THERE is a distinct difference between Prime Minister
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his predecessors – he made us believe in
ourselves and he believed in us.

It's legendary by now how much confidence he attempted to instil in us during
his 22-year leadership.

But not many Malaysians know how far he would go to prove his trust and faith
in us, even if it meant risking his own life.

Then there is another known critic of Dr Mahathir who had
written a book criticising the Proton Saga project but bought one vehicle
shortly later.

Yet another who used to be very angry with Dr Mahathir is Dr Chandra Muzaffar.
I do not know how he feels about the Prime Minister now but Dr Chandra has
certainly turned positive.

There are many of us, whether we wish to admit it or not, who was upset with
the Prime Minister at one time or another over the past 22 years. Even some of
our Cabinet ministers today had openly rebelled against Dr Mahathir with harsh
words.

In fact, I was among the critics. In October 1987, when he ordered the arrest
of 119 people comprising parliamentarians, civil rights leaders and social
activists, I honestly thought that Dr Mahathir had gone overboard.

My job as a journalist hung in the balance when he revoked the printing permit
of The Star and two other newspapers. The suspension lasted five months – a
rather long period of uncertainty.

Some of us who had earlier campaigned against the Official Secrets Act
genuinely believed that democracy was dead. So was press freedom.

In his first five years as Prime Minister, there was no end to the
controversies against Dr Mahathir but he carried on doggedly. He was determined
to prove many of us wrong.

Years later, as I began covering him as a newsman, I was able to understand his
leadership on a more personal level. From there, I became more appreciative of
him.

His labour of love had begun to bear fruit. The country's economy became robust
and we held our heads high, knowing we were better off than before.

He instilled confidence in us and as more and more foreigners became acquainted
with Malaysia,
we realised proudly that we were no longer in the backwaters of Borneo.
Thanks to Dr Mahathir, the white men now know about Malaysia.

Dr Mahathir stamped his authority because he wanted us to be focused and
channel our energies into making Malaysia
great.

If there is a price to pay for the development of Malaysia,
we were all willing to go along. We began to accept that democracy meant little
if we had empty stomachs.

Dr Mahathir is clearly a man ahead of the times, a visionary. On hindsight, we
began to see the logic of his actions, even if they might appear unpopular and
even irrational to some of us.

Economists like Dr Jomo talked of cronyism without realising the practical aspects
of doing business. The theory part is always easy.

But not many businessmen in this country can do a decent job, particularly when
it involves mega projects and the commitment of huge investments.

Those who had complained about the imposition of tolls on roads must surely
appreciate the fine network of highways we have today.

Travelling by road is so much safer and faster now. The toilets at the rest
areas today are much better than the horrendous sights that greeted us at
coffee shops along trunk roads.

Dr Mahathir did not build monuments named after him but created projects that
benefited the people.

It was he who gave the green light to bring cable television to our homes and
spoilt us with the many channels. And it was Dr Mahathir – regarded by the West
as an enemy of the press – who handed over 2,000 printing permits over the last
22 years.

He has been accused of being dictatorial and called a pharaoh by PAS leaders,
but that did not stop the opposition party from capturing two states. If elections
were rigged, that wouldn't have happened.

Two weeks ago, I travelled with Dr Mahathir to London
and Stockholm. Last week, I was in
Langkawi to interview him along with three colleagues.

The interview is probably among the last before he steps down on Oct 31. We
could sense that there was plenty he wanted to say.

Among them was the Anwar Ibrahim issue. It was obvious he had been pained
deeply and he needed to get his feelings off his chest when I asked whether he
had been misunderstood during his 22 years as Prime Minister.

It is a blot on his record but it would be terribly unfair to judge him merely
on that one sad episode. Surely, there are more pressing concerns of the
nation.

He wanted to dwell more about his efforts to get the Malays off the subsidy
crutch as "by and large, they have become even more dependent on the
government."

