Idealism is something positive.  University students like to believe they can
bring positive  changes to the
country.

It's nothing new. The student 
representative councils in our 
universities have always been 
dominated by PAS-influenced 
leaders, particularly those from 
the east coast.

Anti-government sentiments,  however,
have become stronger  since the sacking
of Datuk Seri  Anwar Ibrahim from Umno
and  the Government.

There have been proposals to  enforce the
University and University Colleges Act against students and lecturers for their
involvement in politics.

Umno Youth has gone a step  further,
saying it was preparing  a report on the
alleged involvement of vice-chancellors and 
lecturers.

There must be a meeting point  here. Our
leaders must understand that dissenting views are  part of democracy.

Our students must be allowed  to sharpen
their minds and to be  exposed to all
perspectives.

Lecturers should freely expouse their political views in  class as long as they do not penalise
students who do not share  their
inclinations.

During tutorials, where marks  are given
for participation, they  should be open
to sound arguments from students. That is 
what academia is all about.

On the other hand, students  and
lecturers must be open to  the views of
those who are pro establishment. If our campus 
community talks about opening 
minds, then they, too, must not 
shut their minds to the views of 
others.

It is here that government  youth leaders
are tested. They  must be ready to
convince our  students the path taken by
the  Government is correct.

It is better for Barisan Nasional to convince our young  minds than to punish them for  refusing to support the party.

The student movement during  the 60s and
70s was actually  stronger. For example,
the role  played by Universiti
Malaya's  Socialist Club and Islamic  groups.

These groups took up popular  causes such
as joining in protests by rubber peasants in Baling and fighting for the
Tasek  Utara squatters in Johor in
1974.

In 1967, Universiti Malaya students raised the issue of the  landless in Teluk Gong. In 1969,  then student leader Anwar Ibrahim played a
key role in calling  for the replacement
of Prime  Minister Tunku Abdul
Rahman.

We must always recognise the  need for a
strong student movement and the importance of political consciousness.

It is imperative for the development of young minds which, in  the end, will make our students  better future leaders.

If leaders have not gone  through the
baptism of fire, so to  speak, it is
unlikely they will be  able to take up a
fight with the  opposition.

At the same time, our students  must
never have the illusion that  they are
the only champions of  the people.

Fighting for popular causes  may be their
social responsibility but they also have a responsibility towards the nation,
taxpayers and their parents, to do well 
in their studies.

It is no secret that many of our 
undergraduates have mediocre 
results in university exams.  Many
cannot even string a sentence in English, let alone write a  report in the language.

As a result of our education  system and
the attitude of our  students, the
Foreign Service,  for example, has
inherited the  problems of its officers
having  poor command of English.

At international forums, Malaysians are no longer looked  upon to draft communiques involving
international issues.

Those who advocate the  growth of
progressive thinking  must also be
willing to be critical  of conservative
and orthodox  thinkers, who stand in the
way of  modernisation.

One cannot help but be suspicious of those who consider  themselves as liberals but yet  readily work with forces which  attempt to put up institutions  that stand in the way of liberalism.

Surely, we do not allow democratic institutions to be torn  down simply because we do not  agree with our leaders.

These are fundamental concerns we need to bring to the attention of students,
who should  be equally critical of what
PAS  can offer to a multi-ethnic and  modern Malaysia.

Our students have been a  lucky lot.
Unlike Americans and  Europeans, our
students never  have to work part-time to
pay for  their studies. With
scholarships  on offer, our students are
free  from economic pressures.

There are many others who  would love to
take over their  places in universities,
lest they  forget.

But we must never use the slegehammer treatment. Bureaucrats in bush jackets
must not be  allowed to take over the
roles of  academicians.

The campus should be a vibrant place for lively debates  and differing views. We must  never allow intellectualism to be  stifled by narrow political interest.

After graduating, young people are on their own and will  have to prove their worth at  work. Their future employers  won't assess them on the number  of reformasi demonstrations and  ceramahs they have attended.

Likewise, the minute academicians take off their gowns to become politicians,
their objectivity ends. They are just like any 
other partisan politicians who 
have to prove themselves to the 
people.

As expected, the opposition parties are telling
Malaysians that the  recovery is not
real. The strong  market sentiment, they
argue, is  due to support from
government  agencies.

On the other hand, the Government has come out with a list of  statistics to back its arguments.

Some market analysts see the  KLSE
performance as a pre-election rally and not due to returning  economic confidence and low interest rates.
Foreign funds, they  point out, are not
strong and that it  would be difficult
for the local  pundits to hold on to that
huge volume being traded daily.

