There is now co-operation 
among the opposition parties and 
some non-governmental organisations.

Still, the DAP has come out  openly to
declare its objection to  the setting up
of an Islamic state  as advocated by
PAS.

Both parties have ruled out an  electoral
pact in the next general  election
because of their differences.

But in the same breath, the two  parties
have also said they will  work together
on other issues.

For strategic purposes, it  makes sense
for both parties to  work together to
fight the Barisan.

Besides projecting a united opposition front, 
their emphasis on  common issues
will provide a  sharper focus to their
campaign,  thus generating greater
response.

The two parties have also tied  up with
Adil, the movement led  by Datin Seri Dr
Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail.

It will come as no surprise if  DAP, PAS
and Adil also join  hands with the
yet-to-be-registered HAK, initiated by allies of  Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The tie-up is pretty clear as  Adil is
open to all races while  HAK is only for
Muslims, with  non-Muslims as associate
members.

Associate members have no  right to vote
or to hold positions,  thus their
presence will provide  them with almost
no clout.

There is also the Parti Rakyat  Malaysia,
which has failed in every election, in the loose coalition.

The combination of DAP, PAS  and HAK may
seem to be a  strange brew but its impact
can  be strong.

The strategy appears quite  simple. PAS
hopes to get the non Muslim votes and the DAP the  Muslim votes.

PAS, PRM and HAK are banking on the Anwar issue to score  while DAP hopes to exploit the  imprisonment of Kota Melaka  MP Lim Guan Eng.

But at the end of the day, the  biggest
beneficiary may well be  PAS  which has cleverly taken off  its Islamic cloak to put up its reformasi
image.

Instead of talking about hudud  laws and
Islamic state, it is temporarily stressing democracy  and human rights.

Democracy and human rights,  after all,
have a more universal  appeal
acceptable  even by the  yuppies with their liberal political
inclination.

Forget about HAK or DAP, the  only party
which can do serious  damage to Barisan
is PAS, and  the fight in the rural
heartland  may be more intense.

For the electorate, it is not just  a
question of Umno versus PAS.  It is also
more than just about  democracy and
justice but a  question of the kind of
political  system that we,
Malaysians,  want to live in.

Can moderate Malaysians accept the kind of self-styled, self righteous moral
practices advocated by PAS leaders in multi-religious plural Malaysia?

It is highly unlikely that liberals will accept the dogmatic  changes in Kelantan under the  PAS administration unless we  accept segregation of sexes in  supermarket queues, lights-on in  cinemas and even dikir barat  ban, among other religious-moral moves.

The present system of government, with all its flaws, is still  the best kind of system.

Malaysians may vote against  the
government for what they  perceive to be
injustices inflicted on individuals but they must  never dismantle the very parliamentary system
which allows  them to vote.

Our constitutional and legal  rights need
to be strengthened,  not eroded. We have
a right to  know what kind of positive
political and economic changes our 
politicians can bring us.

Transparency is not just confined to the government. We  have a right to information from  opposition parties too.

Integrity and credibility are  also
something we expect from  politicians,
opposition or otherwise.

Malaysians cannot put their  future at
stake on some vague  promises made by
politicians.

It is not the time to experiment. We all deserve to know exactly what our
politicians want  to do to put Malaysia
back on  track economically.

By that, we mean politicians  with
impeccabble experience in  modern
management, economics  and administration
that will  bring us into the next
century  competently and
effectively.

We should also ask whether  the next
federal government can  last or will
collapse within  months after winning
because  the coalition partners have
stark  differences.

We must never lose sight of  our
direction, that is to create a  mature,
fully developed, liberal  and tolerant
society in which the  ethnic, political
and civil rights  of all Malaysians have
a place.

Any attempt, whether subtle  or
otherwise, to set apart and  separate our
present system of  parliamentary
democracy will  be a grave mistake.

It is always easy in a politically charged atmosphere to cast a  protest vote but Malaysians  must ask whether it will threaten  the existing political and economic
framework.

We must never sacrifice our  spirit of
tolerance and goodwill  and must reject
any form of intolerance. Moderation, in demands and speech, is the key to  success for Malaysia.

We can talk about the right to 
demonstrate as a form of freedom of expression but we only  need to look at our neighbour to  understand the kind of mess  they have got themselves into.

Beginning from now until the  elections,
politicians will promise anything but from now, we  must assess their pledges with a  level head.

Many of us pride ourselves on  being
educated and able to think  but at times,
we let our heart  rule our head.

While the LDP users, especially residents in the affected
areas, will save 50 sen per trip,  they
and other taxpayers will  have to
shoulder the burden of  paying RM85mil in
compensation to the concessionaire for 
that road alone.

Motorists have been told that  there will
no new highways until  the people want
them and are  willing to pay.

