Not all our MPs are economists or bankers. No one will
blame them if they cannot fully digest the entire speech. But as politicians,
they should be able to feel the pulse of the ordinary people better.

From reports of the proceedings, though, it was obvious that our MPs were
not very keen to discuss difficult issues. Instead, they were more preoccupied
with the ''Islamic state'' controversy.

The issue probably made better news copy – even better political sense – but
there is a recession looming. Ordinary people are more concerned with the cost
of living or the possibility of losing their jobs.

As politicians, a dose of politicking is expected and may even contribute to
livelier Dewan proceedings. But handling the country's economy is not just the
job of Dr Mahathir and Bank Negara.

Malaysians, of course, expect their representatives to raise their concerns
responsibly and debate the Bills seriously and intelligently. But parliament
debates aren't what they used to be.

The speeches of MPs then were better researched and more humorous. Not only did
the politicians then have more finesse, they were also more colourful in
character.

Perhaps, the politicians of that era were more committed to their cause. If
they did not hold government positions, their only concern was their
constituents.

MPs now, especially the backbenchers, are better off financially; many hold
positions as chairmen of various government agencies and directors in private
companies.

Previously, the lack of quorum was a rarity. Coming from all over the country,
many of these full-time politicians looked forward to debates. Whenever there
was a verbal clash inside, those taking a break at the lounge or lobby would
rush into the Dewan.

We cannot expect MPs, especially the ministers and their deputies, to sit
inside the Dewan for the entire proceedings because they have other equally
important tasks to perform.

Parliamentary secretaries are appointed to ease the workload of ministers but
when it comes to policy matters and more difficult questions, the ministers
should be present with the answers.

The malaise seems to have affected both Barisan Nasional and the Opposition.
There is no shortage of rabble-rousers in the Opposition but, except for
religious matters, PAS MPs have been somewhat lacklustre in their participation
of debates.

Still, for all their complaints of insufficient news coverage, the opposition
MPs (45 out of 193 representatives) have received their fair share of the
limelight.

The Government should seriously consider TV coverage of parliament proceedings.
For a start, it need not have to be telecast ''live'' but we should be bold
enough to air the recorded version.

The Government is understandably apprehensive of such a proposal for fear that
the Opposition would play to the gallery by creating a ruckus and disrupting
proceedings. They, in fact, tried this previously when the Budget was tabled,
knowing that it would be broadcast.

Many Malaysians are sure that attendance would improve if debates were
broadcast on television. They would treat controversial issues with greater
sensitivity, knowing that they are being watched by all segments of
society.

The voters would also be able to find out whether their MPs are good only for
village ceramahs or whether they can shine in the Dewan by speaking
intelligently and constructively.

PAS leaders have repeatedly said Kelantan and Terengganu,
both under PAS rule, are examples of what an Islamic state would be like.

It is not going to be easy for PAS. If the party produces a blueprint of an
Islamic state ala Afghanistan, then it will lose what's left of its non-Muslim
supporters. Even Parti Keadilan Nasional and Parti Rakyat Malaysia would find
it hard to defend the party.

If PAS allows the syariah and civil courts to co-exist, as is the case with
Kelantan and Terengganu, then it would be no different from the current
administrative and judiciary structures set up by the Barisan Nasional
government.

Any similarity of the existing structure, which upholds a written federal
constitution, would certainly anger and alienate the majority of PAS members
who want a theocratic state run by ulamaks.

When Dr Mahathir first said that Malaysia was already an Islamic country, there
was a degree of uneasiness among non-Muslims but they were not alarmed.

Logically, Dr Mahathir is right because other countries recognise Malaysia as a
progressive Muslim nation. Over 60% of its population is Muslim, the government
is headed by a Muslim, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is a Muslim and even the
Opposition leader is a Muslim.

For non-Muslims, they are more fearful of the Islamic state envisaged by PAS
than the statement by Dr Mahathir.

