their pictures in the newspapers
would guarantee the votes. That would be simplistic. Deputy Information
Minister Datuk Zahid Hamidi correctly pointed that out immediately
after the polls. 

As the Barisan carry out their post-mortem, one glaring effect of the
polls must be the age difference of the contenders. In one corner was
the younger line-up of the opposition and in the other corner was the
very much older Barisan leaders. 

Taib, who has headed the state for 25 years, celebrated his 70th
birthday on Monday. His deputy Tan Sri Dr George Chan turns 70 this
September while another deputy, Tan Sri Alfred Jabu, is 66. 

In comparison, the voters in Kuching, mostly in their 20s to 40s, voted
in a younger set of state assemblymen – Ting Tze Fui (Merandong), 24,
Violet Yong (Pending), 29, and Chong Chieng Jen (Kota Sentosa), 35.  

It is not just about the leasehold expiration of property or the
unhappiness over the fuel price hike, but that Taib and others have led
the state for too long. They have done marvellously well but it is time
to pass on the baton. 

There is also the excessiveness. Expensive projects that serve little
purposes for the people. Why would the state spend RM300mil on a state
assembly building that meets only twice a year? It's sinful. 

But all is not lost. We must be ready to learn from history. In 1999,
PAS sprang a surprise and pulled the rug from under the Barisan in
Terengganu after 40 years, ending Mentri Besar Tan Sri Wan Mokhtar
Ahmad's 25-year reign. Wan Mokhtar lost his Chukai seat, a Barisan
stronghold, too.  

The time has come for rejuvenation and reforms in Sarawak. The people
deserve fresh input for development and the search for successors must
now be expedited. 

Surely there are enough qualified and talented people in the state to
take over. Give the younger people a chance; give Sarawak a chance. 

It means entering into a relationship with God. Often, for
the faithful, it means a change of lifestyle. But the most poignant reality is
that sometimes, conversion into another religion is also because of love that
leads to marriage.

In the case of inter-racial marriages, the reality is that
sometimes, marriages fail and when that happens, people may want to go back to
their previous religion. In other countries, it would have been a simple and
straightforward matter, but in Malaysia,
it can become a thorny issue.

So, we have ended up in a murky situation. The moderate and
more sensible politicians have preferred to discuss these issues behind closed doors,
away from emotional and sometimes irrational individuals.

Then there are the legalists who argue their case strictly
from what is written in the Constitution. That means interpretation of
semantics. It can be a cold and elitist approach but they have valid reasons.

After all, what is the point of having a Constitution, a
properly defined document of laws and principles, if we are not going to
respect and follow what has been agreed upon?

For that matter, what is the role and function of the courts
and the legislature if these issues are hijacked by religious bodies or,
sometimes, by individuals with political ambitions?

Malaysians have yet to come to the point where we are brave
enough to adopt a critical attitude towards those who mesmerise us through
religion. Irrespective of our faith, not many of us dare to question religious
leaders even if their stand is flawed because we see them as God's men,
forgetting that they are mere humans.

They may be learned and trained but that doesn't give them full
control over followers of the various faiths. If we are to be progressive and
to move forward to become a civil society, then we must adapt ourselves to deal
with those who attempt to put up a theocratic structure for their own benefit.

It has to be granted that there would be disputes – with
religious and communal connotations – when it involves prayer, death or
marriage.

In a multi-racial country, it is right that we take a
cautious approach, because the larger interest of the people is more important
than that of individuals. The unity and harmony of the community as a whole
must not be compromised.

That is why Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
has wisely called on various groups to exercise caution, especially in any
debate about syariah and civil jurisdictions.

The Prime Minister has rightly said that organisers must be
careful as the subject is sensitive. He has been just and fair-minded when he
said recently that the public forum on the protection of minority rights under
the Federal Constitution was legal and not banned but advised them that they
must avoid treading on dangerous grounds.

The organisers of Article 11, an umbrella group of 13
non-governmental bodies, must remember that those who oppose their views have
similar rights to hold meetings to express themselves.

When meetings with opposing views are held, there would be
some who may intentionally stir up arguments that can be hurtful.

Abdullah is correct in calling for caution because many of
us often see things only from our own perspective. We talk about our rights,
forgetting that others have rights, too.

The police must be commended for acting in a professional
manner, given the emotive situation, by asking the forum organisers to cut
short their closed-door meeting and asking the protesters to disperse.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri
Abdul Aziz was harsher in his criticism of the protesters.