Generally, users are willing to  pay for
better quality roads. The  contention has
always been over  the amount of toll
charges.

The over-riding factor now is  that the
Government can no  longer afford to
subsidise road  users.

With scarce funds, subsidies  used to pay
these toll operators  should by right be
used to pay  for development
projects.

Thanks to an unprecedented  period of
economic boom, we  saw the expansion of
the middle  class. More Malaysians
began  owning a car or two.

Bus operators may pass the  cost of
increased toll charges to  passengers but
the amount  would be minimal.

Taxis and buses pay half the  charges for
commercial trucks  and private cars,
leaving a mild  effect on the lower
income.

Motorcyclists don't have to  pay toll.
Likewise, if you take the  commuter train
or the LRT.

The biggest beneficiaries are  car
owners. Not only do city folk  travel
more, there is wider use  of highways for
economic activities.

Like the LDP protest and the  Cheras toll
issue some years ago,  the loudest
complaints came  from the
residents.

Generally, motorists do not  mind a small
increase in toll  charges for inter-state
roads but  they are likely to be more
angry  when it comes to city roads.

The reason is simple. Motorists feel cheated when they have  to pay for short trips like sending their
children to school or going marketing.

A wage earner may feel the  pinch of
having to set aside  RM150 to pay toll,
besides his  other obligations.

Rather than stop building highways, the Government should  perhaps concentrate on inter state link
roads.

We cannot ignore the fact that  highways
have cut our travelling  time, which
means lower fuel  consumption and less
wear and  tear on vehicles. And most
accidents occur on trunk roads, not 
highways.

Remember spending six to  eight hours on
trunk roads to balik kampung during festive seasons? When an accident
occurs,  the traffic jam can be
horrifying  because the roads are too
narrow.

In the case of a breakdown,  there was no
one to turn to for  help. Now, we take
for granted  the back-up service from
PLUS.

Neither can we forget those  embarrassing
toilets at unhygenic coffee-shops and roadside 
restaurants.

With the highways, long-distance travel has become so much  pleasant.

There's always a price for everything and sometimes we tend  to forget the larger picture.

To refresh our memories, we  had opted
for privatisation because it was felt that the private  sector would be able to carry out  projects quicker and more efficient.

The North-South Highway was  one example.
We wanted a  world-class quality road
never  before seen in Malaysia, and we  got it in record time.

The idea was to let the private  sector
build these road linkages,  with the
Government imposing  some conditions in
the agreements.

Once the roads are built, the  operators
must maintain and upgrade them. Such an obligation  runs to hundreds of millions of  ringgit.

Like all businesses, concessionaires seek to make money,  too. The Government, on its part,  must honour all business deals if  it is to be viewed positively by  the business community in attracting investments.

For future agreements, it may  be
worthwhile to provide a longer concession period but with  lower rates.

It will also be worthwhile for  the
Government to insist on the  maintenance
of alternative  roads.

If we operate on the open-toll  system
concept, meaning not every motorist would have to pay  the whole amount, then alternative roads are
necessary.

Obviously, there are political 
ramifications when toll charges 
rise. More so with the general 
election looming. And, aware of 
ground sentiments, Barisan Nasional component parties also objected to
the toll increase.

Those supposedly present, Datuk Ibrahim Ali and Tan Sri
Rahim  Thamby Chik, could not recall  such a meeting taking place.

The Straits Times quoted a Malaysian official as saying the purported leaked
document was based  on a transcript which
had been  posted for more than a month on  one of the reformasi websites.

Quoting from the document, the  Business
Times report also said  the circulation
of a national Bahasa Malaysia daily had plunged, a  falsehood perpetuaed by certain  quarters.

The fact is that almost all national newspapers recorded an increase in their
sales since September, as verified by an independent  audit body.

There are many such documents  and
letters, purportedly official, in  the
“disinformation campaign''  against the
Government.

Foreign reporters, who do not  verify
their stories either due to  complacency
or sloppiness, are  likely to fall prey
to such lies.

Those familiar with Malaysian  politics
will tell you political discussions, of all level of politicians,  take place almost nightly.

These unofficial chit-chats are  never
minuted, let alone put in formal reports. Often, there is no follow-up to matters
discussed.

Our politicians often do not refute such inaccurate news reports,  preferring to dismiss them.

But the danger of such an approach is that without a denial,  these news items can sometimes  be accepted as true.

It will be better for the leaders  to put
their foot down and insist on  a
clarification or ask for their  stand to
be published.

Last week, some foreign media  took a
hostile reaction towards the  changes in
the Cabinet.

Some implied that the changes  are a
sinister ploy to strengthen  the Prime
Minister.

There's nothing unusual about  the
changes. No sane leader would  appoint
rivals to key positions. It's  really
stating the obvious.

