We can dismiss or challenge the index, including the criteria used, but it would not help Malaysia. It will be better if we do something about it to improve our standing in the international community.

Malaysia still has a chance to get things right. On the forefront of the campaign against corruption is the Prime Minister but he alone cannot eliminate or reduce graft overnight. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has kept the momentum going and has attempted to introduce a new culture of national integrity but all this takes time.

All the efforts including the setting up of a National Integrity Institute and the launching of a National Integrity Plan have the support of all Malaysians but the time has come for a strong push.

Pak Lah's efforts must not be allowed to go to waste. Corruption must be regarded as a criminal act and nothing less. If not, corruption will be regarded as a way of life and a norm.

But Malaysia may come to that point if we are not careful. According to a survey carried out among hawkers and stall operators by the Kuala Lumpur Society for Transparency and Integrity, the respondents viewed corruption among local councils as a "very serious" problem.

Unfortunately, the victims of bribery also said that corruption was a norm, with 17% of the respondents saying that giving bribes was acceptable to ensure their business could operate smoothly.

Pak Lah has taken the right move by insisting that the delivery system must be simple and effective. That means doing away with regulations or, at least, simplifying them, to prevent corruption. More transactions with the Government should be done online to cut red tape and corruption.

The media must continue to expose corruption, with prominence given to civil servants and politicians charged with corruption. That's not all – their titles should be automatically revoked when they have been sentenced.

I can detect the frustration of many Malaysians, especially businessmen, who believe that individual Malaysians cannot do anything to effect change. There is growing pessimism and the perception that corruption has become so entrenched in some areas that it can no longer be fought.

For example, despite the prominence given by the media to the blatant practice of restaurants placing tables and chairs along roadsides, many municipal councils have ignored the media outcry. In short, the media can shout but the status quo remains.

Some Malaysians believe that it does not pay to stand on principle and feel that it is acceptable for a low-ranking government officer to take a small bribe since the bigger fish are doing it and getting away with it.

Despite such a dampening mood, there is certainly greater public awareness but unless the proper mechanism is put in place, all the good intentions of the leadership will go to waste. Worse, its sincerity will be questioned because of the rising expectations.

Unless the Anti-Corruption Agency is made independent, and not just another government department, its effectiveness will be limited and even compromised. Our ACA deserves to be given the kind of autonomy like that of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of Hong Kong, which drew much objection from police officers when it was set up.

There is also a need to introduce laws to protect whistle-blowers if we want the public to come forward to testify against the corrupt. There should be no fear of reprisals once such laws are in place.

Steps should also be made by the ACA, with the support of the National Integrity Institute, to make it more accessible to the public to lodge reports against those who take bribes.

In Hong Kong, the ICAC have offices near market places and even shopping areas to enable the public to interact with them. The public can just walk into these offices to voice their grievances.

Fighting corruption should be regarded as community work. Let's join hands with Pak Lah to fight graft.

"It's the question time I am worried. The public can vote you out every five
years but the backbenchers can get you out by the end of the week," said the
panicky politician to his wife Annie in one episode.

"It's the question time I am worried. The public can vote
you out every five years but the backbenchers can get you out by the end of the
week," said the panicky politician to his wife Annie in one episode.

by Najib, although the Deputy Prime Minister has downplayed this
sportingly.

In August, she did not turn up for a Cabinet meeting where she was supposed to
explain the AP issue, saying she was sick and needed treatment for a knee
problem.

On Wednesday, Rafidah was again absent from the Cabinet meeting chaired by
Najib, This time, she is away in the United
States on a trade mission.

She should have turned up at the Dewan Rakyat to face the MPs, who are the
people's representatives, and to clear whatever doubts they might have.

While the minister could have been on an important mission for Malaysia
but the Dewan Rakyat is the most important forum.
Like Pak Lah, former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and other Malaysian
leaders also watched the long-running political satire.

International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz had obviously
not taken seriously the one-hour allocation for questions and answers when the
Dewan Rakyat sat from Monday to Thursday.

On Thursday, there were resentment and anger from fellow Cabinet members and
Barisan Nasional backbenchers when she did not attend the sitting to reply to
the MPs on the controversial Approved Permit (AP) issue to import cars.

It did not help that she decided to reveal the names of MPs who had received
APs, with the elected representatives saying it was a move to arm-twist them
into not speaking up on the issue.

As far as the MPs were concerned, she should have been there to face them but
rightly or wrongly, she chose to snub them.

They told the press in no uncertain terms how they felt, and certainly did not
care if she was away on a trade mission.