Financial weekly The Edge notes  that
there was not much of a  broad-based
pre-election rally prior to the past three elections of  1986, 1990 and 1995.

If a strong government is elected, as in the past, it is almost likely  that the stock market would be  strong, even if only for a short  time.

But if a two-thirds majority is 
denied  worse still, a hung
government  we can be certain that  the stock market would plunge because of
political uncertainty. Foreign investors would not know who  to deal with in such circumstances.

The general election this time  should
remove the element of uncertainty.

That aside, the current bullish  trend
does have an impact on voting patterns.

Realistically, not every voter  dabbles
in shares but in urban areas, a feel-good sentiment is pertinent before the
polls.

Middle-class voters, particularly  among
the Chinese electorate, consider the economic recovery as a  key factor when they casting their  ballots.

And the KLSE performance has  always been
regarded as one indicator of any economic recovery.

While speculation is sometimes  perceived
as a form of gambling, it  cannot be
denied that ordinary Malaysians have made money from  the stock market and that it has a  trickle-down effect.

Restaurants are packed again,  there are
more property sales, and  a bigger demand
for cars. Consumer spending has risen because 
more money is going around.

Forget about what the politicians  and
the economists tell you, just  take a
cursory look at the classified advertisements 
many companies are hiring again.

Employers want to make sure  they are
ready to cash in through  increased
production when consumer spending is high, particularly in the run-up to the
new millennium and approaching Hari Raya.

If the feel-good factor continues  over
the next few months, it will be  to the
advantage of Barisan Nasional. During the 1995 general  election, the coalition won a landslide
victory because of the strong 
economy.

It remains to be seen whether  Barisan
would be rewarded for its  efforts to
turn around the economy  with minimum
pain.

Foreign fund managers have already given a more optimistic  growth rate than the Government's  projection.

There are those who argue that  other
countries, including those  which
accepted IMF help, have  done
better.

They forget that in the case of  Malaysia,
the stakes are still in  Malaysian hands.
Our banks did  not collapse and there was
no massive loss of jobs, unlike Thailand 
and South Korea.

And the ringgit did not turn into 
worthless paper overnight.

We have performed better than  expected,
despite the gloom and  doom scenario
which the foreign  media painted for
Malaysia.

For now, our banks should not be 
over-cautious; loans for productive 
projects must be given out to spur 
further growth.

At stock-broking firms these  days,
investors admit that they  should have
followed the advice of  Prime Minister
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad to go in when the  KLSE index was down to 262 points  last year and some stocks were  worth less than five sen. Today,  they have climbed back to their  original levels.

A housewife in Nilai, Negri Sembilan, heeded Dr Mahathir words.  She is now the owner of a single storey house
which she rents out to  several
air-stewardesses.

She paid cash for the house after 
selling the shares which she had 
bought low.

It's a true story  one of many  that tell of how Dr Mahathir is often proven
right much later.

According to a report in The  Star on
Friday, the board concluded that numerous cuts would  disrupt the flow of the film.

Unless you have been in deep  freeze, Malaysians would be able  to recall that not too long ago,  Austin Power's 1997 hit International Man of
Mystery was  screened on RTM.

Although there were cuts here  and there,
our psychedelic hero  still came out
smashing, as he  would say.

That movie was screened on  television
with its dose of sexual  innuendoes and
double-talk, and  escaped the scissors of
our censors.

But two years later, the censors are back and they have become more demanding,
ready to  pounce on our superhero.

It's a sin, suddenly, for Malaysians to watch Powers lose his  “mojo'' (sexual libido) in the  Swinging Sixties.

Our swinging spy has suddenly  become the
villain overnight. It's  certainly not a
very groovy thing  for our censors to
do.

Malaysians laughed too fast  when they
mocked and ridiculed  the Singaporean
authorities for  initially trying to
replace the  word “shagged'' with
shiok.

The equally puritanical Singaporean censors, too, had felt the  need for its cinema goers to behave.

Thanks to them, Singapore  found itself a
subject of global  ridicule, with Austin
Powers  fans laughing as hysterically
as  the nefarious Dr Evil.

But at least the Singapore authorities realised before it was  too late that the move was ludicrous, and
eventually allowed  the movie to be
screened without  making any changes to
the title.

Malaysian authorities, however, seem to be frozen in some  kind of time zone.

The movie is merely a parody  of James
Bond, whose movies  were thick with
explicit and implicit sexual innuendos of the 
agent's sexual abilities.

One wonders why no Bond  film, some with
Agent 007 sleeping with at least three different  women in one movie, escaped  the censor board's scissors.

Meanwhile, the Austin Powers  movies
which make fun of such  libidinous heroes
by exaggerating their sexual prowess to the 
point of ludicrity is not spared.