It is normal to reward loyalists, 
whether in business or in politics.

There have been suggestions  that
Malaysia should consider imposing circulation curbs on the foreign press to
counter negative reporting.

The administration cannot be  blamed if
it suspects the foreign  press of having
a hidden agenda.

For the past 18 months, foreign  reports
have been carrying quotes  and comments
from the same government critics.

The views of these academicians  and
leaders of non-governmental 
organisations are taken as gospel 
truth.

Their motives and how representative their views were had never  been questioned.

But we should not just blame the  Western
reporters with their dial a-quote methods and predictions of  riots and a collapse of the Malaysian
economy.

Even some Malaysian newsmen  working for
these foreign news  agencies sometimes go
overboard  in running down their own
country.

A human rights activist, unheard  of
until a few months ago, has been 
upgraded to be “a leading opposition dissident'' and a politician  with a record of being rejected in  every election has been labelled as  an opposition leader.

Neither do these reporters point  out
that in multi-religious and  multi-racial
Malaysia, the political  inclination can
be very segmented.

The views of people in Kepong,  Gua
Musang and Sentul can be  very
different.

The foreign media, for example,  must
find out why the majority of  Malaysians
are against demonstrations.

Despite criticism of the Government being authoritarian, has the  foreign media admitted that Harakah and
Rocket are sold openly although the rule insist that these  publications are only for members.

Surely, a harsh government will  not
tolerate such abuses. In fact,  no
officials from these parties  have been
hurled to court.

There is this feeling now that to  make
them more accountable and  accurate in
their reporting, the international media must bear the financial and legal
implications of  their reports.

At the same time, our ministers  and
officials must learn to make  themselves
readily available to put  their views
across.

It might not be a good idea to  curb the
flow of information as the  same versions
of these publications also appear on the Internet.

What our leaders need to do is to  insist
their side of the story  is published, in
the form of letters to the  editors, if
they feel the need to correct a false report.

The National Economic Advisory  Council,
for example, has taken the  right step by
setting up a media  team to monitor print
reports  worldwide.

The team, which includes former 
journalists, has made it a point to 
clarify inaccurate reports.

We must accept that there will  always be
a cacophony of media  voices. We cannot
shut off all these  contradictory views
but we can insist the official views be carried 
alongside.

False reporting by the foreign  media has
led to people overseas  forming wrong
conclusions about  Malaysia, as in the
case of US  Vice-President Al Gore.

It has also affected the economy.  Fewer
tourists are visiting the  country.

Reformasi taxi drivers who bad mouth the country to their passengers ought to
understand the consequences of shooting themselves  in the foot.

The Government must deal with 
contradicting views intelligently, 
with hard facts and convincing arguments.

Our ambassadors, for example,  must
cultivate the friendship and  support of
newsmen in their countries.

Even prejudiced foreign newsmen can change and be more impartial in their
reporting if they  understand the
background of a  particular
development.

Rhetorics from opposition politicians and NGOs may be appealing  but in the end, the voice of reason  will prevail.

Moderate Malaysians, who form  the
majority, appreciate the need  for
compromise in a multi-racial and multi-religious country.

Democratic rights certainly need to be expanded in Malaysia. Even our local
media must admit  its weaknesses and take
a serious look at itself to improve its image.

We must realise political and economic stability will always be our
priorities.

If the foreign press is truthful, then they must admit that the country,
Government and economy have remained intact.

As we visit our Muslim friends during the traditional Hari Raya  open house this week, we must not forget that
racial harmony still  prevails.

There have been no massive retrenchments, no sharp hikes in the  prices of food items but an improved stock
market as we go  through the
recession.

All these are not too bad for a country which has been written off  by the critics.

Only if we can see all this will we realise that there is mala fide, or  bad faith, on the part of the foreign press
in its reporting of Malaysia.

The past four months have certainly been a difficult ones
for the  country's top cop.

Before the sacking of Datuk Seri  Anwar
Ibrahim from the government and Umno, no one questioned  his tough policing methods. Some  even said that was the best way to  deal with rising crime rates, which  many blamed on the influx of illegal
immigrants.

Abdul Rahim's problems began  as the
political temperature went  up. For the
first time, the police  had to deal with
a situation they  never experienced
before.

The police force was likened to  the
Mossad, the Israeli secret police, and described as thugs by Anwar and his
supporters.

Abdul Rahim found himself  called with
unprintable names in  the Internet. To
some, the celebrated crime-buster had suddenly became a trigger-happy
villain.

Every reformasi supporter suddenly seemed to know of at least  one Bukit Aman relative who confessed that
Anwar had been injected with HIV virus at the order of  Abdul Rahim.

A careless remark, as a result of  a
prodding and judgmental British 
reporter, at a press conference 
turned out to be another mistake. 
He was seen as someone who became uptight.