It can only be described as mob behaviour, which must not be
tolerated in any civilised society. No lawful society should accept such
behaviour by those who try to legitimise their actions in the name of religion.
There is such a thing as rule of law.

One leader of the protesters was the Penang Ulama
Association of Malaysia assistant secretary Hafiz Nordin. He is also the state
PAS deputy youth chief but he denied the party was behind the protest. Last
week, PAS Youth handed a memorandum to the Prime Minister's Office calling for
action against the organisers of Article 11.

Penang police chief Deputy Comm Datuk
Christopher Wan said that action would be taken against the protesters, who
called themselves the Anti-Inter Faith Commission Body, pointing out that they
were from "a political party".

I am reliably informed that active high-level discussions
are taking place among political, religious and non-governmental groups on
these issues. Those involved in these talks are a multi-racial and
multi-religious group of people with high integrity and credibility and I
believe that they would be able to come up with some fair and accepted
solutions.

Issues affecting marriage, divorce, child custody and burial
rites should not be the monopoly of religious elites. Regardless of their
religion, they are not the sole, authoritative interpreters of their respective
religions by virtue of their religious training.

The "holier-than-thou" and narrow approach of the religious
establishment, who sometimes refuse to accept the perspectives of other faiths
beyond their own, can be obstacles to reform.

I am positive and optimistic that our Cabinet, which include
the heads of many Barisan Nasional component parties, would be able to tackle
these issues well. But certainly not politicians masquerading as religious
leaders.

Our Barisan leaders are elected representatives of the
people, and they, and not the theocrats, should determine what is best for the
people. They should not get themselves clouded with issues, which some may want
to complicate, because at the end of it, it is about the personal and private
lives of ordinary Malaysians.

We must be alert against policies, seemingly religious,
which run contrary to our Constitution and laws. We must hold sacred to these
principles of laws because they were agreed by our founding fathers.

No one has a right to judge anyone because in any religion,
it is God and God alone who determines all, and that right to abrogate that
power has not been given to anyone. That should be clear.

THE Da Vinci Code has, thankfully, been passed for screening in Malaysia despite the uproar by Christians worldwide who regard the movie as blasphemous.

Some churches in Malaysia have found Dan Brown's book offensive and instructed their members to stay away from the movie but that has not stopped The Da Vinci Code from being shown here.

The Home Affairs Ministry has done the right thing because we should adopt a culture of opening up hearts and minds.

But in the case of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir (The Last Communist), the authorities have adopted a different position.

The film, directed by independent filmmaker Amir Muhammad, is said to chronicle the life of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng, now living in exile in Thailand.

Although it was approved by the Censorship Board without a single cut, it was banned by the ministry after an editor of a Bahasa Malaysia newspaper voiced his unhappiness – never mind that he hasn't even viewed the film.

The crux of the stinging reports was that Amir allegedly highlighted the exploits of the communists in the 90-minute film, which featured interviews with ageing CPM members.

Those who have reservations over the film included Home Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad and Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin – both of whom have presumably also not seen the film – as they felt that many Malaysians have not forgiven the CPM for the many atrocities they committed.

It is this knee-jerk reaction from the authorities, which have succumbed to the demands of some individuals and groups, that has led many Malaysians to question the Government's rationale.

Several Members of Parliament have been invited by Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim to a special screening of the film tomorrow.

Credit must go to Dr Rais, who agreed with Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang that a special screening should be conducted for the elected representatives to draw their own conclusions.

Malaysians have no reason to question the sincerity of Radzi and Zam, who are both in their 60s and have experienced the upheaval caused by the CPM.

They certainly saw and shared the grief of those who sacrificed their lives for the country fighting the communists.

Their fear is that the film would promote Chin Peng, who is regarded as the man behind the destruction of property and the loss of many innocent lives.

But more than 50 years have passed.

The Cold War with the United States has ended and the Americans and Russians are now friends. Germany has unified as a nation while Communist China has embraced capitalism, with the Red label used by its leaders to hold on to power. Cuba and Vietnam have opened up their markets and taken advantage of the tourism dollars.

The odd one remaining is North Korea but you can be assured that no sane Malaysian youth would seek asylum there.

Today, the former CPM members at the Friendship Villages in Thailand have long traded their guns for handphones.

They have become businessmen, cashing in on curious visitors who crave for bits of history by visiting their old hideout tunnels.