Obviously, the censors are also  unaware
that many people have  already watched
the sequel.

Film-goers fed-up with foot dragging only have to visit their  neighbourhood pasar malam  VCD seller to get a pirated copy  of the movie.

Even those who genuinely  want to
“behave'' and watch the  movie on the
big screen and not  patronise VCD
suppliers now  have no choice but to
resort to  the evil of piracy.

The saddest part of this episode is that the report of the ban  came on a day when the Cyberjaya project was
launched.

Those behind the project are  well aware
of the need to fend  off attempts to
exercise censorship on the Internet.

Coincidentally, in launching  Cyberjaya,
Multimedia Development Corporation executive 
chairman Tan Sri Dr Othman  Yeop
Abdullah voiced his concern about enforcement of cyber  laws which they said could stifle  the market.

Dr Othman also said a world class studio would be constructed as part of the
Entertainment  Village in Cyberjaya by
2002.

Before we do that, it might be  a good
idea if the censor board  can be
consistent in its review of  movies.
There is obviously no  clear
criteria.

Our censors should also realise  that
Malaysians are quite mature  in their
thinking.

Most, if not all, know when a  movie is a
joke, and Austin Powers is one big joke of a hero, and  hardly the beautiful stranger  that he is made out to be.

Finally, the authorities should  realise
that the joke is on us if  they persist
in their Victorian  standards.

It is obviously not a groovy  thing to do
to Malaysia's image.

For many Penang Barisan Nasional leaders, it's never easy
being in the government. The islanders have a reputation for being  anti-establishment, which explains  why many of the country's more vocal
politicians and non-government organisation leaders hail  from this state.

Dr Ling was born in Taiping but  settled
in Penang and eventually  opened up a
clinic in Butterworth  before becoming the
MP for Mata  Kuching, now renamed
Bagan.

Over the past one week, Penang  has
become the focal point for  Barisan and
the Opposition because the stakes are high.

The MCA, which has nine assemblymen and two MPs in this  state, is determined to wrest back  Bagan (from the DAP).

For the DAP, secretary-general  Lim Kit
Siang has declared the  state as its
frontline  short of  stating it wants to take another  shot at capturing the state.

After its humiliating defeat in  the 1995
general election, where it  only one of
the 14 seats it contested, the DAP believes its luck will  change with the help of Parti Keadilan
Nasional, PAS and PRM.

In 1995, Lim lost to Chief Minister Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon in the  Tanjung Bungah state seat.

In 1990, the DAP won 14 seats   three
short of forming a simple  majority in
the 33-seat state assembly.

This time, the DAP hopes to do  better
while the MCA believes it  can maintain
the status quo, perhaps perform even better with the  perception that the Chinese are  with Barisan.

For Umno, the attention is on  Permatang
Pauh, the parliamentary seat of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Last week, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad entered the lion's  den by holding a meet-the-people  session at the constituency. It was  his first visit to Permatang Pauh  since the sacking of Anwar from  the government and party last  year.

With many believing that Keadilan president Datin Dr Wan Azizah  Ismail will contest in Permatang  Pauh, instead of Dr Mahathir's Kubang Pasu
constituency, the fight  for the hearts
and minds have been  more intense
there.

If the fight is between MCA Gerakan and DAP on the island for  the Chinese votes, it's a clash between Umno
and Keadilan-PAS on  the mainland for the
Malay votes.

For MCA and Gerakan, they believe that the Chinese voters are  not as passionate as the Malays  over the Anwar issue. The economic recovery
and the bullish stock  market sentiments
are an advantage.

The oppositionists, however, say  that
the Chinese community would  see the
Anwar issue from a citizen's point of view rather than  from an ethnic angle.

They are banking on the middle class, particularly the English speaking
professionals, to buy  their talk of
democracy and human  rights.

In the end, though, the side issues might swing the votes. Penangites have a
reputation for being  fickle-minded;
there is little political allegiance and their mood  changes in almost every election.

The general perception of Chinese voters is that there should be  more than just one opposition  member in the state assembly. At  the same time, not many Penangites are
willing to trade the Barisan state government for the Opposition.

Lim has read the sentiments of 
Penangites well by refusing to 
openly declare the party's plan. In 
1995, the DAP slogan of Try Five 
Years was rebutted with Barisan's 
Die Five Years.

Based on experience, Lim would  be the
first to testify that a huge  ceramah
crowd is no indication of  support. In
the 1995 polls, his last  ceramah at the
Weld Quay flats  saw a mammoth crowd but
they  failed him in the end.