There was despair on his face. In his own words, he said he had tried
everything but he had lost.

For the majority of Malaysians, however, we can truly say he has done his very
best during his time in office.

There is nothing more we as Malaysians could ask for from Dr Mahathir. He has
been an extraordinary leader.

For that, we have been lucky. It is still more than three weeks before he
retires but I have already begun to miss him.

By coincidence, or perhaps the speaker might have
recognised Dr Mahathir among the crowd, he suddenly heaped praises on the
Malaysian leader. Dismissing many politicians who claimed to be Islamic as
fakes, he described Dr Mahathir as one of the few true Muslim leaders.

In a strong commanding voice, he said Dr Mahathir was one of the few "Islamic
leaders with soul" and "certainly one of the great Islamic leaders of our
time."

Not wanting to attract undue attention, Dr Mahathir decided to walk away before
he was pointed out by the speaker, who appeared to have become excited by the
presence of the Malaysian leader.

It was certainly a good start for Dr Mahathir who spoke his heart out on Islam
to a packed crowd at the School of Oriental
and African Studies at the University
of London the following day.

Dr Mahathir had spent hours rewriting the speech, keeping his aides busy until
near midnight on Sunday, to ensure his
words truly reflected his inner thoughts and feelings on Islam and Malaysia.

Using simple language, without the rhetoric often associated with some Islamic
speakers, Dr Mahathir urged Muslims to re-examine the Islam they practised as
contradictory interpretations had divided its followers and led to various
drawbacks.

The Prophet, he pointed out, brought Muslims only one religion of Islam but
today there were hundreds of Islam, saying Islam was a perfect religion but
Muslims were not.

The short stop in London was a
nostalgic one in many ways, not just for Dr Mahathir, but for the officials,
journalists and businessmen who accompanied him on his stops in Stockholm
and New York.

On his last leg of his 22-year career as Prime Minister, he took time off in London
to buy books and also DVDs. One of his choices was the classic Ben Hur,
starring Charlton Heston.

Then there was the purchase of tapes in French, an indication that he would be
learning the language, now that he would have time to spend on his own. His
wife, Datin Seri Dr Siti Hasmah Mohamed Ali, is said to be sharpening her
language skills by sending SMS in French.

The London visit, probably his last
as a prime minister, also brought back many fond memories for him. He told his
listeners that his first visit was in 1962 when there were few Indian
restaurants. He remembered one particular shop which he visited daily for his
meals until he realised that the British pound sterling was just too expensive
for him.

But Dr Mahathir had little precious time for himself in London.
There appeared to be no end to the number of people who had appointments with
him at the apartment in Kensington High.

Those who did not have appointments did not mind waiting outside the door. Some
Malaysians, including a former prominent editor now living in London,
just wanted to shake his hand and extend greetings. It was obvious, from his
smiles, that Dr Mahathir was delighted to see some familiar Malaysian
faces.

When he arrived in Stockholm, Dr
Mahathir kept the same punishing schedule, meeting Swedish leaders, businessmen
and officials, until midnight. He is
certainly no ordinary man, as all of us realised. Instead of taking a lighter
pace, as most people reaching retirement would have done, Dr Mahathir had a
meeting every hour.

Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, visibly touched by Dr Mahathir's visit,
reminded the local press that the latter would be stepping down next month. Dr
Mahathir, he told them, was not just the Malaysian Prime Minister but also the
head of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organisation of Islamic
Conference.

He insisted that the local press should inform the Swedes about these
accomplishments, saying it was an extraordinary feat for an extraordinary
man.

As the journey in Stockholm came to
an end, Dr Mahathir held his customary press conference for Malaysian
journalists. Still the country's number one salesman, he spoke about the
readiness of some Swedish investors to put money in Malaysia.

But the touching moment for most of us, who have been travelling overseas with
Dr Mahathir over the years, was when he told the newsmen that he wanted to have
individual pictures taken with the journalists as remembrance.