Her absence could well be a turning point in her political career, with many
now saying that her Cabinet position was untenable and that her holding to her
position stubbornly would only hurt the Government.

Just a few months ago, she was heckled and booed by Umno members at the party
general assembly over the AP controversy.

If that was not enough, she also ended up having an exchange of words, to put
it mildly, with some of her fellow Cabinet members.

One news report had it that she sniped at a minister who was smiling when the
hot topic was brought up while another colleague was reportedly told to take
care of his ministry first.

Her colleagues described her as "combative", "confrontational" and "abrasive"
and one minister reportedly said the longest serving Miti minister was
dismissive of anyone who disagreed with her.

At the core of the controversy are the unanswered questions on the huge
allocation of APs to a few individuals.

Of the 67,000 APs issued this year, more than 28,000 went to Tan Sri Nasimuddin
SM Amin, Datuk Syed Azman Syed Ibrahim, Datuk Mohd Haniff Abdul Aziz and Datuk
Azzuddin Ahmad.

The ministers felt Rafidah had not replied to several crucial issues on which
they wanted answers.

To put it bluntly, her integrity as a minister has been questioned at all
levels and now, MPs from both sides of the benches, have spoken up openly
against her with Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri
Abdul Aziz slamming her for not turning up to field questions on the AP
issue.

On Thursday, the Opposition attempted to refer her to the parliamentary
privileges committee but what was astounding was the silence of government
backbenchers when the DAP motion was rejected by Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah
Talib.

The usual table thumping to signify approval was missing, a point certainly
noted by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who attended the
morning session on Thursday.

They were obviously incensed that the names of MPs who received APs were
revealed without an explanation.

MPs and senators are entitled to an AP once in their lifetime as part of their
perks.

An irate Nazri told reporters that the AP issued to each MP and senator was not
meant for them to resell for financial gain but for their own individual
use.

He said what probably raised the hackles of the MPs most was that Rafidah's
name was not on the list.

In fairness to Rafidah, it was a question from Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang
and she was merely providing a written reply.

The public are actually interested in knowing which MPs have enjoyed such a
perk but it would mean a lot to these elected representatives if her ministry
took the trouble to explain it was only a one-off thing.

But there is now a new dimension to the issue – Rafidah has stayed away from
two Cabinet meetings chaired
The perception now is that she had run away from the MPs or she had decided to
ignore them. Either way, it's bad for her image and reputation. The Government
needs to move away from the AP issue.

Despite the setting up of a committee, headed by the Prime Minister, to review
and decide on all issues related to APs, the issue has not gone away.

It has taken up too much of government time and attention.

Rafidah has got herself into a corner because of her own doing. Worse, while
she has put the Government in a tight spot she may have put her Cabinet job on
the line now.

Fact number three is that Judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Musa,
in his 49-page judgment, found there was not too much evidence adduced against
all three or for their defence to be called.

He has correctly pointed out that there were unresolved doubts and unanswered
questions in the prosecution's case.

The judgment has not gone down well with most Malaysians and many are outraged,
but a judge has made his decision on evidence available.

That is how the law operates and a judge must not be swayed by public
sentiments or prejudices.

If there is anyone to blame, then it must be the police and the
prosecution.

As the judge noted, the prosecution hurt its own case by failing to call a
certain Insp Moin.

That was not all, Koh's driver Mohd Razbean Md Tab, a key witness, has gone
missing. That does not speak well of the police at all.

Another key witness, Fang Sui Jing, said to be a girlfriend of Koh, has been
deported to China and even the date of her deportation is unknown.

The Chinese national, who was serving a 10-month sentence in Kajang prison for
overstaying, was a key witness and yet no attempt was made to keep her until
the case was over.

Investigating officer Asst Supt Nor Omar Sapi admitted that he did not make any
formal request to the Kajang prison for Fang to be handed over to the
police.

Malaysians are left grappling with questions like how a murdered boy could end
up in the swimming pool of a heavily guarded bungalow with 23 injury
marks.

These are questions the prosecution failed to answer and we are not sure if
they will ever be.

But Malaysians, concerned with the increasing crime rate, are upset that the
prosecution and police have failed to resolve a series of high profile murder
cases.

The public would like to think that our police are efficient and they have
proven able to live up to our expectations when it comes to serious
crime.

But when our defenders of public order keep losing their cases, especially
murders, then Malaysian taxpayers have a right to ask what they are
doing.

What are our investigators and prosecutors doing when they keep losing in the
courts?