Talk to them privately and they would tell you about their lost years because of their idealism. But for old time's sake and foolish pride, they would tell reporters and movie-makers like Amir that they had no regrets.

These are people of another era, who fought the Japanese, the British and later, the Malaysian armed forces. They thought Chin Peng and Chairman Mao were their greatest heroes in their proletariat struggles.

But in today's age of the Internet, iPod, MTV and Mawi, the young, who make up more than 60% of our population, do not even know who Chin Peng is.

It's the same as the Mat motor who wears a Che Guevara T-shirt and mistakes the celebrated Cuban revolutionary for Bob Marley the legendary reggae singer.

Hello, this is 2006. Chin Peng may still be the bogeyman to the older generation who cannot discard the ghost of the past but Amir, who is known for making arty films, doesn't stand a chance against The Da Vinci Code and Mission Impossible 3 in mainstream cinema.

Chin Peng against Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks, you must be joking.

Chin Peng is not news any more. His views have been recorded in My Side of History, a book compiled from interviews by Ian Ward and Norma Miraflor in 2003. Again, to the Government's credit, the book was not banned.

Since then, our universities have published books on former Malay leftists and CPM leaders, many in their 80s and 90s, so that their side of the story could be recorded before they pass away.

I cannot fathom how a movie on Chin Peng can be a semi-musical. From a journalistic point of view, Amir has failed because, how can a movie about Chin Peng be made without an interview with the main character?

After all, the rest of the CPM veterans are merely secondary sources – foot soldiers used as pawns by Chin Peng who was safe hiding in Beijing.

The human rights activists would cry that banning the film is an infringement of human rights, the arts groups have said it is mindless censorship against artistic expression. But the fact is, the majority of Malaysians do not really care. The authorities have, unwittingly, made a big fuss over a film which would likely be a flop.

But the sad reality that emerged from this storm in a teacup is that once again a small group that lacks a good grasp of the issue has been able to dictate what we can see, hear and even think – all because not many of us are vocal enough to stand up against the tyrannical few.
 

The newspapers have been filled with nothing else but
football and football. And of course, the political turmoil faced by Prime
Minister Tony Blair. At last week's local council elections, Labour Party was
walloped by its rivals, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats. For the media
and Blair's enemies, this is the beginning of the end for Blair, who has been
the PM for three terms.

The knives were further sharpened when his deputy John
Prescott was exposed in a sex scandal. The deputy PM's secretary Tracey Temple
may have lost her job but she has made a fortune giving intimate details to the
newspapers.

Prescott,
meanwhile, is under immense scrutiny although he still keeps his £199,000 a
year job and the perks that go with it.

Politics is the same everywhere.

I decided to take a week's break in London
after covering Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's official visit
to Jamaica.

The plan was to watch the farewell Arsenal match against Wigan
at the 93-year-old Highbury stadium, where there has been many good memories
for the Gunners.

Determined as I was to be a part of history, the scalps
denied me that opportunity with their £400 a ticket cut-throat offer. I wasn't
prepared to pay, even if it meant missing Thierry Henry's supposedly last game
for my favourite team.

Strange as it may seem, I ended up in the Lion's Den in Old
Trafford instead, to watch Manchester United play Charlton Athlete, in what
could be described as an inconsequential game. Chelsea
and MU have after all kept the first and second spots in the championship.

But after I failed to get into Highbury, I could not say no
to an offer by AirAsia, a sponsor of MU, to watch the last match of the season
at Old Trafford, even if it meant taking a two-hour train ride to Manchester.

The low-cost carrier generated much excitement when its
Airbus, with faces of MU players on its body, flew into the industrial city.

Despite the foregone conclusion of the match, more than
73,000 people were at the stadium, one of the biggest crowds for the season. It
was simply fantastic, as a football fan, to watch stars like Rio Ferdinand and
Christano Ronaldo up close and personal.

But being the loyal Arsenal fan, I had to shout with delight
when it was announced that Arsenal had beaten Wigan 4-2
and Spurs had lost to West Ham 1-2. That meant that Arsenal was fourth.

The football fever continued unabated when England
finally got a true blue Brit Steve McClaren to be their coach. He has been
described as a boring fellow by the media. The merciless media tried to pin him
down on a sex scandal but found out he had broken up with his wife.

Never mind if he spends more time on the football pitch than
the bed, unlike his sex-scandalised predecessor Sven Goran Eriksson.