Taking advantage of Dr Mahathir's mood, the staff of the Foreign Ministry and
the security personnel soon made the same request, which he sportingly obliged
despite having only minutes to catch his flight to New
York.

The Malaysian press had thought that the visit to Sweden
was his last official visit, apart from upcoming working visits to Thailand
and Indonesia
to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting and Asean summit
respectively, but his aides said a few possible visits were still being worked
out before he stepped down on Oct 31.

The generals who lived after the war were so ashamed by
their defeat and their atrocities that they died in silence, without offering
the world their stories.

But Chin Peng – the head of the Communist Party of Malaya – who now lives in
Thailand has written a book on the 12-year war against the British and
Commonwealth forces in the jungles of Malaya.

The memoir, entitled Chin Peng: My Side of The Story, is now on sale at local
bookshops. The book was first made available two weeks ago but for some reason,
copies were seized by the police.

On Saturday, the Home Ministry said it had not banned the book.

The 527-page book on British journalist Ian Ward is based on Chin Peng's own
narration of his involvement in the CPM, which remains outlawed in Malaysia.

I managed to get a copy of the book before it was temporarily withheld, and
finished reading it within days on a recent trip to Japan.

The Home Ministry must be commended for allowing the sale of the book as Chin
Peng has answered, in many ways, the questions of historians, students of
Malaysian history and probably the Special Branch.

He has revealed for the first time that the CPM was officially founded in 1930
– 10 years before Chin Peng joined the party as a 15-year-old schoolboy and
then later became its secretary-general.

The former guerilla himself is unable to provide details of events before his
time but has noted that the late Vietnamese leader Ho Chin Minh had attended
the inaugural meeting of the CPM.

There were gaps that Chin Peng filled, such as the assassination of Loi Teck,
the secretary-general of the CPM who was later exposed as a double agent for
the British and Japanese.

Loi Teck, a Vietnamese, had informed the Japanese of a meeting involving top
CPM leaders at Batu Caves
in 1942 and as a result of the betrayal, the CPM leadership was almost wiped
out.

Chin Peng said that on a trip to Bangkok,
he spotted Loi Teck by chance and quickly informed members of the Thai
Communist Party who searched for the traitor from hotel to hotel.

Finally, two Thai communists strangled Loi Teck, who was then sickly, and
dumped the body in the river.

Previous versions had it that Loi Teck was shot or that he had disappeared
under mysterious circumstances because his body was never found.

As far I can recall, there has never been any book on the CPM that published
the picture of Loi Teck. In Chin Peng's book is a picture of Loi Teck who,
according to the writer, had four wives.

The book, as Chin Peng said, is not about the CPM's history but his involvement
in the party that appointed him secretary-general at 23 years old.

To research the book, Chin Peng visited the United
Kingdom and Australia
to look at declassified reports of the Emergency.

The book is also a personal chronology of his life, which students of history
cannot gather in academic books.

Chin Peng, the son of a bicycle shop owner, spoke of his childhood in Sitiawan
and of his participation in the Methodist
Church choir.

Influenced by the political developments in China
and his passion for Chinese literature, Chin Peng eventually looked to the
Middle Kingdom as his model of resistance against the Japanese and
British.

He wrote of his love for a Penang woman who, despite her
education in a convent school, turned into a communist and later became his
wife.

Then there were the betrayals by comrades for money and, in some cases, to
avoid being sentenced to death.

For all its propaganda, criminal breach of trust involving party funds was
common, according to Chin Peng.

In his twilight years now, the 79-year-old spoke of his wishes to return to his
hometown and pay respect at the family graves.

He has portrayed himself as a nationalist whose only quarrels were with the
British and Japanese.

On the doomed peace talks in Baling in 1955, Chin Peng has good things to say
about Tunku Abdul Rahman, pointing the finger at Singapore
Chief Minister David Marshall for disrupting the talks.