Matters such as the Rent Control  Act is
still important to the working class because it is basically a  bread-and-butter issue. The state  Barisan has now appealed to the  Federal Government to grant a  three-year reprieve to pre-empt  attacks from the DAP.

Visitors to Penang are sometimes surprised to see the somewhat disorganised
location of  hawker spots and light
industrial  areas. Houses are converted
into  coffee-shops and offices, much
to  the dismay of city planners.

But the state government has allowed this flexibility, well aware  that in a small state one cannot  risk losing the votes of hawkers  and small businessmen.

Strange as it may seem, DAP's  Lim Hock
Seng won the Bagan parliamentary seat in 1995 simply because word went around
town that  he was a real people's
man  he 
reportedly became a pall-bearer 
for a constituent during the election campaign.

In fact, during the recent Penang 
Gerakan elections, some of Dr Goh 
Cheng Teik's supporters blamed 
the local Chinese press for not reporting that Goh paid his last
respects to a delegate's family member who passed away. Dr Koh's  visit, instead, enjoyed coverage.

Such incidents may seem trivial,  even
irrelevant, against seemingly  bigger
issues. But the personalities  of
candidates and local issues do  count a
lot in Penang.

If the race is going to be a tight  one,
then the X-factor among the  contenders
will determine the winner.

Fischer was also quoted as saying that they discussed
possible  economic scenarios in the
future  for Indonesia.

He said a meeting with Indonesian President B.J. Habibie had  been scheduled.

The IMF meeting with the opposition leaders took place presumably because
Fischer is sure that  they will form the
next government.

His directive is simple: follow  the IMF
programmes adopted by  the Habibie
government.

In most countries, this IMF  meeting with
politicians would  have been seen as a
case of interference in domestic politics.

It is humiliating for the ruling 
government, no matter how unpopular Golkar can be, because the  vote-counting process is still going  on.

But Indonesia has little choice. It  has
sought IMF help and whoever  forms the
government must now  take orders from
IMF.

It is a new form of colonisation. 
Malaysian journalists who covered 
the recent Indonesian elections 
spoke of condescending Western 
analysts and non-government organisation leaders who lectured  Indonesians on how they should  run their country.

A colleague told of an NGO leader who, having arrived in Jakarta  barely 48 hours ago, gave his views  as an expert, running down the  country and the system.

The saddest part, he said, was  that this
so-called expert was  cheered by a group
of Indonesians  and given prominent
coverage by  the media.

A similar pattern seems to be appearing in Malaysia. Western  countries are demanding the promotion of
human rights and democracy, in their style, before economic development. They
argue  that these values can be transplanted
overnight.

No Malaysian would argue that  human
rights and democracy are  antithetical to
the country's development. Those against gradual  changes to improve our institutions are as
bad as those who insist  on immediate
reforms.

Human rights and democracy  are part and
parcel of Westminster  democracy. What
makes people  cynical is the hypocrisy
and inconsistency on the question of human 
rights.

Instead of a holistic approach,  human
rights are defined from a  narrow
perspective, focussing on  civil
liberties and political rights.

The West, especially the United  States,
continues to tighten its grip  on the
media, international economic institutions and arrangements with the United
Nations.

The US, for example, portrays itself as a moral crusader of human  rights but allows certain authoritarian
governments in West Asia  and South
America to function because they serve its military and  oil interests.

In Algeria, a popular Islamic  party
voted by the people is rejected by the military which backed a  secular government.

In this case, the West closed its  eyes
but a similar situation in  Myanmar
became the subject of an  intense
campaign.

In some West Asian countries,  elections
are a mockery  with the  monarchy reigning supreme  but  we
hardly hear any complaints  from US
groups simply because  they are client
states.

It's the same with China, which  the US
has been particularly tough  on. Year in
and year out, the world  is reminded of
the Tiananmen  Square incident.

But the western media has never  even
once explained why the student protest failed and whether the  failure was due to the lukewarm  support from the grassroots nationwide.

Neither has the US media, supposedly good at analysing events  according to their own prejudiced  view, explained why the protest  was confined to Beijing.

Any visitor to China would realise that sweeping changes have  taken place in China over the past  two decades.

But it is still not enough for the  US.
Perhaps, it wants to see China  turned
into another Russia  a former superpower
which has become a democracy but reduced to 
an exporter of prostitutes.

Fact is, the US isn't exactly the 
protector of human rights it wants 
many to believe. The US has refused to sign, accede or ratify up  to 144 of the over-400 conventions,  treaties and other agreements under the
UN.

There are two important treaties  that
have been signed by the US  but yet to be
ratified, namely the  International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  and the Convention on the Rights  of the Child.

Why is the US dragging its feet?