Patriotism is very much in the air with the English flag
fluttering on many cars. The colours of England,
whom many believe will do well in the World Cup, are being adorned everywhere,
from panties to party hats.

One shop in Oxford Street, selling jackets and suits, is
even offering a money back offer if England wins the Cup – all the customer
needs to do is to take up the offer before the finals starts.

Local analysts are saying that the football-mad season will
cost England
£1.3bil in losses as six million Britons are expected to call in sick during
the finals as businesses predict absenteeism, lateness and even drunkenness.

The selection of Arsenal's 17-year-old sensation Theo
Walcott for the team heading to Germany naturally grabbed the headlines as he
will be England's youngest international. When his coach called him up to tell
him the good news, the boy was busy taking his driving test, according to the
papers.

Everyone has predicted that Brazil
is going to keep the Cup but hey, style and samba alone are not enough in Europe.
You need technical skills and strategies.

I am putting my hopes on England,
even if it is cautious about its chances. Come on, England!

Topping the list must be the Printing Presses and
Publications Act, which provides the Government the power to issue, renew and
revoke the permit of any publication.

It no longer makes sense for the Government to impose such a
restriction on the press, especially the print media, when it can no longer
exert its authority on the Internet.

News is no longer only delivered via print. We have news
websites run by the mainstream press and also the alternative press. We also
have sites set up by opposition parties, groups and individuals, which carry a
variety of news and commentaries. And then we have the bloggers.

The media, as we understand it, is no longer the monopoly of
print.

No one needs a permit to start a website or to blog. He is
free in cyberspace and with the possibility of reaching out to millions of
readers not only in the country but worldwide.

And certainly the Government will find its influence
diminishing in the coming years, as the young switch to the Internet for
information. It will no longer just be a question of an alternative news
medium, but of too much information to choose from.

Participatory journalism and politics have already begun to
make their mark in Malaysia
and it is sad if our politicians are unable to see the trend.

Young Malaysians no longer want to be told what they should
read, hear and see – they want to have a say in how a newspaper or a government
should be run.

Not only that, they want to post their comments instantly,
whether through a website or via the SMS, on issues affecting them. In the
multimedia age of podcasting, they can post sights and sounds on the Net.

Last week, the National Union of Journalists called for
greater press freedom to battle corruption and abuse of power in the country.

Its president Norila Mohd Daud said the public had a right
to know the progress of any government programme as the leaders were elected
through the democratic process to administer the country on the people's
behalf.

Increasingly, Malaysians would become more demanding and
critical of the press. Rightly so, too. It is a worldwide phenomenon, where the
press is as lowly-rated as politicians.

Many see the press as part of the establishment, thereby
unwilling to challenge the elite for various reasons, including those affecting
their political and business agenda.

The mainstream media has come under fire for being
pro-establishment and at the same time, many readers find the alternative press
too self-righteous. Even as it criticises the mainstream media for lacking
objectivity, the fact is that most of the alternative press is
opposition-biased.

There are certainly more newspapers, television and radio
stations over the past decade but Malaysians have a right to question whether
the increasing numbers have made any difference in the content. For that
matter, they rightly questioned whether there has been anything refreshing.

The electronic media in Malaysia
may be faster than the print media, providing visuals that have enormous
impact, but it has been unable to discuss complex issues, especially on
politics and economics, in an intelligent manner.

In all fairness, the current leadership has provided more
democratic space to the media. Over the past two years, the press has certainly
been more critical.

The Malaysian press may not be as angry as some people want
it to be, but certainly more issues are being addressed these days. And, by
extension, more critical comments have been published.

In cases where some personalities claimed they have been
blacked out, a careful check would show that their views have actually been
printed.

Opposition figures have been invited to speak at talk shows
organised by television stations, which previously would have been unheard of.

Issues of race, religion, corruption, waste of public funds
and civil service inefficiency have come up in the open, and are more prominent
than ever.

There has been a great deal of tolerance on the part of the
administration and many Malaysian journalists appreciate this openness and have
used this window carefully, avoiding the thunder-and-lightning approach that
would otherwise jeopardise the opportunity.

We cannot expect complete changes overnight, but the
revolution, so to speak, has begun. Maybe gradually, but the pace has been much
faster than expected.

The older Malaysian editors may be more cautious, still
reluctant to take bolder steps because of their baggage of history, but the
young set of journalists would view issues differently.