Non-Muslims understand that nothing has changed. Malaysia can be called an
''Islamic state'' or an ''Islamic country'' or an ''Islamic society'' but the fact
is that its Constitution assures non-Muslims a place in the country.

As the saying goes, a rose by any other name is a rose. The Communist Party of
China insists that China is still communist but its people have clearly
embraced capitalism.

Across the straits in Indonesia, politicians in provinces such as Banten, South
Sulawesi and West Sumatra have been calling for the imposition of syariah laws.
In a bid to win separatist hearts in the provinces, Islamist parties in
Parliament have been backing these provinces.

The two parties in the forefront are the United Development Party and the
Crescent Star Party. In some small towns in West Java, local administrations
have reportedly begun applying syariah laws informally, including making  it mandatory for women to wear
headscarves.

The debate over the issue of Malaysia's status, if properly conducted, is
certainly healthy as it would give Malaysians of all faiths a chance to discuss
the future direction of the country.

Non-Muslims may not fully grasp the meaning of an Islamic nation, but it
affects them as citizens. They have as much right to discuss and find out more
about such a structure.

In Kelantan and Terengganu, non-Muslims have found their rights infringed by
acts such as separating males and females at supermarket counters, the ban on
unisex hair salons and even the ban on the sale of alchohol in Chinese
restaurants.

The PAS declaration of jihad against the United States and its directive to
members to fight alongside the Taliban reflect the party's extremism. Until
today, it has yet to explain the alleged involvement of its members and
supporters in the militant KMM.

Although temples and churches are allowed in Kelantan and Terengganu, one must
point out that freedom of worship is guaranteed under the federal constitution
and those states under Barisan Nasional rule allow other religion to
flourish.

The government must thus ensure that applications to set up places of worship
should not be obstructed by over-zealous officials as that will be contrary to
the policy of the ruling government.

When Barisan MPs challenged Fadzil to give a clear definition of what a PAS
Islamic state was going to be like, the Opposition leader was lost for
words.

Running a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural country like
Malaysia is not easy. No one race or group can have its own way. The politics
of accommodation and consensus has worked well and that formula has contributed
towards making Malaysia a politically and economically stable nation.

For Malaysians, who see the chaos in Indonesia and the
worst economic downturn hitting Singapore, our political and economy stability
have been counted as a blessing, even as the government attempts to ward off
the effects of a recession.

Most Malaysians have enough work to keep themselves busy rather than take part
in massive demonstrations outside the US Embassy or search for western tourists
at hotels, as is happening in Indonesia.

Dr Mahathir has emerged as the undisputed leader of the region; the West seeks
his support and opinion in their fight against terrorism and the Taliban
regime. He has credentials which other leaders do not – he heads a model
Islamic country, led by a moderate and liberal political party.

Singapore elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew's views may be good on East Asian
affairs but it is Dr Mahathir who is taking centre stage because the war
involves the Islamic world.

But what Dr Mahathir is saying is actually nothing new. His views on extremism
have never changed. Even before the Sept 11 attacks in New York, Dr Mahathir
had been hard on religious radicals – an approach that some people perceived as
political action against PAS. Like Osama bin Laden, religion has been used to
legitimise the political agenda of these radicals. Preventive laws were used
against these militants but the action was attacked as draconian. Today, Dr
Mahathir has been vindicated.

As PAS declared jihad against the United States, demonstrated outside the US
Embassy, burnt the American flag and urged its members to fight alongside the
Taliban, the same western diplomats who used to turn up at PAS gatherings to
give moral support are looking at PAS leaders with alarm.

In the West, governments are rescuing companies and airlines in the same manner
which they once ridiculed Malaysia for what they termed as bail-outs.

As the top western leaders begin to understand Dr Mahathir, there are still
many in the western media who have to yet to grasp the diplomatic changes that
are taking place.