Probably living in Bangkok, Betong
and Haadyai now, he spoke of his desire to "spend the last years of my life in Malaysia"
but that is unlikely to take place, given the pain still suffered by those who
fought the CPM in the jungles.

He regards himself as a socialist but "in the Malaysian context, I have
definitely dropped the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the
central concept for an administrative blueprint."

In short, Chin Peng has admitted, on record, that his ideology is no longer
applicable.

In fact, he goes further to say "the youth who has known only stable
governments and lives in an independent age of affluence will find the choices
I made as a teenager deeply puzzling."

"They will think the Malaya I talk about in this book is
another world and they will not be far off the mark.

"It was a different world. The colours of that colonial world were stark.

"I was young in a very different age that demanded very different approaches. A
revolution based on violence has no application in modern Malaysia
or Singapore."

This is a remarkable and thoughtful book and has certainly shed light on the
country's history, most of it seen from the eyes of British historians.

It is an unhealthy development in a multi-racial society
like Malaysia if the police force, as a key institution, does not have broad
racial representation.

Besides, representation from all racial groups would make the police stronger,
particularly in gathering information for intelligence or investigative
work.

One reason why the Malaysian police had been successful in fighting the
communists since the 1960s was because the Special Branch had many Chinese
officers. These dedicated officers, operating in secrecy, were able to
infiltrate the Communist Party of Malaya and other leftist groups.

If these Chinese policemen were not part of the police force, the job would
have been near impossible, given the fact that the CPM was made up of mostly
Chinese members.

So effective was the Special Branch that its officers were – and still are –
regarded as one of the best in the world.

Today, the needs of the Malaysian police force have changed. While a racially
balanced force is important, it also needs more educated and qualified people
to fight crime.

It needs accountants, lawyers, psychologists, computer experts, economists,
public relations practitioners and specialists from various fields as the scope
of policing widens.

For example, there is a need for officers who can read balance sheets and make
sense of complex management terms in order to fight white-collar crime. And
only computer-savvy policemen can track down banking and credit-card
frauds.

In other words, muscle alone is insufficient in fighting crime today. To
attract talented and qualified Malaysians to join the force, we have to convince
them that there is good prospect in police work.

We can rope in political parties, the media and community groups to encourage
young people to become policemen but no amount of cajoling will work if
benefits are lacking and the pay is low.

It has nothing to do with patriotism. No ethnic group should be blamed when the
government is unable to come up with an attractive pay package.

If the starting pay of a police constable is RM684, we should not expect the
young to rush to sign up. Our politicians and police bigwigs may publicly
refuse to accept the grave problem of poor salaries of constables but how many
of them are prepared to ask their children to join the force.

The rank and file deserve better pay because of their high-risk work. They
deserve a minimum starting salary of at least RM 1,000 and other benefits
including overtime allowances.

Better pay would inspire professionalism and greater self-confidence and pride
in their work. Certainly, they would be less tempted by corruption.

To attract young people to the force, they must be convinced that there are
promotion prospects. Thus, there must be a greater sense of meritocracy when it
comes to promotion.

Unless we keep an open mind, our efforts to fill up the 4,000 vacancies in the
force would come to nought. Public expectations of the force are high and no
one can deny that the police have done a competent job in keeping our streets
safe.

While the number of petty crimes has increased, our police have generally
performed well. Lately, though, crime has become a favourite dinner
topic.

The public understands that the force is short of personnel but they expect
politicians to solve the problem fast. After all, politicians are elected to
address the grievances of the people and they should be responsive.

We will never be able to recruit talented, dedicated and qualified doctors,
nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen, engineers, soldiers and diplomats into
our civil service if we do not reward them.

Our policemen deserve better. It's time to cut the rhetoric and the lame
excuses if we are serious about recruiting the best crime fighters, regardless
of race, into the police force.

But she assured us, two non-Muslims, that Umno leaders
were working hard to tackle PAS via different approaches.