Brought up in the age of information technology, they have
no regard for sacred cows. Laws which are outdated would simply become
redundant eventually.

It is like a man who refuses to change his black-and-white
television set to a colour one. It would just become useless.

Laws which are regarded as restrictive to the Malaysian
media are the same. The tools of information are changing and it is better for
the authorities to realise this trend sooner.

After all, a newspaper or other media that is perceived to
lack credibility would just lose its readership or viewership eventually.
Journalists, too, have to maintain their credibility or they, too, will be
ignored. Young Malaysians are spoilt for choice. It is time we wake up.

Just days before, the former Manchester United big man was
in China, Asia's biggest market, to talk about developing the sport and
boosting Chelsea's appeal in the region.

The English Premier League's top teams – Chelsea, Manchester
United, Liverpool and Arsenal – have a huge following in
Asia and these clubs recognise the importance of
countries which are economically strong.

It is about making billions of dollars from television
rights, product endorsements, appearance fees, merchandising and sponsorship.
In the past, marketing football was merely restricted to sportswear but now,
even credit cards, watches and cars are carrying the names and logos of these
clubs.

Airlines and telephone operators also recognise the appeal
of these football stars in helping to drive their products. They are prepared
to pay these clubs to have their products endorsed.

Two years ago, Real Madrid flew into Japan
to play against FC Tokyo, and 54,000 fans attended the match because they
wanted to watch English player David Beckham. The tickets were sold out even
before Beckham signed on with the club.

Malaysia
missed the chance of seeing Real Madrid here because the club wanted RM11mil as
appearance fee. Well, Real Madrid did pay RM157mil to sign Beckham then, even
if many of us now ask if he was worth it.

But it is the English football teams that command the
biggest following. Manchester United, for example, has a fan base of 50 million
people in Asia. Even in the United
States, where football is regarded as a
sissy's game by some rednecks, the base is growing.

Manchester United is a serious business concern that is
listed in the London Stock Exchange and is regarded as the most profitable
football team in the world. While it must keep its fans happy, more importantly
it must keep the shareholders happier.

Arsenal, another rich club, takes the Asian base so
seriously that its official website has the Chinese and Thai versions. The club
also hired Chinese-speaking staff to run its business section with China,
Hong Kong and Taiwan.

In Malaysia,
the people making the biggest buck are the illegal bookies, unfortunately. Last
week, it was reported that a 27-year-old bookie in Penang
had a worldwide clientele. He received bets up to RM10mil for weekend matches
and all transactions were carried out via e-mail and online booking. He was
waiting for the biggest killing – the World Cup finals in Germany
in June – but unluckily for him, the police nabbed him.

Two years ago, the Singapore Straits Times reported that
RM100mil in bets were placed with illegal bookmakers every weekend although it
was the first Asian country to legalise football betting on its domestic league
in 1999 and, in 2002, it started accepting bets on English premier. In Hong
Kong, the government has also legalised football betting.

Gaming is regarded as a sensitive issue in Malaysia
with most of the existing gaming licences issued decades ago. No politician
would want to be seen to take the first step to propose that sports betting be
legalised, even after considering the financial possibilities.

If couples holding hands is regarded as a delicate matter,
what more gaming? But the fact is that many Malaysians are big gamblers,
especially the Chinese community.

We have lost huge sums of money to illegal bookies,
especially when it comes to sports. Unless the Government is prepared to impose
a regulated form of betting on sports, the Government would end up losing such
possible revenue. Legalised betting for sports events would also cut down on
corruption as rogue enforcement officers are said to be profiting from illegal
bookies.

If existing gaming outlets could be used to accept these
bets, particularly on foreign soccer matches, then gaming could be controlled.
The Finance Ministry can even restrict the betting only to states with huge
Chinese population such as Penang, Selangor, Kuala
Lumpur, Johor Baru, Ipoh,
Negri Sembilan, Sabah and Sarawak.

That would surely take away the political and religious
factors from such a move. Revenue from gaming operators could be channelled to
promote sports, including motor racing.

We can debate at length about the merits and demerits of
such a move but the reality is that gaming would continue to be a way of life
for many non-Muslims and that bookies would make huge sums of money while the
Government would not get a single sen.

Except maybe some dirty cops, who want to turn the other
way.

When Arsenal clashes with Barcelona
in Paris on May 17, we can bet that
the illegal bookies would grow richer.