When judges throw out their cases, it just means that the prosecution has
failed to produce sufficient evidence. That's how the legal system works.

Our hearts go to the family of Xu in China who had hoped that their child would
get a decent education in Malaysia and grow up to be somebody they can be proud
of.

Instead he was murdered and, worse, we cannot even find his murderer or
murderers. It's a murder most foul.

The increasing cost of living is the number one topic among Malaysians. They do not care about politicians trying to rewrite Malaysian history or squabbling politicians fighting to protect their positions in the name of serving the community.

It was thus refreshing to read about the Prime Minister's immediate decision to decide that there would be no petrol, diesel and cooking gas price increase at least until the end of the year. That's fair enough.

The other decisions were road tax reductions of up to 80% from Sept 12, no toll increase for this year and next, as well as increased aid for senior citizens, the poor, and disadvantaged children.

These steps will in many ways help ease the public's burden brought on by escalating prices of consumer goods. The Consumer Price Index, which indicates the price variables, rose 2.8% during the first six months of this year. The increase would certainly have affected the purchasing power of consumers.

For the average Malaysian worker, his salary does not stretch that far these days. Apart from the usual deductions – EPF, Socso and income tax – there are also the usual bills to pay. Those with schoolgoing children also have to pay more for transportation, food and even tuition fees.

In Kuala Lumpur and Johor Baru, probably the country's two most expensive cities, it is tough for someone earning RM2,000 to make ends meet.

Many of us eat at coffee shops or food courts in shopping malls, and not at upmarket eateries in Bangsar. But the prices of our kopi kau and mee goreng have gone up too.

We are told that we should shop at reject shops or the pasar malam to get the best bargain, but the fact is that's where most Malaysians do their shopping even before inflationary times. The Louis Vuitton bag is from Jalan Petaling, by the way, and not from Paris.

In the midst of these price increases, it has become fashionable to blame the retailer, the wholesaler and sometimes the consumer for the inflationary trend.

While there would be errant ones who take advantage of the situation, it would be wrong to see them as the primary causes.

There have been statements by some politicians asking hawkers or traders to absorb the increasing costs of their items. That seems illogical as they are in business to make money.

Like it or not, they have to pass it to their consumers or simply sell us a smaller portion of the char koay teow.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's emphasis on agriculture since he took over the leadership would probably receive more urgent attention now. He is right that domestic food production must be accorded priority to cut down on our food import bill.

Buying imported foodstuff leads to outflow of the ringgit and with the hike in oil prices, naturally we have to pay more. Greater emphasis on local food production would help us reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers.

The PM is also right in saying no to prestige projects so as to reduce public sector expenditure. Expensive non-functioning projects which only benefit the developers and contractors are certainly not necessary.

For example, one state has committed a huge amount of money to build a state assembly complex, which does not meet that often. It is mind-boggling.

Meanwhile, the government should enhance enforcement to curb profiteering and hoarding.

We do not know whether oil prices will keep going up but the government, with the support of the media, certainly needs to regularly explain why the oil subsidy has to go.

It is not an easy job but the cut is necessary as over RM1bil has been literally pumped away, at the expense of Malaysian taxpayers.

In 2003, taxpayers had to bear subsidies for oil products amounting to RM6.6bil and last year, the subsidies shot up to RM11.9bil. This year, it is expected to reach RM16bil. At this rate, it is just not possible to continue.

Pak Lah has taken the initiative of providing Malaysians some early relief and we certainly look forward to his Budget speech on Sept 30, which is just weeks away.

Singapore Airlines, it pointed out, made an operating profit of US$153mil in the last quarter despite rising fuel costs. The SIA managers were told the airline enjoyed no special protection and had to sink or swim in a highly competitive market.

More pertinent, the article stated, its staff, management and crew were drawn from all over the world and "what was Singaporean about it was the way the airline was managed".

It would not be accurate for anyone to compare Malaysia Airlines with SIA. SIA has no unprofitable routes to worry about in the name of national service and can focus its attention on foreign routes.

Neither does SIA bother about flying to unpopular destinations in South America and Africa to promote South-South cooperation. In fact, Singapore does not have that many embassies in developing countries.

MAS executives are also trying to understand why a decision was made to fly to Ipoh, which is less than two hours away by road. The drive from Kuala Lumpur to the KL International Airport alone would probably take at least 40 minutes.

MAS became national news recently for the wrong reasons when it posted a net loss of RM280mil and the man who had to face the firing squad, to put it figuratively, was its managing director Datuk Ahmad Fuaad Dahlan.