As the chorus of criticisms became louder after Anwar turned up  at the Sessions Court on Sept 29  with a black eye, Abdul Rahim decided to
maintain his silence.

That didn't help. He was rumoured to have had a stroke and  that he was beaten by a Sultan.

Certainly no one, irrespective of 
political inclination, would condone 
the injuries inflicted on Anwar.

There have been doubts from the 
beginning that it was not possible 
for the police to investigate their 
peers  in this case, possibly
their  superiors  stemming from suspicion that senior officers
were implicated in the incident.

Certain quarters had called for  an
independent inquiry, and Datuk  Seri Dr
Mahathir Mohamad has  taken the right
step by saying he  would consider the
proposal.

Some questions are still unanswered. Malaysians want to know  who assaulted Anwar and whether  the incident occurred while he was  on the way to Bukit Aman or while  being questioned. What were the  circumstances of the incident?  Were the police officers provoked?

Until investigations are completed and those responsible are taken  to task, the doubts and criticisms  will continue.

The police must try to appease a 
discontented public, and restore 
confidence in the force.

However, let us not be too quick  to
blame the system. Not all police 
officers are bad and it doesn't help 
to demoralise them further.

We seem to ignore or forget, for 
example, Abdul Rahim's role in disbanding the Al Arqam movement  and rehabilitating its members.

It was his special ties with the  Thai
police force which led to the  arrest of
Al Arqam leader Asaari  Mohamed.

Abdul Rahim also played a key  role in
ending the 45-year struggle  of the
Communist Party of Malaya.

It is all too easy to criticise without offering concrete solutions.  Having a Royal Commission of Inquiry for
every incident in this  country is hardly
the answer.

The police force would not improve even with such investigations. We need to
upgrade our system of criminal justice.

The days of communist insurgency and secret societies are over.  While we still cannot treat criminals with
kid's gloves, training and  modern
facilities are vital in dealing with modern-day crimes.

Senior officers without the benefit of legal, economics, accountancy or
political science education  should be
sent for such courses.

Malaysians, including the police  force,
must understand that  changes are taking
place and we  have to deal with these
developments.

We must appreciate the fact that  as
Malaysians become more educated, they will be more conscious  of their legal and political rights.  Such knowledge, even for the ordinary police
constable, is necessary  to protect the
integrity of the system.

Clearer laws are needed to define  our
legal rights.

We must take gradual steps to  overhaul
our system by throwing  out archaic laws
and preserving  those relevant to our
security.

At the same time, we must not  forget
that for policing to be effective, it is necessary for policemen  to have authority and firmness in  dealing with criminals.

Rapists, robbers and murderers  are not
angels, no matter how hard  the liberals
try to convince us.

As in the case of a Filipino criminal who repeatedly raped his 10 year-old
stepdaughter, the NGOs  have been so busy
defending his  rights that they have
forgotten  about the victim.

Everyone talks of the rights of  the
individual without considering  the
welfare and rights of the community.

In dealing with an emotional  mob, a
certain degree of force has  to be exerted
as a deterrent measure. High-handedness on innocent  bystanders, however, must not be  tolerated.

Members of the force are accountable to the public. As law enforcers, they must
understand the  importance of
self-conduct and  self-restraint.

There are rules which they must  observe
under the most testing of 
circumstances.

It is significant that Abdul Rahim  has
taken responsibility for what  happened,
even if it is perceived as  belated. It
is an unselfish act which  our political
leaders and top government officers should perhaps  emulate from now.

There was no indication who the  person would be or when the appointment would
be announced.  Neither was there any inkling
that  the new DPM would be among the  three or whether he would be an  interim DPM before the Umno  elections in July.

The three Umno leaders supposedly gave their support to the  Prime Minister, saying the prerogative was
his alone and that they  would back his
choice.

No one, including the three, is  ready to
verify whether the meeting took place but the mere talk of  such meetings has generated excitement within
the political circle.

While no one wants to put on record what transpired, the sentiment among Umno
members is  clear. They want to see the
DPM's  post filled soon.

If the meetings really took place,  the
Prime Minister has given us a  glimpse of
how he works; the political maverick has, again, kept his  cards close to his chest.

The three seasoned politicians  have
returned to their aides and  supporters
without an answer. The  only consolation
is there is still  hope for all
three.

The endorsement by the three  leaders
would certainly ease Dr  mahathir's
burden.

After all, Abdullah and Najib are 
vice-presidents and they certainly 
command support from members.

Both are also senior Cabinet  members who
have contributed to  the country and
party. By virtue of  their government and
party positions, they would certainly see 
themselves as worthy contenders 
for the post.

Razaleigh may not be in the Cabinet but he is well-respected by the  business community.