In their news reports, many still have the misconception that Malaysia is
anti-US and supportive of Osama. CNN has not helped clear this cloud of
confusion. For example, it leaves out Dr Mahathir's strong line against
terrorism but highlights his objection to the US retaliations against the
Taliban.

In reality, the lines of communication between Kuala Lumpur and Washington have
increased in frequency as Dr Mahathir and US President George W. Bush meet at
the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit.

The US Embassy here, with access to correct information, has taken great pains
to clarify inaccurate reports, swiftly sending out notes to the press. At a
recent luncheon with over 100 American businessmen last week, Dr Mahathir was
given a standing ovation after a question-and-answer session.

Malaysia is fast emerging as a reliable partner because Dr Mahathir enjoys
strong ties with most West Asian countries. As efforts are made to hold an
international conference on terrorism, Asean has already decided to host such a
conference, the first in the region.

On the home front, those who have written off Dr Mahathir are re-evaluating
their predictions. The opposition front, which confidently sees itself taking
power in the next general election, is breaking up.

The DAP has pulled out from the front as top leaders start to
"resign" from Parti Keadilan Nasional. PAS, the dominant party in the
opposition front, is now regarded as an extremist party, even among opposition
backers.

The alleged involvement of PAS supporters and members in the militant KMM has
tarnished the image of PAS while many have questioned how the party intends to
set up an Islamic state.

During the recent Sarawak elections, the DAP, PAS and Keadilan openly fought
each other but all were defeated by Barisan Nasional, even as some analysts and
observers predicted that the political landscape in the state will change once
these three parties win some seats.

Sitting in the comfort of their air-conditioned offices and sipping drinks in
Bangsar to exchange political stories, they could not see the humorous reaction
of the Ibans in the longhouse when greeting a PAS leader. In his robe and
turban, the PAS leader insisted on shaking their hands with gloves on.

At ceramahs in Bandar Kuching, DAP and Keadilan campaigners traded verbal blows
openly as they criticised the existing political structure, saying their
alternative should be given a chance. Within Keadilan, leaders who have quit
have talked about returning to Umno, believing that their struggle is futile.

The talk now is that the Prime Minister will call for a general election by
2003 – and there are good reasons for it. The opposition front has lost its
direction and the broad-based nature of Malaysia's economy should provide a
strong buffer against the recessionary winds.

The implications are grave because Malaysia cannot afford
to send the wrong signals to the world, in the wake of anger against countries
that are regarded as a haven for terrorists.

Next, an Associated Press reporter quoted Dr Mahathir out of context,
erroneously reporting that the prime minister wanted the US and Britain to
attack Israel. Nowhere did Dr Mahathir state that Israelis were terrorists, as
the article implied.

But that was not the only damage. The New York Times, quoting unnamed
officials, alleged that Osama had been bolstering Islamic insurgency in
Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.

The report said that terrorists tied to Osama's network and based in these
three countries were among the likely targets of future covert and overt
American actions.

Another unnamed official said the Pentagon was developing a list of potential
targets beyond Afghanistan where Osama associates live. The three countries
were, again, among several countries named.

Although the US Embassy issued swift clarifications, denying these
non-attributed news reports, Malaysia is understandably peeved.

As a moderate country, which is strongly against any form of terrorism, such
stories will wrongly put us in a negative light in the eyes of the world.

New Zealand, for example, has reportedly advised its nationals not to travel to
countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Who would want to travel to Indonesia, for example, with CNN showing daily
street demonstrations and Muslims signing up for jihad (holy war) in
Afghanistan.

It's a case of the Indonesians shooting themselves in the foot. They cannot
afford such negative publicity. Why should western tourists spend their money
in Indonesia if their lives are at stake?

Some Malaysians, though, have seemingly joined the battle cry. The declaration
by PAS that its members were on the way to fight in Afghanistan may help the
Islamist party score points but will eventually add to the gloom.

Tourists and investors will be turned off by such reports. The ordinary trader
and businessman in Kelantan and Terengganu will be affected by the actions of
PAS members who burned the American flag at its party headquarters on Wednesday
night.