It has been reported that while  fuel costs were up almost RM1bil, the other contributing factors were in-flight meals (up RM35mil) and consultancy fees (RM31mil).

Instead of understanding the flaws behind MAS and to rectify them, we have now gone on to debate whether a foreigner should be allowed to head the national carrier.

Umno Youth head Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said the appointment of a foreigner to lead the nationally-owned company could be likened to allowing Malaysia to be re-colonised, albeit in a new manner.

He urged Malaysians not to look at such an appointment "purely from the commercial aspect but (we) should look at it in the bigger agenda, that is the Malay agenda".

Hishammuddin said MAS had to give reasons why Malays or Malaysians were not qualified, adding that present-day imperialism was perpetrated not only through the use of weapons but also through the mind, culture and economy.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad responded, in a cynical way, saying "perhaps all the national companies should be allowed to be run by foreigners. Then I think we should have a different definition of a national."

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he did not think Malaysians were incapable of heading MAS, saying he would leave the decision to MAS.

Malaysians would probably have reasons to be wary of a foreigner but more important is that MAS must not be allowed to continue bleeding. It makes no sense if a Malaysian is incapable of running the airline effectively, competitively and with integrity.

The priority for MAS now is to find a capable CEO who can help make the airline profitable again. The nationality, race or gender should not be an issue.

Numerous companies including car makers are being managed by foreigners. The Japanese, who have a hard reputation against foreigners, have even accepted a foreigner to run Nissan.

At home, we openly accept foreigners to manage our hotels because we have grown accustomed to it. Malaysians own these hotels but foreigners manage them because they are good, it's as simple as that.

So if a foreigner CEO can do the job, so be it. Likewise, if a non-Malay can help turn a debt-laden government-linked company around, there is no reason why the CEO must be a Malay.

But even the most qualified CEO, regardless of his nationality, race or gender won't be able to do the job if he is not left alone to work on it. Political interference is enough to kill any enthusiasm, let alone ambitious plans.

MAS has a bad reputation of being over-staffed and no CEO has been brave enough to trim it down, fearing a labour backlash. But the fact is that it is bloated and the management has to do something about it.

That is not all. Newcomer Air Asia recently trumpeted its performance with the announcement that it had achieved a net profit of RM111.8mil for its last financial year "despite battling spiralling jet fuel prices, SARS, bird flu and other adverse circumstances".

But Malaysians love our national airline. Even as we grumble about its services, deep in our hearts, we know that it is a great airline and anyone who has flown on European airlines can tell the difference.

We long for smiles from our MAS stewardesses and the hot nasi lemak after weeks overseas. We know we can only get these from MAS and certainly it has brand loyalty.

MAS should just get its act together and the last thing it should worry about is Air Asia. As its media-savvy CEO Datuk Tony Fernandes told a forum recently, "bus companies should be more worried about Air Asia than MAS" with its low fares.

Let us be realistic – nationalism has no meaning if we remain losers and are incapable of competing effectively in the global market.

Not everyone, especially Muslims, would approve of Tunku's personal interests. Some would even advocate that it is best we did not talk about it, preferring to forget or ignore what they believed to be his shortcomings. But the Tunku was never a hypocrite.

He was open with his poker games and love for horse racing including attending the prestigious Melbourne Cup races. It must be remembered that Tunku lived in the era of P. Ramlee movies, greased hairstyles, nightclubs, tight kebaya and Vespas.

That has always been one of the endearing qualities of the Tunku. He admitted his weaknesses and never pretended to be what he was not.

It would not be wrong to say that this is indeed a rare attribute in the context of present day politics.  Like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, he strongly believed in the substance of faith, rather then its form.

His religious work was recognised by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and he spent much money and energy on Perkim, which carried out missionary work on converts.

As Malaysia celebrates National Day on Wednesday, I decided to read the proclamation of independence by the Tunku at Stadium Merdeka. It was a simple nine-paragraph statement. The pledge of loyalty read by the student representatives at the annual Merdeka parade would probably be longer.

Our schools should make it a point for our students to read it. Not to memorise it but to appreciate the spirit of independence the Tunku had pledged at the stadium at the height of nationalism and patriotism.

The Tunku pledged that the Constitution would safeguard the rights and prerogatives of the Rulers and the fundamental rights and liberties of the people and the orderly advancement of the nation as a constitutional monarchy based on parliamentary democracy.

That proclamation, I believe, remains sacred to Malaysians today regardless of their race, religion and culture.  The keywords are the rights and liberties of all people.

Less and less is being written about the Tunku now. He has become a memorable item only for the National Day and probably a one or two-page mention in our school textbooks.