Although he has not made any 
announcement as to whether he 
would vie for a key Umno position, 
it is said that his supporters have 
begun preparing the groundwork 
for this possibility.

Preliminary assessments have  shown that
Umno members consider Razaleigh a serious contender   should he decide to join the fray.

Besides the many considerations  to take
into account, the Prime  Minister's task
has become tougher because of pressure from senior  Umno members, including the  Mentris Besar, to name his deputy.

It is said that various options  have
been proposed to him. Some  of the
options, if workable and correct, certainly seem attractive.

Then there is the question of  whether
the appointment would  have a bearing on
the party elections. Would the appointment result in a no-contest
situation?

Political equations aside, Dr Mahathir must consider the equally  important criteria of the person  being able to handle the demanding job.

Dr Mahathir's priorities now are  to
restore the economy and to reconcile the party following the sacking of Datuk
Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The expectations of Malaysians  are high;
they want the new DPM  to be clean,
accountable and just.

He must be someone who can  grasp the
complexities of economics and who has international support.

Malaysians will see the DPM as a 
successor to Dr Mahathir. After 16 
years, it will be a tough act to follow. Malaysians would want to
see  what the new man is made of if
he  is to lead the country later
on.

He would face the task of gearing up for a general election which  is slightly more than a year away.  He would have to maintain the winning
momentum of the Barisan Nasional in a more challenging political
environment.

We cannot deny there is uneasiness on the ground over the current political
developments. Some  members of the public
have doubts  over what they are
told.

The new DPM would shoulder  the
responsibility of convincing  this
section of the electorate which  could
determine the overall results.

A week is a long time in politics,  as
the saying goes. In a year's  time,
additional information would  have
surfaced and might cushion  some of the
misgivings.

Despite criticisms of our political system, it is evident that Umno  has the capacity for compromise,  which augurs well for the nation.  And the support for Dr Mahathir  as Prime Minister and Umno president is still
intact.

As the search for the new DPM  continues,
there will be no end to  speculation in
the capital.

It has become customary of Dr  Mahathir
to invite different guests  to his buka
puasa function each  evening; sometimes
he accepts invitations from politicians.

Without any official announcement, impatient Umno members  have turned such functions into  talking points. So, who is Dr Mahathir
breaking fast with tomorrow evening?

Barisan Nasional leaders have  regarded the state polls as a test of  public support for the Barisan Nasional since
the sacking of Datuk  Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Although the fight for votes in  Sabah
have always been robust, it  is unlikely
Anwar's sacking would  be a contentious
issue.

While Anwar has played a prominent role in Sabah Umno and could  even be credited for playing a major role in
the last state polls, federal issues matter more. In fact,  the opposition PBS has not even  bothered to link up with pro-reformasi
groups.

In a state where anything political is possible, the word is that  Barisan and PBS are already talking about
coming back together.  The only question
is whether it  should be before or after
the polls.

There is also this tricky question  of
whether the chief minister's rotation system among the three  main communities should continue.

Should the PBS return to the  coaltion,
it would be a boost to Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's  leadership.

At the federal level, the three  main
Barisan component parties   Umno, MCA and
MIC  will hold  their elections.

Umno has scheduled to hold its  internal
polls in June with the focus on the contest for the deputy  president and three vice-president  posts.

The main contenders for the  number two
slot is said to be Datuk  Seri Najib Tun
Razak, Datuk Seri  Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
and  Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

In the MCA, moves have been  made to
ensure a no-contest elections at the vice-presidency level.

Party president Datuk Seri Dr  Ling Liong
Sik and his deputy, Datuk Lim Ah Lek, are certain to win  their posts unopposed.

The spotlight will certainly be on  the
four vice-president posts now  held by
Datuk Chua Jui Meng, Datuk Ong Ka Ting, Datuk Dr Fong  Chan Onn and Datuk Yap Pian  Hon.

Should Youth Chief Datuk Chan  Kong Choy
decide to vie for one of  the four slots,
as predicted, it  means a vacancy in the
top Youth  post.

There is also talk, within the party, that a contest between Wanita  deputy chief Dr Tan Yew Kew and  secretary-general Datuk Dr Ng  Yen Yen is in the offing should incumbent
Datuk Teng Gaik Kwan  step down.

But the message from the top is  “avoid
a contest,'' an advice which  members
should consider seriously with a general election looming.

Anwar's court battle will continue to dominate the news next year  as his trial will take place from  February till June. More charges  are expected to be filed against  him.

The fate of his former tennis  partner S.
Nallakaruppan, who is  charged with
possession of ammunition under the ISA, will be known  next year. His trial has been postponed to
February.

PAS is expected to be prominent  with its
efforts to win the support  of voters who
are uneasy with Anwar's sacking from Umno.