We told her that from our impressions, some Umno politicians had refrained from
a political fistfight with PAS because they feared being labelled
anti-Islam.

Worse, the perception, rightly or wrongly, is that in some places, Umno leaders
have even attempted to compete with PAS leaders.

Deputy Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Mydin has so far stood out as the
loudest critic against PAS.

I would also like to highlight the stand taken by fellow journalists who have
expressed their indignation towards religious extremism through their writings,
in the face of abusive telephone calls, hate mail and even death threats.

For example, writer Farish Noor, who has written extensively on Islam and PAS,
has decided to take a break because of such threats coming from people who
purportedly cherish press freedom and freedom of speech.

To silence its critics, PAS has adopted this intimidating approach – any
criticism of PAS is equated with criticism against Islam.

To hush up the non-Muslim critics, they are dismissed as ill-informed minorities
who have no right to touch on policies pursued by the party because of its
religious elements.

When the rights of non-Muslims have been encroached upon, PAS leaders instantly
warned them of "the rights of the majority."

The recent statements and actions by PAS leaders such as acting president Datuk
Seri Abdul Hadi Awang and PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat are
certainly alarming.

While no one can fault them for consistency – such as their ultimate goal to
set up an Islamic state and to replace secular laws with syariah laws – the
party had issued some fresh orders recently.

Non-Muslims in Terengganu found out recently that dancing, involving men and
women, had been banned. Never mind if the event was organised for senior
citizens by the MCA.

Then, a Deepavali function which featured Indian female artistes was also
stopped by the PAS leaders.

Next, Nik Aziz blamed the use of perfume and glossy lipsticks as a main cause
for rapes, saying such provocative seduction should not be encouraged.

The state has also set up a department, similar to the moral police in Iran,
which goes around arresting youths with hairstyles deemed to be
unacceptable.

The state has already imposed a gender segregation policy in supermarket
checkouts and other public places.

On Thursday, Hadi continued his political antics by saying the police had
condoned vice activities in the state because the police allowed women to sing
at functions organised by them.

The police, he alleged, had not cooperated with the state authorities in
enforcing hudud and qisas laws passed by the state assembly in July last
year.

Except for the DAP, which is determined to regain its Chinese base after
disastrously working with PAS in the 1990 general election, the other
opposition parties have kept silent on issues affecting our moderate way of
life.

Opposition figures from Parti Keadilan Nasional and Parti Rakyat Malaysia, for
the sake of political expediency, have refrained from responding to the many
actions of PAS.

Always quick to talk about political rights and principles, these politicians
are, however, turning a blind eye to these PAS pronouncements.

In many ways, these parties are responsible for the momentum gained by the
Islamist party. Many of the opposition leaders readily defended PAS and its
policies in their election campaign.

Unless these apologists stand up and stop PAS from steamrolling its policies
through, Malaysians will lose the way of life they have become accustomed
to.

So, on stepping out of KL International Airport, we welcomed the familiar
steamy heat of Malaysia. We were glad to be home.

Having travelled to over 40 countries on work or on
holiday, I have always taken great pride in telling foreigners that Malaysia is
the best place to live in.

Australians may claim that they live in the luckiest country but I say we ought
to lay claim to that honour.

Just a week ago, I had lunch with public relations practitioner Tony Nathan. He
narrated to me how his family members had persuaded him to migrate Down
Under.

He questioned the logic in running small businesses such as grocery and laundry
shops after years of tertiary education and professional experiences. The fact
is that Asians have little chance for promotion in the mostly-white environment
even if they denied the existence of racial discrimination.

We agreed that Malaysia remained the best country even if there were flaws in
some of its policies and administration.

We have abundant natural resources (our commodities are in demand), decent
education and health facilities, a sound bureaucracy and an established rule of
law.

Today we are 46 years old. We are already middle-aged, so to speak. As the
politicians emphasise the numerous record-breaking feats of Malaysians, let's
not forget that we have done what other countries have not been able to achieve
– we have our independence without a single shot being fired.