Malaysia is already feeling the pinch of an economic slowdown in the aftermath
of the Sept 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

The stand of the Malaysian Government is clear – the attacks by the US against
the Taliban will not solve the terrorism problem. Innocent Afghans, who play no
part in the politics, should not have to die.

Until now, as the US continues to shell Afghanistan, Osama and the Taliban
leaders are still alive but the Afghan people are suffering and fleeing from
war.

On the local front, Malaysia has come down hard on extremists, including those
from the KMM who have vowed to topple a democratically-elected government and
set up an Islamic state by force.

The KMM leaders, many of whom are PAS members and supporters, were reportedly
trained in Afghanistan. They have been placed under the Internal Security Act
while action is being taken against the remnants.

The US media, which has criticised the Malaysian Government over the arrests –
claiming they were politically motivated – now appears to be taking a
re-look.

Western diplomats, who used to be critical of Dr Mahathir and had secretly
flirted with PAS, now see the Malaysian Government in a positive light because
Barisan Nasional has proven to be rational and moderate.

Sections of the Western press have begun to take a more balanced view towards
Malaysia, acknowledging that there is a price to pay for stability and
peace.

On Sept 18, the AFP headlined a news item ''Malaysia offers alternative view of
terror attacks'' which reported that Malaysia was baffling Westerners to
examine what it calls a ''model Islamic state.''

''That is how Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad describes his country, and many
in the multi-cultural and multi-religious society agree enough to have voted
him back into power for the past 20 years.''

It went on to report that ''the stereotypical view of Islam as a dour and
repressive religion which breeds hatred for infidels or unbelievers would not
survive the length of time it takes to drink a cup of coffee.''

It is perhaps timely for Malaysia to invite journalists from major western
countries to see for themselves what a modern Islamic nation, with its unique
pluralism, can offer.

With each passing day of inaction, interest among the
media has waned; they cannot possibly keep maintaining that the days of the
Taliban and Osama are numbered.

Although there have been reports of deployment by the US Army to undisclosed
destinations, there has been no swift action.

The window period for the US to attack Afghanistan has become smaller as the
weather in the mountain terrains turns harsher with winter approaching.

Muslims will begin their fasting month from mid-November. It is a period of
abstinence from food, drinks and desires of all forms, and a time for Muslims
to reflect on the blessings of their faith.

It would certainly be insensitive for the US to attack Afghanistan during that
time.

In December, the US and its western allies celebrate Christmas, which would certainly
not be a good time to be at war.

But more importantly, the anger and grief of the Sept 11 attacks have been
replaced by calls of restraint and moderation.

There have been reservations, if not opposition, about attacking Afghanistan
because innocent lives will likely be lost, although British Prime Minister
Tony Blair has expressed that only terrorist training camps and hiding places
would be targeted.

As the West contemplates its actions, the protests from pacifists and church
groups, who question the legitimacy of war and the need to seek justice in the
midst of terror, have become louder.

The US Government, these groups say, has the power of the sword to preserve
order and justice but it must be tampered by the restraints of the ''just war''
doctrine.

The message is that the response to the attacks has to be proportionate so it
doesn't create a greater evil and shed the blood of the innocent.

The US itself now sees the importance of winning the hearts and minds of the
ordinary Afghans in the war against terrorists with food aid for the
refugees.

Psychology warfare is necessary because the Afghan refugees must be seen from a
humanitarian point of view. It is about helping a fellow human being and
nothing to do with politics.

Taking these factors into account, military action by the US has to be quick
and precise.

A delay in acting against the Taliban would allow the extremists and radicals
to build up their resistance.

The Taliban, for example, have been able to whip up sympathy by using religion
as a legitimacy with the West Asian countries as the target audience.

Even in Malaysia, some activists of a political party have claimed that the
attack on the World Trade Center was a ''Jewish conspiracy'' – for on that
fateful day, thousands of New Yorkers of Jewish descent had turned up late for
work and were thus saved.