So confident is PAS with its  plans to
make inroads into states  such as Perlis,
Kedah and Terengganu that it has started wooing the  non-Malays.

But it is unlikely that the non Malays, regarded as the deciding  factor in a closely-contested general
election, will find PAS appealing  with
its orthodox practices. Most  non-Malays
find the thought of  PAS denying Barisan
a two-thirds  majority in Parliament
frightening.

Certainly, DAP must have  gauged the
sentiments of the non Malays on the current political  scenario as evident by the DAP's  moves in distancing itself from  PAS of late.

PAS has claimed that its membership has increased five-fold and  that the circulation of Harakah has  shot to 300,000. However, few in  the media and advertising industry  believe the unconfirmed circulation
figure.

What is confirmed is that sales  of most
local newspapers have  gone up despite a
boycott by reformasi supporters.

Of interest to Malaysians will  also be
the plans of Adil, the reform movement led by Datin Seri  Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and a  group of academicians.

The movement will certainly  generate
more political consciousness. With its multiracial line-up, it  will probably find a niche among  the middle class. Whether it will  have mass appeal remains to be  seen.

Adil has also decided to leave out 
politicians in an attempt to shrug 
off public belief that the reformasi 
movement has been hijacked by 
PAS. It will have to resort to the 
existing channels of democracy if 
it wants to gain credence among 
the moderates as the use of street 
demonstrations is ill-received.

But politics would not be the  only story
next year. Economics  will share the
limelight as Malaysia attempts to fight itself out of  recession.

Despite the pessimism of this  year, the
pre-Christmas rally has  brought cheer to
local stock market investors. The crowd is back at  our securities firm, bringing some  resemblance of confidence.

Many Malaysians believe that  the bullish
trend will continue with  another rally
before Hari Raya and  Chinese New
Year.

They also believe that Bank Negara will announce some positive  steps to ease the one-year freeze  on foreign capital outflows imposed in
September, which will be  another big
news item next year.

The decision to impose capital  controls
and to lower interest rates  have brought
positive results to  the economy so far.
Many will  want to see this impact
continue  next year.

For those in the newspaper industry, its almost certain that  1999, the last lap into the next millennium,
will be a memorable one.

He was then asked whether the  denial of a scholarship, for example, to a
qualified non-bumiputra  was an
infringement of human  rights.

The moderator pointed out that  the
bumiputra who won the scholarship could be from a well-off  family.

The human rights advocate from  Suaram
appeared to be caught off guard and could not provide a reasonable reply.

The lesson here is that it is not 
possible to translate human rights 
to the letter.

If we argue literally, the NEP  was certainly
against basic human  rights. But it was a
package accepted by Malaysians, including non Malays. Some see it as positive
discrimination.

It brought along political stability and the expansion of the middle  class, particularly among the Malays. A
bigger middle class means  greater
consumption which, in  turn, will
galvanise the economy.

One of the most recent significant political developments is  greater political awareness.

Malaysians, particularly the  younger
set, have begun to scrutinise the functions of our institutions.

There is no question that there  are
flaws in our system but that  does not
mean the entire system is  wrong.

If positive changes could be  made to
laws which we think are no  longer
relevant, then we should be  open enough
to review those laws.

We should also learn to appreciate the role of non-government organisations
(NGOs) in providing  feedback to the
Government.

The entry of the Movement for  Social
Justice (Adil) initiated by  Datin Seri
Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail would be another form of  check and balance.

At this point, we are unsure of its 
programme but its multi-ethnic 
composition is certainly a step in 
the right direction.

It has a list of respectable figures, lending further weight to the  movement. Comprising mostly academicians,
Adil has given the impression that it wants to play an  educator's role.

Thus, it has announced that it  wants to
be “non-political'' but at  the same
time said it would push  for
changes.

So, like many other NGOs, it may  end up
as an armchair critic by issuing press statements, giving lectures and
publishing books.

Having said that, Adil has a fresh 
chance of being more holistic in its 
approach to human rights.

One of the greatest disservice of  some
NGOs is their refusal to emphasise economic and social rights.

It is a pity that our Malaysian  human
rights groups are not committed to a more comprehensive  view of human rights. Most of them  seek to defend political and civil  rights, as they are conventionally  understood.

Whether our NGOs are ready to  admit it
or not, we cannot help but  suspect the
powerful psychological  and possibly
financial influence  and impact that
Western human  rights groups have on
their Malaysian counterparts.

Thus, our NGOs do not see our  right to
food, clothing, shelter, employment, education and health   which are all basic needs.

For example, opposition parties  and NGOs
have fought for decades  to repeal the
Internal Security Act  during elections
but the tactic has  never generated sufficient
emotions for it to be translated into 
votes.

The reason is simple. Draconian  as it
may seem, the ISA means very  little to
many ordinary people who  are too busy
trying to feed their  families.