By ratifying these treaties, signatory countries are required to  make the necessary changes to  their laws.

For example, the US has refused  to sign
the Convention of the Use,  Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and  On their Destruction  simply because it is one of the biggest
users  and producers of landmines.

It has not signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal  Court (ICC) which requires war  criminals to be handed over to a  tribunal.

Despite preaching lofty ideals,  the US
is prepared to bend rules,  even ignore
them, so long as it  suits its national
interest.

Contemporary history has shown  that the
US is ready to work with  dictators, if
they are prepared to  takes orders from
Washington.

So, Malaysians should be wary of 
meddling foreigners.

We shouldn't get too uptight  about the hearing. The American  public, particularly the average  Joe Sixpack, would be more interested in
football and game shows.

The hearing was poorly attended, with only three of the 21 panel  members present, reflecting lack  of interest and seriousness.

Assistant Secretary of State for  East
Asia and Pacific Affairs Stanley Roth, who was scheduled to  speak on behalf of the Clinton
Administration, did not turn up.

Three witnesses, purported experts, gave their views. They were  Deputy Assistant Secretary of  State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Ralph
Boyce, Asia-Pacific  Policy Center
president Douglas  Paal, and Dr Linda
Lim, a Singaporean teaching at the University 
of Michigan Business School.

For a country advocating justice  and
human rights, it certainly has  a strange
way of conducting a  hearing. No
Malaysians were present; many of us would want to  know if its because no Malaysian  was keen to participate or otherwise.

Dr Lim was asked to give her  views,
presumably to touch on Malaysia's strained relations with Singapore.

But that did not stop her from  giving
her views on the economic  situation in
Malaysia, particularly  the capital
control measures.

It would have made a difference  if those
affected the most  Malaysian businessmen who
have to  plan their budgets  were asked to 
testify.

To the average Malaysian who  has to
service his housing loan, the  move to
impose high interest rates  was like a
rope around his neck.

The United States should have  less faith
in an expert who has  probably never
carried out a business transaction in her life.

This reminds us of the habit of  the
foreign media in seeking the  views of
so-called experts on Malaysian politics who are based in  Hong Kong and Singapore.

Surely, the views of Malaysians  carry
more weight than these foreigners who are thousands of miles  away, relying merely on news reports, the
Internet and comment  from their circle
of contacts.

The foreign media is also fond of 
quoting anonymous Western diplomats based in Kuala Lumpur when  filing stories from Malaysia. Do  Western diplomats know better?

Hardly is there any report quoting Asian diplomats, even when  many fo them can speak the local  languages and even pass off as
Malaysians.

Interestingly, Paal admitted that  his
centre had colloborated with  Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim and had  received donations
from Anwar  and his associates.

At that hearing, Paal reportedly 
recommended to the members of  the
US Congress to maintain a cool 
relationship with the Malaysian 
Government.

Delivering his presidential address at the Umno general assembly on Friday, Dr
Mahathir was understandably upset at the hearing,  describing it as a “kangaroo  court.''

But we shouldn't give too much  credence
to such hearings. It  doesn't do Malaysia
much good  when we sometimes seem over
sensitive to visits by foreign opposition figures.

In the case of the US, despite its  talk
of championing justice and  fair-play, it
has a record of refusing to sign, accede and ratify a  long list of treaties under the United
Nations.

For example, the US is still indifferent to the International Convention on the
Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,  adopted by the UN General Assembly in
1973.

Records show that it is still  vague on
the Convention on the  Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the UN in 1979.

It is the same with the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports,
adopted by the UN  in 1985.

Malaysia is just a dot on the map  to the
American public. Not too  many Americans
are overly-excited by events here.

At the end of the day, the fate of  the
country is decided by Malaysians – not foreigners.

PAS, he added, would have to  reorganise the judicial system to  make it fall in line with Islamic  laws.

Takiyuddin also said non-Muslims would not be allowed to take  part in policy-making decisions  such as those relating to the Constitution
and the courts.

It means non-Muslims have no  say in
politics, the judiciary and 
administration.

Takiyuddin's statement may not  necessarily reflect the party's official
stand.

But those who follow the announcements made by party president Datuk Fadzil Nor
and his deputy, Abdul Hadi Awang, would realise that Takiyuddin is
consistent  with the party stand.

If PAS succeeds in setting up an  Islamic
state by next year, most  human rights
lawyers would be out  of a job. These
vocal activists, who  attack the
Government at the  slightest instance,
are strangely silent on the outrageous statements  by PAS leaders.

Moderate Malaysians have reason to be fearful of PAS intentions  because its objective challenges  the very basis of the Federal
Constitution.