Many of these claims have no basis but they form part of the disinformation
campaign by those who support the cause of the Taliban.

As the world debates whether there should be war, frightened Afghans have fled
to the Pakistani and Iranian borders.

If we truly believe in justice, then, we – regardless of our faith and
political belief — must do our part to help these people. They deserve the
same help as the families of those who perished in the New York tragedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, the Islamist party has said it will contest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In all objectivity, the number of crimes committed by
locals must surely be higher but as guests in this country, Indonesians are
expected to behave better.

Undeniably, many Indonesians have helped built our country through hard work
and honest living, especially in the construction industry.

Domestic maids have helped run our households to enable husband and wife to
combine their incomes, providing a higher standard of living.

Many factories would not be able function without Bangladeshi workers.

But the message to foreigners is that those who have been granted PR status
should not take this privilege for granted.

They must also realise that there are many foreign spouses, including
professionals, who wonder why they don't deserve PR status after having lived
here for over 10 years.

Surely, these highly-educated and well-trained professionals can contribute
more than lesser-skilled foreigners.

Malaysians must therefore welcome the proposal to impose heavier penalties,
including whipping, to check the influx of illegal immigrants.

It is regrettable that activists like Tenagita director Irene Fernandez have
chosen to attack the Government for reintroducing such laws.

Last week, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said proposals
by the newly set up Cabinet Committee on Illegal Immigrants would include
punishment on illegals, employers and those found harbouring them.

The Home Minister said the panel proposed to increase the current fine of not
more than RM10,000 or jail term not exceeding five years or both.

It also proposed that whipping be included as part of the sentence for
illegals. It is learnt that the proposal is for a maximum of six strokes of the
cane for the first offence.

Abdullah said there were now about 600,000 illegals in the country, mostly from
neighbouring countries. Those in the peninsula are mainly from Indonesia with
some from other countries including those from the African continent.

Malaysians, especially those in Sabah, must be forgiven if they are cynical
about that figure. Most of us believe it is much higher.

These laws, at first glance, may seem harsh but they are necessary as an
effective deterrent to combat this menance.

At the same thing, the fight against the influx of illegal immigrants can only
be meaningful if there is a clean machinery.

An equally strong punishment must be meted out against enforcement officers
found to be involved in this human trade.

The decision to impose heavier penalties, especially on employers, reflects the
seriousness of the Government in wanting to end the problem.

If there are no errant bosses who readily provide jobs for these foreigners,
then they will be discouraged from coming here.

In Singapore, employers are fearful of hiring illegals because of tough laws
against offenders.

If previously the authorities had to deal with social problems such as
contagious diseases, squatter woes and crimes, they now have to cope with
religious militancy, even if the number of people involved seems small.

Malaysians must realise that by opting for such cheap labour from neighbouring
countries, they will merely see short-term gains.

Taxpayers already have to subsidise foreigners who use our hospitals and other
facilities. Their children are already in local schools, further burdening our
teachers.

Decades from now, they will have an impact on our political landscape,
particularly when their family size is usually bigger than average
Malaysians.

Even small traders have felt the pinch from the more aggressive Indonesian
hawkers who have taken over Chow Kit, once predominantly inhabited by Chinese
and Malay traders.

The efforts by the Home Ministry deserves our full support because the
long-term cost of having these immigrants around is just too high.

Malaysia should seriously woo our brethrens who have gone overseas and
highly-skilled foreigners, especially those in the medical, engineering, arts,
manufacturing and information technology fields.

Such expatriates will sharpen our competiveness in facing globalisation as
Malaysia needs at least 35,000 skilled workers.

But patriotism and an attractive pay packet are not the only things these
experts look for.

We need to get our priorities right. We are competing with Singapore, Hong Kong
and other countries for the best brains.

Yes, we need manual workers as much as we need the experts, but control is
imperative.