Right or wrong, and selfish as it  may
seem, they assume that politicians should be prepared to face  the consequences of the game.

In Myanmar, the economic sanction has led to factories being shut  down. For ordinary folk, it means  loss of jobs.

The military regime is still in  power,
Aung San Suu Kyi is still in  her
bungalow, the investors merely  packed
off to neighbouring countries to set up shop and NGOs continue their
crusade.

But we spare very little thought  for the
faceless factory workers  with families
to feed. It's all too  simple to blame
the system but for  these people, it
means the right to  survive.

Surely, there must be better  ways to
pressure a government,  even if we scoff
at Asean's constructive engagement policy.

Another flaw of our NGOs is  their
continuous approach to human rights to revolve around individuals, which is a
very Western  perspective.

In Malaysia, as in many Asian  countries,
collectivity, community  and the nation
still matter.

Thus, when we talk about human  rights,
we also have to consider our  duties to fellow
Malaysians.

As proven, the right to demonstrate, as a form of collective expression, has
gone down badly with  many
Malaysians.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, shows an  overwhelming concern for political  and civil rights.

Through NGOs, Western powers  have
created the belief that human  rights is
essentially political freedom and civil liberties.

Many of us, in fact, have become  so
convinced by such arguments  that anyone
who comes up with a  different approach
is perceived as  a sycophant of the
government.

Similarly, we need not term those  who
advocate changes and reforms  as
anti-government and unpatriotic.

We must not write off those who  do not
subscribe to our views but  we must
accept the views of the  majority. Those
who talk about the  right to dissent must
respect the  majority.

There is nothing wrong for us to  tailor
human rights according to  our needs and
situation.

Politicians and activists who embrace human rights from a democratic-liberal
approach are regarded as champions of human rights  with high principles.

Many, somehow, are willing to  forgive
them even when they are  not objective.
Everyone seems to  be biased except these
privileged  human rights activists.

So, we end up having another  warped
definition of human rights.  To be
critical of the government  means to
uphold social justice.

Thus, we continue to treat lightly  the
dominance from the West in the  form of
economic superiority, authoritarianism in international relations and the flow
of information.

Our human rights groups cannot  say their
concern is merely Malaysian. If that is so, then their understanding of human
rights would  only hamper the growth of a
more  holistic understanding of this
universal value.

Malaysians deserve the right to a 
legitimately elected government 
which can ensure political and economic stability.

And if we truly subscribe to social justice, we should also be  ready to censure any move from  the West to challenge our sovereignty.

The former PAS Youth executive  secretary stood for the Bandar Tun  Razak parliamentary seat in the  1995 general election as a PAS candidate but
pulled out at the last  minute.

Three years later, he emerged as  a
leader of the reformasi movement. Before Datuk Seri Anwar  Ibrahim's arrest, he was also seen  openly at Anwar's house coordinating the
nightly ceramah.

Last week, he announced plans to 
register the movement as a political party.

Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has thrown a challenge to the  movement, saying it should test its  strength in the elections. The  movement was told that it should  get into the arena if it wanted a  change in leadership.

But Malek has now said that it  needed to
re-think its decision to  form a
political party, and the  movement had to
strategise carefully before making any legal decision.

The entry of “Parti Reformasi''  will be
another alternative for the  electorate.
It might even expand  should it decide to
forge alliances  with other
parties.

It makes sense for reformasi supporters to seek registration  either as a non-government organisation or
political party  for the  movement to be legally recognised.

Beyond allowing their registration, the Government should provide space for the
group to explain  its policies and
programmes to the  public.

They should have avenues to give  their
side of the story if democracy  is to
function decently.

Permits to hold ceramahs in enclosed premises should be given, if  security conditions are fulfilled.

As a legitimate body, it should  also be
allowed to print and distribute leaflets bearing its symbol. By  doing so, it would be held accountable for
its statements.

It will have to face the legal consequences for any unsubstantiated  accusations.

Should it decide to go ahead with  its
plan to form a political party, 
Malaysians would be able to know 
its objectives clearer.

The movement would have to reveal its membership structure, party constitution
and aspirations.

We will then know whether it intends to be Malay-based, like Umno  or the now-defunct Parti Melayu  Semangat 46, or whether it will  open its doors to all races.

Malaysians will have a clearer  idea on
whether it intends to work  with PAS and
DAP, as Semangat  had tried through
Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah and Gagasan Rakyat.

Reformasi leaders would have to  explain
how they intend to distribute wealth fairly, as they have said  so in many of its ceramahs, and  their stand on the New Economic  Policy.

More importantly, Malaysians  would be
interested to know how  the movement
intends to take them  out of the economic
recession.

As it is now, the movement merely advocates vague ideals of social  justice and its opposition to security
laws.