It also goes against the spirit and 
composition of the Malaysian parliamentary system where non Muslim
legislators have a say in  the
formulation of any law.

In a PAS-run Islamic state, non Muslims will only have a limited  role in the country's governance   confined to matters relating to  their culture and religion.

Thinking Malaysians, regardless  of their
religion and ethnic background, should be very concerned,  if not disturbed, by what has been  decided by the PAS leadership.

DAP leaders have admitted they  are
disturbed by PAS' insistence  that the
setting up of an Islamic  state be
included in the common  opposition
manifesto.

Parti Keadilan Nasional appears  to share
the DAP's sentiment but is  afraid to
voice its stand for fear of  losing the
backing of PAS members.

These parties to the opposition  front,
however, are not thrashing  out their
differences now. Of immediate importance to them is  forming the next federal government.

Thus, they are more comfortable  talking
about general issues such  as human
rights, freedom of expression and reforms.

Many Malaysians reckon that a  strong
opposition is needed as a  check-and-balance
to the Barisan  Nasional government.
After all,  that is what parliamentary
democracy is all about.

The only drawback is that there  is
always a tendency to over-vote.  In the
1995 general election, the  DAP was
almost wiped out in Penang because the islanders did not  want to see Lim Kit Siang become  chief minister.

The DAP ended up with only a  sole
representative. Even Lim himself was defeated by Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh
Tsu Koon.

Many Penangites, it seemed, later felt that they should have voted  for a few more opposition assemblymen.

Realising the mistake of going  all out
for power, as the DAP did in  Penang, Lim
has said that it was  more realistic to
urge voters to  deny the Barisan its
two-thirds  majority.

But some Keadilan leaders, who  have
tasted power being in the establishment for the last 16 years,  are not keen to make the sacrifices  of the Opposition.

As Lim said, being the head of an 
opposition party is to wear a crown 
of thorns, not jewels.

PAS leaders, too, have walked  along the
corridors of power in Kelantan and no longer want to remain in the
opposition.

In exploiting the unhappiness of 
Malaysians over the political trend 
of the past one year, PAS seems 
convinced that total power is within their reach.

We have to be realistic about  promises
made by politicians.  Those who want to
vote PAS may  think they are doing so to
check  the Government but if too
many  think the same way, they may
end  up with something they do not  want.

It will be sad to enter the next  century
arguing about superficial  issues when we
should be catching  up on loss time with
the economic  recovery.

The Primary Industries Minister  found himself in hot soup last week  when he allegedly made a derogatory remark at
the Dewan Negara  about rubber
tappers.

He had purportedly said that “in  the
estate, (it is) very difficult to  see
whether the worker is working  or not …
behind the tree what he is  doing, I do
not know.''

Dr Lim's remarks came in a reply to a question from a senator in  relation to estate workers' claim  for monthly wages, a long-standing  issue.

The Gerakan president subsequently apologised “for any offence felt which was
never intended.''

His Dewan Negara remark,  which was first
brought up by  Tamil daily Malaysia
Nanban,  caused an uproar among the
Indian  community.

On first impression, one might  think
that Dr Lim was racially insensitive but those who know him  well will realise it isn't so.

A few years ago, Dr Lim earned  the wrath
of the Hainanese community when he purportedly remarked that one should not
trust  Hainanese and ghosts. It was a
figure of speech when talking about  an
opposition party at a gathering  in
Bentong.

Not too long ago, while campaigning for the Teluk Intan parliamentary
by-election, he was again  in trouble
when he allegedly said  that Gerakan did
not need Chinese  votes. He denied having
said it, but  the DAP went on to win the
seat.

So, it's not a case of ethnicity, but 
past events indicate the importance of being racially sensitive in  a multi-religious and multi-communal country
like Malaysia.

For politicians, this should be  their
priority. A decade ago, a Barisan Nasional MP from the east  coast was censured for saying that  “if one sees an Indian and a snake,  kill the Indian first.'' Many reacted  angrily, quite rightly so, to his
unthoughtful words.

Recently, former Information  Minister
Datuk Mohamed Rahmat  spoke of Datin Seri
Dr Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail's purported
Chinese  ancestry, allegedly implying
that  she was not fit to lead the
Malays.

Her husband, Datuk Seri Anwar  Ibrahim,
then refuted Mohamed's  claim of Azizah's
cap naga or descendants of the dragon.

The Chinese dailies later quoted  Mohamed
as saying that it was not  his intention
to hurt the feelings of  the
Chinese.

Again, those who know Mohamed  will
accept his explanation. His  wife is,
after all, a Chinese and he  has many
close Chinese friends.