There was no bloodshed, no power grab and certainly no revolution. What we did
was to get all races together and start a government.

More importantly, we have been able to live together peacefully. Except for a
blot in our nation's history, our multi-racial society has been a shining
example.

Most of us would rather blame the politicians and the media for statements that
caused us to feel unhappy. The rest of us have more in common in our daily lives
than to fret and fight.

That in itself is record-breaking, and uniquely Malaysian. The politics of
accommodation has lasted until today with the same government since 1957, which
to me is another record of sorts.

Our national birthday is a time for celebration but it is also a time for
deliberation. Even as we stomach some of the silly feats in the name of
Malaysia Boleh over the past years, we must also be willing to reflect upon our
weaknesses, as much as we gloat over the many successes.

We have taken a more honest direction now. The same politicians who used to
shout nationalistic slogans are telling us to study English now, after having
produced a generation of graduates who can no longer write job application
letters in English.

We are now more ready to toy with the idea of meritocracy in various sectors as
the results of social engineering proved its benefits, which is a major
stride.

But many Malaysians feel that there should be a higher sense of commitment to
public integrity.

There is a greater need for a political will to fight corruption, social greed
and the abuse of power in high places.

Brave words would mean nothing if there is no real follow-up action. The
struggle of our forefathers in securing the country's independence would be meaningless
if we are unable to meet the present and future challenges.

As we gear ourselves to face new global changes coming to our shores,
Malaysians should by now be thinking of how we intend to cope with the
future.

We should stop wasting our time listening to third-rate leaders who seem more
preoccupied with banning dancing than devoting their energies to charting the
country's economic destiny.

Let's not turn back the clock after what we have achieved over the last 46
years. We have to move forward and in doing so quicken the pace.

When a police report was lodged, the wallet was handed
over to the police.

The suspect, believed to be a drug addict, was known to the people in the
neighbourhood and had been blamed for a spate of minor crimes.

My colleague did not expect the police to go all out in search of this
small-time crook, but she was appalled by the response from our law
enforcers.

When making the report, the police told the two housemates to call them if they
happen to bump into the suspect in the area.

They were not given any assurance that efforts would be made to track down the
culprit, even if the chances of catching the suspect was small.

In another case, a businesswoman had lodged a report against a road bully. No
arrest was made despite the presence of onlookers and the identity of the
person clearly established.

Unhappy with the police for not taking action, she complained to the media. She
has been advised to write a letter to the editor and to the Inspector-General
of Police for the lacklustre response of the police.

Recently, a prominent Tan Sri told me that a friend whose car was stolen was
told by a policeman at the station that he should not bother reporting the loss
because the car "is probably in Thailand or Cambodia by now."

The public understands that the force is understaffed and, while efforts are
being made to boost the strength of the force, the meagre salaries are not
going to attract the best qualified people to sign up. And the promotion
criteria currently used by the force will not attract non-Malays to join its
ranks.

When Canny Ong was found raped and murdered after being abducted from a
shopping complex car park, the public was incensed.

The case was quickly solved and the police must be commended for their speedy
action.

But each day, hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal acts are committed
throughout the country.

It is this increase in minor crimes – such as break-ins, snatch thefts, car
thefts and extortion – that has become a favourite dinner topic.

It has even been described as a "sleeper issue," meaning it has become a
serious matter among voters but not spoken by politicians and those in power
but may have an impact on the outcome of the general election.

In urban parliamentary constituencies, MPs who heed the sentiments of their
voters would know exactly what I am talking about.

Recently, it was reported that there had been a sudden rise in armed robberies
– an increase of more than 30% in cases from last year.

Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation vice-chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye said
that from January until June, 7,561armed robberies were reported compared to
5,764 last year.

Statistics released by the foundation show that armed gang robberies increased
by 24.32% followed by attempted murder with 23.53%.