Yet, the Tunku was the man who brought together the Malays and other communities in the turbulent fifties in a common quest for independence. It surely was not easy convincing the Malays to give the Chinese and Indians citizenship.

On the other hand, the non-Malays must have been fearful their economic, religious and cultural rights would be affected now that the British were gone and the Malays had taken over.

But through the moderation of Tunku and the other Chinese and Indian partners, he managed to convince them that under the Umno leadership, the politics of consensus would prevail.

The keywords were compromise and accommodation – the very same formula that is now carried out by the Barisan Nasional, which takes into account the sentiments of all races.

As the nation celebrate its 48 years of independence, our politicians and people need to reflect upon our weaknesses and strengths. The biggest question is whether we have moved sufficiently towards the direction of Malaysian consciousness.

Some section of non-Malays still cannot appreciate the significant positions of Islam and Bahasa Malaysia while some section of Malays cannot grasp the importance of non-Malay languages, especially English and Chinese, in a globally-competitive age.

Terms like orang kita and kaum asing are still being insensitively used by some national leaders at public functions instead of the more acceptable economically-advantaged or disadvantaged.

Then, there are non-Malays who totally ignore Bahasa Malaysia or English at functions, forgetting the presence of Malays, Indians and non-Mandarin speaking Chinese at their gatherings. Hello, this is Malaysia.

We still struggle with the right approach to economic development. While the middle class has expanded, the poor, whether in the rural or urban areas, certainly need assistance. The rich surely should not be allowed to get richer, at the expense of the poor, simply because of their political affiliations.

Malaysians should also ask whether we have matured politically. Surely, parliamentary democracy isn't about elections, parliament sittings and press statements from politicians.

After more than four decades, the hopes and optimism of Malaysians have been renewed with the national commitment to public integrity, particularly the determination to fight corruption, greed and abuse of power in high places.

Malaysia is the only country we know – we were born and will die here, there is no other place.  Our destiny is the same, irrespective of our race, religion and culture. Orang kita should simply mean Rakyat Malaysia and nothing less.

It reminded us a lot of the TV series, Impian Illyana, which is also produced by a multi-racial group.

The series, shown as 10-minute episodes on NTV7 from Monday to Friday, is about how a 17-year-old girl copes with her studies and relationships. Like all real-life situations, she uses both Bahasa Malaysia and English, which officials frown upon as bahasa rojak.

I believe these two shows appeal to young Malaysians because they can relate to them. They see themselves in there, and the positive messages are subtle and not preachy.

The movie and TV series have another pleasant thing in common – non-Malays played the role of Malays. It's a slow start but the first step has been taken with the removal of the stereotyped physical face of a race.

Just a few months ago, we saw how Malaysians raved over Sepet, about a relationship between a romantic Chinese VCD peddler and a feisty Malay girl in Ipoh.

The brilliant movie, with its many multi-cultural nuances, went on to win many prizes although some mainstream local producers felt threatened by newcomer Yasmin Ahmad.

Yasmin, who is married to a Chinese, is well known for her commercials during Malaysian festivals, bringing us joy, laughter and even sadness sometimes, as we watched them.

Recently, I caught a soft drink commercial where a Chinese teenager tried to win the attention of a pretty Malay girl. It may not be an original concept, reminding us much of Sepet, but at the same time, it is surely uplifting.

These filmmakers have certainly done  more for us than many of our politicians. These young talents have boldly broken new ground, smashing taboos and racial prejudices.

Instead of making empty rhetorical speeches, which smack of communalism, to please their listeners, these young Malaysians have decided to talk about the commonalities of Malaysians, rather than their differences.

It is those politicians who have made young Malaysians sceptical and cynical of mainstream politics. Fresh approaches and ideas seem to be lacking with many falling back on the communal way of rising up the political hierarchy.

Young Malaysians who make up the majority in this country no longer want the same message pushed down their throats. Exposed to  information on the Internet and daily interactions, the old formula of doing things is no longer applicable.

The first time I actually paid to watch a Malay movie, Adik Manja, was in 1979. The plot was realistic, the dialogue clever and the cast  multi-racial. The movie, set in Universiti Sains Malaysia, proved the point that non-Malays would watch a Malay movie if they feel they are part of it. Think Sheila Majid, who has a huge following among non-Malays.

Last year, it was a delight to watch two non-Malay actresses in two Malay movies – Pontianak Harum Sundal Malam and Puteri Gunung Ledang. The first had Kavita Kaur playing a major role while the other starred Tiara Jacquelina.