But it's not just government leaders who have put their foot in their  mouths. Those linked to the reformasi
movement have continuously  brought up
the Prime Minister's  ethnic ancestry in
ceramahs.

His Indian background has been  used by
speakers and demonstrators to mock him and his leadership.

Yet, these are the same politicians who speak of multi-racialism  and racial unity in the same breath.

After 42 years of independence,  it is
time for Malaysians, irrespective of their status, to de-emphasise their
ethnicity. There is no  room for
communalism as Malaysians move into the next millennium.

Over the past decade, Datuk Seri  Dr
Mahathir Mohamad, more than  anyone else,
has instilled a sense of  confidence
among Malaysians.

Selangor Gerakan Youth chief  Pritpal
Singh Sidhu has initiated  the boycott of
Malaysian Nanban,  saying it was a
retaliation for what  the movement saw as
unfair reporting of Dr Lim's Dewan Negara 
speech.

The movement is understandably  upset
with the incident but it  should not look
for scapegoats.

The Hansard is there for everyone to read and Malaysians are  able to judge whether the newspaper took Dr
Lim's statement out of  context.

In the interest of Malaysia, Dr  Lim has
sportingly apologised.  There is no need
to prolong the issue as there are bigger challenges  ahead for the nation and the people.

The speakers included Education Minister Datuk Seri Najib
Tun  Razak and the respective
mentris  besar and chief ministers.

The decision seems obvious.  Umno leaders
realise the importance of keeping in touch with tertiary students and the
personal  touch always makes the difference.

Since the sacking of Datuk Seri  Anwar
Ibrahim from the Cabinet  and Umno last
year, our university  students have been
involved in  demonstrations against the
Government.

The anti-Government sentiment  is strong
in the campus with the  Malay students
being the most  critical.

Copying the reformasi movements in Indonesia, our students  see themselves as forces of  change.

The impact of this anger is serious. Unless Umno wins over these  angry students soon, it will have  serious repercussions in the elections of the
next millennium, even  if they won't
affect the coming  elections.

The critics would probably regard the Government briefings as  a form of brain-washing by politicians.

Some have questioned why two way forums have not been organised by the
ministers to hear the  grievances of the
students.

There are merits and demerits in  such
briefings. From the decision,  it is
clear that the Government  leaders want
to have the first go in  having their
side of the story  heard.

They believe many emotional issues are being bandied about and  the students have not got the right  picture.

Our students, they believed, are  being
used in an uprising against  the
Government.

Those of us who have gone  through
orientation programmes  in our local universities
know what  these programmes are
like.

Except for the Student Affairs 
Department officials, the freshies 
are left to student leaders involved 
in the orientation once they are in 
the campus.

Most of our student leaders, particularly from the east coast, are  strongly influenced by PAS. They  are the ones who are likely to dominate
campus politics.

During orientation week, the freshies are forced to wake up before  dawn to attend lectures including  those with religious inclination.

Sometimes, the religious sensitivities of other races, are ignored  by lecturers who get carried away  with their own beliefs and prejudices.

When the seniors return to campus, after the semester break, to  join the freshies, it is even worse.  That is when we read about ragging involving
the seniors and freshies.

Whether we like to admit it or  not,
university students are, by nature, anti-establishment.

Being young and idealistic, opposition figures are more popular  than government leaders.

During political forums, where  both
government and opposition  figures
debate, the former are often booed.

Students see themselves as the  nation's
future leaders. They want  their views to
be taken seriously,  and rightly
so.

Healthy involvement of students  in
current affairs enables our students to think.

It helps to nurture a sense of 
commitment and the growth of a 
thinking generation.

The universities must not be  seen as a
mere degree churning  factory but as an
institution to ponder serious issues affecting society.

There is this general feeling that  the
involvement of Cabinet ministers and mentris besar at such  seminar is akin to a sledgehammer  treatment to what is happening in  campuses.

It is an over-kill. I am sure they  have
more urgent matters to attend to. The job should be left to  speakers from the various think tanks and
prominent figures from  the various
sectors, such as business and media.

Such speakers, who are not directly involved in politics, would  have more credibility.

It would also be more appropriate for the seminar to be part of  the week-long orientation programme.

Now that the cabinet ministers  have
given their views, there is  nothing to
stop our students from  insisting that
they invite the opposition politicians.

But the students must never forget that nobody owes them a living.

Taxpayers have the right to demand that these students work for  their degree. The money for their  scholarships does not drop from  the skies.

We have read about top STPM  scorers who
cannot get into medical schools because of the quota  system.

There are many of such less fortunate students in local private  colleges, TAR and ITM who would  love to take the places of these student
hotheads in our local universities.