Property-related offences increased 18.81% for thefts of lorries and vans, and
17.85%  for snatch thefts. Other crimes
on the rise are house break-ins and motorcycle thefts.

The over-worked policemen cannot be blamed if they channel their energies and
resources to fighting more serious crimes.

But the importance of fighting these small-time criminals, whose actions affect
ordinary folk the most, cannot be overlooked.

If the unhappiness of the people is overlooked, they would cast aspersions on
the force and the Government on the standard of security in the country.

While the Government attempts to increase the number of policemen, it should
consider deploying the Federal Field Force and Police Field Force to patrol the
streets, especially in commercial areas.

The presence of uniformed personnel would give the people a sense of security
as well as deter criminals.

Given the stability of this country, surely it would not be too taxing to use
these trained personnel on our streets for a certain length of time.

On our part, members of the public must learn to fight crime by taking
preventive steps to ensure we do not attract criminals.

It is still safe to walk in the streets, but be cautious because more snatch
thieves are now on the prowl.

When the big fish get away, those at the bottom of the
ladder would justify their greed by claiming that there is nothing wrong in
settling for crumbs if others can get away with the icing and the cake, so to
speak.

These would include the police constables and municipal council enforcement
officers who openly offer to "settle" offences for a small amount of
money.

Of late, there have been allegations of officers in enforcement agencies who
refuse to record reports from the public unless some gratification is
offered.

But before the public jumps on these officers, it takes two hands to clap, lest
we forget. People shouldn't grumble about corruption if they are willing to
offer bribes.

The battle against graft will require plenty of political will and giving more
clout and independence to the Anti-Corruption Agency.

It is good to read of the couple who brought up their case to the MCA and the
press after they were caught by two City Hall officers for supposedly indecent
behaviour. The officers had offered to "settle" their case for money but they
refused.

Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi issued a
timely warning when he said the temptation of "easy money" had resulted in
flaws in the public service and the situation had become alarming because more
than half of the reported cases of graft involved civil servants.

The key words here are "reported cases." I am sure there are many more
unreported cases involving willing givers and those who grudgingly gave because
they wanted their cases settled.

Abdullah has correctly stated that corruption is a terrible disease that can
hurt the country's image and make the public lose confidence in the civil
service.

He said Malaysia needed a clean image, one that is free from corruption, so
that the public, businessmen and foreign investors would have a positive
perception of our civil service.

Statistics provided by the Anti-Corruption Agency show that half of the 1,352
people arrested for graft between 1998 and 2002 were civil servants.

For a start, our leaders must stop defending our predicament by claiming that
our corruption level is not as bad as those in other neighbouring countries
such as Indonesia and the Philippines.

Why should we compare ourselves with these rotten apples? We should be looking
at Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, which take their anti-corruption
campaign seriously.

The civil servants in these two places, it must be pointed out, are among the
best paid in the world. Greed may be a natural instinct of humans but well-paid
civil servants, who take pride in their work, will be less tempted.

Bribe-takers are severely punished in these two countries; it's a constant
reminder that the law will catch up with rogue civil servants.

New approaches against corruption are obviously needed because there is nothing
new in the present approach against graft.

The ACA needs to be made an independent institution with a constitutional
status if we wish to fight this social cancer.

Candidates contesting for public offices should be required to declare their
assets, as in the United States, and not merely to the Executive.

Aspiring politicians must accept that winning public positions is a not a
shortcut to making money for themselves or their cronies.

Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has said this many times at Umno gatherings,
warning of the dangers of money politics, which is simply an euphemism for
corruption.

ACA officers should also be allowed to carry out periodical audits, similar to
internal audits in private companies, at government agencies dealing with the
public.

Anti-corruption signs must be put up in these offices, warning civil servants
and the public of the consequences of corruption.

Unless our leadership is prepared to take these hard measures, corruption is in
danger of becoming entrenched in our system.