National Day should be a time for reflection. It should not just be an exercise to merely fly the Jalur Gemilang, hold parades and fireworks displays, but a time to ask ourselves how far we have come and where we should go from here.

Some of these questions may seem out of place and a little uncomfortable, but we must be honest with ourselves. After 48 years of independence, we have to ask ourselves whether we still want to waste time debating the same political, economic and education issues.

Many young Malaysians who do not carry the baggage of history want to move on and not be stuck with the same political manuscript. Worse, sometimes we get the same political actors.

We have spent too much time debating issues, some dating back to the 1960s which, by right, ought to have been settled but which continue to rear their ugly heads occasionally through some politician or newspaper editor.

When I reflect a bit further, it was my 80-year-old father, who was born in Langkawi, who introduced me to the world of that very Malaysian icon P. Ramlee. Dad, who came to Penang to work as a shop assistant when he was only 15 years old, speaks fluent Malay with a strong Kedah dialect.

Now, it is my turn as a 44-year-old father, who minored in Malay literature in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, to bring Malay movies to my daughter.

Watching old P. Ramlee movies with my daughter on TV, she asked why it was so easy to understand the Bahasa Malaysia used by the movie legend. I told her that was the way real people talk.

Last week, as the two of us watched Gol & Gincu, we agreed that the dialogue was real because every Malaysian, irrespective of their race, speaks bahasa rojak – it's either Malay, Chinese or Indian rojak. That is how real people talk and we shouldn't frown on it.

Bahasa baku failed miserably because a certain politician wanted us to speak in a contrived way. Then, we were told that we should speak bahasa the so-called proper way, much like stage actors, but the only problem was it could not be enforced.

Malaysia is richly diverse in cultures, religions and languages and we should promote them instead of being apologetic about them. In ordinary cases, movies are fantasies but in our case, some movies are more real than what our politicians expect us to be.

***In my column last week, I inadvertently mentioned Tunku Abdul Rahman's secretary as the late Mrs Bernadette Lee. It has been brought to my knowledge, via e-mail, that she is still alive. My apologies for the error.

But he was a larger-than-life figure to me. I held him in awe and even reverence whenever I visited him at his house and, as a veteran politician, he must have noticed that.

The Tunku was no longer newsworthy but as the former premier and chairman of our company, he insisted that the newspaper ensured that he would be in the news. He also wanted to be referred to as the first prime minister.

The coverage was limited to courtesy calls from various organisations and old friends of his. It was a lonely job because The Star reporter would be the only one there and the job often fell on me, being the most junior reporter in the Penang bureau.

But it allowed me to be up close and personal with the Tunku. I spent hours talking to him in his study filled with books and papers. Sometimes he would just ask me to sit outside, when he wanted privacy, as he read his column using a magnifying glass.

It was not easy as many times we had difficulty trying to converse, what more understand each other. He could no longer remember names, let alone dates, of personalities involved in major events. His critics had by then called him senile.

But when his mood allowed, he would give me a history lesson and I felt privileged as this was the man who lived through it. I did not realise the importance of it all until years later.

He was a kind man, always making sure that I was properly treated as his guest but what struck me most was his constant reminder that Malaysians must tolerate each other in a multiracial society.

Pragmatic and easygoing, he enjoyed his poker and horse racing.

The Tunku's staff was almost entirely made up of non-Malays. There was his ADC Owen Chung, his secretary the late Mrs Bernadette Lee, clerk Hassan Abdullah and his driver, whom I remember as Muthu.

There was also a female Chinese cook who took care of his meals while Muthu's son, Appu, served drinks and snacks to guests  and attended to the needs of the Tunku.

The message he continuously drove into me and my colleagues was that he was the happiest prime minister and that moderation must be defended at all costs and that religious extremism had no place in our country.

Fast forward to 2005. Last week, I had the opportunity of sitting down with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for dinner, together with a group of editors. I had covered him as a political reporter, lost my job for five months when he revoked The Star's permit in 1987, travelled with him overseas, talked to him privately about Anwar Ibrahim hours after the then deputy premier was sacked, and interviewed him in his final days as prime minister.

The dinner was special because it was our first meeting after I wrote an article in May questioning him on his handling of corruption during his 22 years as prime minister.

He was upset and had called a press conference to rebut my article. In that same press conference, he also talked about the allocation of approved permits, which is still unfinished business.

I apologised if my piece had offended him but Dr Mahathir laughed and patted me on my shoulder, preferring not to dwell on the past. He turned 80 years old recently while I am now 44 years old.