Their priority is to study hard  and get
their degree. There is  nothing to stop
them from becoming full-time politicians or full time loafers once they leave
the  campus.

Our students must not allow  themselves
to be used by politicians, opposition or otherwise.

They are of no use to society or  their
political idols if they fail in  their
examinations.

Taxpayers want to see our campus community produce great inventions, quality
researches,  award-winning publications
and  people with greater proficiency in  English, instead of seeing students  spending too much time in demonstrations,
ceramahs and issuing  press
statements.

I think it is not wrong to say that 
Malaysians have had enough of 
politicians and politicking. We certainly do not need students who
act  like politicians.

The unprecedented move attracted much international media
attention as the signatures were collected within a week.

There would have been more if there was a concerted move to seek the support of
journalists from outside the Klang Valley.

The petition was drawn up by a group of concerned newsmen and it did not
involve the National Union of Journalists or the National Press Club.

The memorandum called for the Act to be repealed because it "encourages
self-censorship in the newsroom as publishers are forced to apply for their
licences annually and are further subjected to the arbitrary powers of the Home
Minister."

Journalists, whether they are from Malaysia or elsewhere, are always concerned
with their credibility.

In Malaysia, the mainstream newspapers are sensitive to criticism that they
give too much coverage to the Government.

Defensive editors, in arguing their case, often say that is because out of the
192 MPs in Parliament, only 43 are from the opposition.

The majority, they argue, certainly deserves more editorial space in their
newspapers.

Whether or not their argument has any basis is debatable but the fact is that
you certainly cannot even find a filler about Britain's Socialist Party or the
Liberatarian Party of the US in western newspapers.

But public perception is important. If Malaysians think their newspapers are
unfair, publishers and journalists ought to listen to what their readers have
to say.

More than that, readers now have a choice. They have the Internet, the smaller
newspapers and the foreign publications.

It is important that Abdullah and Acting Umno Youth Datuk Hishamuddin Tun
Hussein have responded positively to the petition.

Hishamuddin echoed the Malaysian newsmen's concern, saying Umno Youth was
willing to help in the comprehensive review of laws governing freedom of speech
in the country.

Restrictive laws won't help the newspapers, the readers or the Government in
the coming years. In fact, even now.

It will be impossible to shut the plethora of views from the Internet and other
media technologies.

For example, instead of blocking the mass of information, particularly
information from the western media, we must insist on putting across our views.
We must state our point.

Countries that block information will eventually lose out. Clear, consistent
and moderate view points will always win finally.

A cacophony of voices with different messages does no harm, if they are not
libellous or inflammatory, as people will always be able to differentiate right
and wrong.

It is more effective to meet the information flood in an intelligent style and
persuasion is almost certain to be the order of the day for politicians of
tomorrow.

Young Malaysians would want to hear good views and they will know what has been
misrepresented and exaggerated.

But it wouldn't be just the politicians. The Malaysian media will have to
consistently play that role too.

Malaysians will always be different from the Westerners. Not many, for example,
will want the Malaysian press to emulate their British counterpart by
systematically tearing down the role of the monarchy.

Neither would Malaysians tolerate the paparazzi-styled journalism where the
media stalk celebraties with no regard for their right to privacy.

The British and American media, which talk so eloquently about transparency and
accountability, openly practise cheque-book journalism.

Neither do they have any respect for accuracy with their brand of journalism,
where reporters pass off personal prejudices as facts in their stories.

On that score, many Malaysians are unlikely to share the views of the New
York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, which put Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad on its worldwide list of top 10 "enemies of the press."

It is sheer rubbish. The Malaysian media may be guilty of self-censorship but
no Malaysian journalist has been jailed for their views.

And we must recognise, even with the Act, it is no longer difficult to obtain a
permit to start a publication.

For that matter, even Harakah, supposedly restricted to members, is openly on
sale to the public. An oppressive government certainly would not allow
that.

Hishamuddin has acknowleged that the most of the Malaysian journalists are fair
and responsible.

It might not be possible to remove the relevant laws affecting the media
overnight and the media should not have any pretentions about that.

Support from both sides, the Government and Opposition, is necessary to make
changes to improve the quality of journalism.

The first step could, perhaps, be the setting up of a media council, as
proposed by Senator Datuk Zainuddin Maidin, a veteran journalist.

The council could act as a watchdog for both the journalists and public to
register their views on issues relating to the media.

The proposed council, comprising eminent personalities and veteran journalists,
would also be able to monitor the reports of the foreign media.

In the final analysis, the direction of such a proposal is to improve the flow
of information and its availability to all Malaysians.

Politics should be the last criteria for the setting up of this media
council.