Over 4,000 passionate Real Madrid – or Beckham – fans
used umbrellas and tents to queue outside the Hong Kong Stadium to buy tickets
costing between RM243 and RM729. Some die-hard fans camped outside the stadium
for four days to make sure they got their seats.

In China, the eight-time European champion club was paid RM148mil to play a
game against China XI to a 60,000-strong crowd. The marketing potential is
certainly massive in a country with 1.3 billion people.

In Tokyo, some 54,000 fans attended the match between Real Madrid and FC Tokyo.
Tickets were sold out a week in mid-June, even before Beckham signed on with
the Spanish club.

The team would have played in Bukit Jalil if Malaysia was prepared to pay
RM11mil as appearance fee and a total cost of RM16mil for a 90-minute match.
Luckily, someone had the common sense to turn the club down.

There are, of course, plenty of reasons for the club to demand the sky. After
all, it cost RM157mil for the club to sign on Beckham. Real had broken the
world transfer record twice in the last three years, signing first Portuguese
player Luis Figo and then Frenchman Zinedine Zidane for RM273mil. And last
year, they spent RM171mil on Brazilian Ronaldo.

Real Madrid is well aware that it needs to fight hard against Manchester
United, which has a fan base of 50 million Asians, if it wants to sell its
merchandise in the region.

Manchester United, meanwhile, was turning to the US to turn up the heat.
Football may still be alien to most rednecks but three of the four games were
sold out and reports indicate that United may have doubled its North American
base from 3.5 million to seven million in the lucrative American market.

United certainly means business. After all, it is a business concern listed on
the London Stock Exchange.

As the richest and most profitable soccer team in the world, it must keep its
fans and, more importantly, make its shareholders happy. The balance sheet is
as important as the score line.

Less talked about is a group of Malaysians making bigger money than these
soccer players. In December, the Singapore Straits Times reported that illegal
football syndicates took more than RM12mil every week.

These illegal bets involve syndicates with links in Singapore, Hong Kong and
Britain, and bets are collected on games in the English, Spanish and Italian
football leagues. The newspaper report estimated that RM100mil in bets was
placed with illegal bookmakers every weekend.

According to Kuala Lumpur police, in one raid the syndicate had accepted bets
of up to RM3mil on just one game – Chelsea versus Sunderland. Last December,
Johor police detained 12 bookies for accepting bets of up to RM24mil on
football matches.

Operating an illegal betting syndicate is an offence under the Betting Act 1953
which carries a fine of between RM20,000 and RM200,000 and a maximum jail term
of five years but the risk seems worth taking when the fine is such a paltry
sum.

One way to beat these illegal bookies, who have caused a dent in the coffers of
our Inland Revenue Department, is to legalise betting. The Hong Kong government
has legalised football betting and the Hong Kong Jockey Club, which has been
handed a five-year licence to run the gaming activity, is expected to rake in
RM695mil for the government.

Singapore was the first Asian country to legalise football betting on its
domestic league in 1999 but started accepting bets on the English premier
league last May at 210 outlets. Suffice to say, a large chunk of Malaysian
money has gone there.

While legalised booking is relatively new in Asia, bookmakers in the United
Kingdom have long accepted bets on sporting events, such as basketball, boxing,
golf and motor racing, and even election results.

A regulated form of betting on sports, especially football, would provide
bigger revenue for the government. It would also stop rogue enforcement
officers from closing an eye to these illegal activities.

If existing gaming outlets could be used to accept these bets, particularly on
foreign soccer matches, then gaming could be restricted. This would include
allowing only non-Muslims from placing bets.

Besides taxation, revenue from gaming operators could be channelled to promote
sports, including motor racing.

The fact is that gaming has long been a way of life, particularly among the
Chinese community, and illegal bookies have long existed. Much as we say that
gaming should not be promoted, the only way to fight it, in a rather
paradoxical way, is to institutionalise it with certain restrictions.

I bet the bookies will have their hands full tonight when Manchester United
takes on Arsenal.