As the conversation flowed through dinner, we found the man to be still as we knew him as journalists – witty, sarcastic, meticulous, and sharp. He remembered figures, dates, events and decisions he had made.

He was in his element and answered our questions frankly and filled many gaps in history, which we promised we would jot down in our diaries. But like the Tunku, he too spoke passionately about moderation.

He was perceived as an ultra nationalist when he became Prime Minister in 1981 but by the time he retired, he was well regarded by the non-Malays, especially the Chinese. He told us that made him happy and appreciated, which he described as one of the satisfying  milestones of his career.

Those of us who know Malaysian history would be aware that the Tunku and Dr Mahathir were never close buddies. Dr Mahathir's criticism of the Tunku got him expelled from Umno in 1969 while the Tunku openly spoke at Semangat 46's ceramah against Dr Mahathir.

But like the Tunku, Dr Mahathir is practical and has no time for religious extremism. He makes no bones about his disdain of Muslims who are more concerned with ritual, appearances and form than the principles of Islam.

As Malaysians celebrate National Day, we must remind our young, as well as our politicians, that this country is founded on the blood, sweat and toil of our forefathers from all ethnic groups.

It was the moderation of the Umno, MCA and MIC leaders who understood the importance of sharing political power. It was the  Malay padi farmers and fishermen, the Chinese mining workers and Indian rubber tappers of the early days who brought Malaysia to what it is today.

That racial distinction is gone today in corporate Malaysia and more than ever, Ali, Ah Chong and Muthu are working together in business. There is no shame in combining our resources.

For the Tunku and Dr Mahathir, their only concern was who could do the job, whether political or economic, and not their ethnic background. It was national interest first. That same belief has been continued by Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

We have always been partners and we should be partners as fellow Malaysians if we want to compete on the global stage effectively. The more we remind ourselves that as Malaysians we should not dwell on our racial background, the better we would be.

After 48 years of independence, most of us have grown tired of listening to worn-out communal and religious arguments from politicians. This is 2005; let's get our act together to march on as Rakyat Malaysia.

Indonesia has fingered 10 Malaysian-owned plantations as
being responsible for the starting the fires. If that is the case, it should
name the culprits. The owners should not only be prosecuted but if found guilty
should be severely punished and even jailed if this is provided for under the
law.

These people should also be made to pay compensation, for they have profited at
the expense of others. They should not be let off so easily.

That aside, the forest fires are also the work of farmers in Sumatra who slash
and burn these forests to clear their land. It is as simple as that. We have
all along known the source of the problem since 1990 when Asean leaders met to
talk about these hotspots.

But 15 years later, the talk has not moved beyond anything else.  To put it bluntly, it has been all talk and
nothing else. For the last few years, we have had to send our fire fighters and
ministers to Indonesia to seek their cooperation.

We have heard the apologies from Indonesia before but maybe it's time we
invited the Indonesian officials to come over and see the problem for
themselves. Jakarta doesn't have a smog problem, Kuala Lumpur does.

The Indonesians will able to understand our frustration, and even anger, better
if they can spend a few days walking the streets of Kuala Lumpur and Port Klang
and Kuala Selangor, the last two having been declared emergency areas.

Work has been disrupted and obviously money and productivity lost as a result
of such yearly burning in Indonesia. More important, our health has been
affected because of the foul air and that is worrying.

Malaysians do not care if the haze is confined to Indonesia as a result of the
indiscriminate burning but, unfortunately, it has affected us. Tomorrow, the
wind may just blow to Singapore.

Yesterday, haze reduced visibility in the Straits of Malacca to less than 1km,
posing risks to ships while vessels at Port Klang have been beached.

The question is what guarantee can Indonesia give us that Malaysians will not
have to go through this again this time next year? Do we have to put with more
joint committees and sub-committees to come up with more meaningless
reports?

Or are Malaysians supposed to adopt a positive attitude in the face of the smog
in the spirit of good neighbourliness as the farmers and greedy plantation
owners get back to their irresponsible action next week?

At our end, the government too has set up committees in the past with promises
of early warning systems but, obviously, we are defenceless when such a problem
hits us.

But for the moment, we have no choice but to offer to send to our fire fighters
there to help put out the fires. We are, of course, supposed to be thankful
that the offer has been accepted.

Malaysians, however, must appreciate the decision of Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to release the air pollutant indices for the first time
after six years.

Until now, for some strange reason, these figures have been regarded as a state
secret for fear of scaring away tourists. Common sense has finally prevailed
because the health of Malaysians is far more important than tourist
dollars.

Indonesia has to wake up to the fact that the forest fires have become an Asean
problem, full stop. Let's end this annual ritual once and for all with serious
enforcement.

Bisa diatur, as our neighbour would say. ("Can be arranged" in Bahasa
Indonesia).

The few who continue to play the race card have been sidelined by their party bosses because they have become an embarrassment, while one or two have survived narrowly in the general election after their opponents reminded voters of their past actions.

But even moderate leaders have found it difficult to ride against the sentiments of their respective communities as they fight against their opponents who stoked the racial fire.

Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar wanted to open the membership of the party to all races and ended up leaving the party instead. He was certainly a visionary but he was ahead of his time.

Then, there is our first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who was prepared to share power with the Chinese and Indians. A true patriot, we will remember him for his moderation and open-mindedness.

No Malaysian leader, many of us would agree, can measure up to him. He had his flaws, as with all human beings, but our Bapa Malaysia will be fondly remembered by us.

Then there are existing leaders, like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who are prepared to point out the weaknesses of their community. It is not easy but they have done so, not once but many times.

Another leader whom many of my journalist friends agree deserves mention is Tun Ghafar Baba.

Throughout his long involvement in politics, he has never been known to have uttered any hurtful remarks against the other races.

The same can surely be said about Pak Lah, whose moderation is also exemplary. Young Malaysian politicians should learn from him if they wish to be respected by all Malaysians.

MCA leaders such as Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tan Sri Wong Pow Nee were branded as running dogs in the past by Labour Party leaders because they worked with Umno. In present times, PAS and DAP have continued to criticise such relations, dismissing the MCA and Gerakan as weak.

But the coalition of political parties representing the interest of various races has also been emulated by the opposition in the form of Barisan Alternatif as it has been proven to be effective.

The politics of consensus and moderation is the only way forward for Malaysia. Extremism, whether in the form of religion or communalism, by politicians, religious leaders or journalists, must never be tolerated.

The older ones among us have seen the success of the affirmative actions through the New Economic Policy, even if there were flaws in its implementation. But generally, the policy has produced a large successful Malay middle class.

No Malaysian in his right mind should question efforts to eradicate poverty and to restructure society but it should not be abused to help the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, especially those in rural areas.

In the past, residential areas were identified by racial groupings such as Malays in Kampung Baru, Chinese in Kepong and Indians in Sentul, but today there are many examples of racially-mixed housing estates.

The demographic changes and economic strength of the Malays have led many Chinese restaurant owners to switch to non-pork food to cater to a larger customer base. It is simple practical economics.

Many Chinese companies now hire Malay staff because they realise they cannot ignore the many Malay customers with their strong purchasing power. Even international corporations have begun advertising in the Bahasa Malaysia newspapers.

Likewise, Malay businessmen who have to do business in China have no choice but to hire staff who speak Mandarin. Even a Malaysian Chinese who can't speak Mandarin or write Chinese will be disqualified.

The changes of the past three decades, since the implementation of the NEP in 1970, have been tremendous. It may not have totally achieved its desired results but its overall impact has been positive.

It is impossible to make every race in Malaysia happy but that is precisely the point as no one race should be totally happy at the expense of others.

As Abdullah clearly assured all Malaysians, the Government will be fair to all Malaysians. I am sure the non-Malays who followed the proceedings of the Umno general assembly welcome that assurance.

The leadership has been a practical one and most Malaysians have faith in Abdullah's promise. He is fully aware that Malaysia needs to be competitive and, in private discussions, he has raised this matter many times.

Malaysians should see each other as partners and not as rivals. Globalisation has made protectionist rules irrelevant and, unless we combine our resources and talents, we will be left behind. There is little point arguing about the size of our slice of cake if there is no cake.

We should also not go overboard in dismissing any joint venture between a Malay and Chinese as Ali Baba with its negative connotation.

I have heard complaints that some Malay businessmen had to pick a Singaporean or even a Hong Kong partner because they feared being regarded as an Ali Baba concern. The losers, unfortunately, happen to be their fellow Malaysian Chinese.

Moderation, in the way we approach things, is important and many of us hope that the strong remarks made at political events by younger leaders are merely rhetoric. But sending the wrong signals can be just as confusing.

It is good to see the Barisan leaders, at national and youth level, listen to each other's viewpoints and concerns in our musyawarah style. More important, we have proven we can sit down and try to appreciate the perspective of every race, and not just our own.

As in all democracies, it is all right to disagree but we must also find ways to reach an agreement finally.