That aside, we do not know what  it
intends to name itself permanently although the word reformasi  is synonymous with the movement  now. While it is easily identifiable,  many Malaysians tend to draw parallels  rightly or wrongly  with 
the violent reformasi movement in 
Indonesia.

The street demonstrations in  Kuala
Lumpur, which turned ugly a  few times,
have not helped the  movement.

By adopting a Malaysian name,  the group
would be seen to be  “home grown.''
Also, it will not invite accusations that it enjoys the  support or assistance of foreigners.

While it hopes to seek foreign  support
to pressure the Malaysian  Government,
such a strategy is  bound to elicit
misgivings. Endorsement by any foreign leader 
would surely backfire.

Despite the movement's distrust  of the
local media, it cannot rely  entirely on
the foreign media for  its election
campaign.

Opposition parties like PAS and  DAP have
boycotted newspapers  some time or other,
but they have  had to turn to the local
press in the  end.

The bad blood is sometimes unnecessary. Newspapers are still the  strongest medium of communication, even when
parties rely on the  Internet, cassettes,
video tapes and  ceramahs to reach out to
voters.

PAS and DAP have never failed  to invite
the local press to their  functions as
they are aware of the  need to maintain a
relationship  with the media.

It will be interesting to see  whether
Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah  Wan Ismail will
be the de facto  leader of “Parti
Reformasi.''

No serious politician should  write off
this possible new party.  We cannot
discount the charisma of  Anwar as a pull
factor, even if he is  behind bars. In
the past, detained  DAP leaders have
contested in  elections and won with
majority  votes.

Should Dr Azizah lead the party,  there
will bound to be sympathy  votes. The
plus side is that she will  certainly
give the movement a  gentler image.

As an opposition party, there will  be
certain limits but so far the  movement
appears well-organised  and
well-oiled.

Once the movement is registered, the position of NGOs will  also be clearer. They have, on paper,
disassociated themselves from  the
reformasi movement but their  support is
an open secret.

It is a perplexing stand. If NGOs  support
the ideals of the movement, they should say so; there is  nothing to be ashamed of.

Malaysians need not be conformists. We should be allowed to have a  second or third opinion.

Democracy is about choices and  it is for
politicians to explain in  clear terms
how they can effectively lead us into the next century.

The party was eager to shed its  extremist image. In a bid to garner  votes from the non-Muslims, it set  up the Chinese Consulative Council, which
comprised non-Malay  Muslims.

Party secretary-general Halim  Arshat,
then a state PAS secretary,  was among
the speakers.

They had expected questions  about the
Internal Security Act and  other laws
which were regarded as  draconian. These
were laws the  party readily promised to
abolish.

So confident were the PAS leaders in dealing with the audience  that they opened the session to  journalists.

But what transpired was not as  what the
leaders expected.

The non-Muslim representatives  wanted to
know how the party's  viewed fashion
shows, beauty pageants, mahjong, mini skirts and eating pork.

The PAS leaders were not prepared for these questions.

A self-proclaimed DAP supporter  asked
whether a PAS government  would allow the
staging of fashion  shows. The reply was
a vague “certain fashion shows will be permissible'', but the PAS speaker
could not  be specific.

Asked how PAS could work with 
non-Muslims when the party could 
not even work with Umno members, Halim answered that PAS was  non-discriminatory because Islam  required the party to be fair to all.

When an Indian lawyer asked  whether
Islamic laws would be applicable to all, another PAS leader  reassured him that Islamic laws  were only for Muslims.

Someone from the floor then  asked
whether civil law, which was  also good,
would continue. There  was no reply from
the PAS leaders.

Another non-Muslim wanted to  know
whether special privileges  for
bumiputras would be done  away with,
given the fact that PAS  had promised a
“fair distribution of  wealth.'' Again,
the answer was  non-committal.

What about mahjong, empat ekor  and
beauty pageants?

Halim promised that the party  would not
restrict non-Muslims  from their
practices and culture,  but asked whether
it was good “to  have anak gadis
telanjang sini (to  have your daughters
naked here),''  pointing at his arms and
legs.

He again said “PAS will not curtail your rights and tradition'' when  an elderly Chinese man asked  whether he could still have his daily bah kut
teh, 4-D and kuda (horse  racing).

Finally, Halim was asked whether PAS would hold elections after it  had won. The answer given was  that the party would let the people  decide.

The dialogue ended with a promise that Chinese and Tamil schools  would continue.

There was much goodwill as the 
participants and PAS leaders adjourned for tea. Some of the non Muslim
representatives wished the  PAS leaders
luck and pledged their  votes.

But many were not convinced by  the
answers.

To show that it was serious in  getting
non-Malay support, PAS  fielded several
Chinese Muslim  candidates such as
Mohamed Redhuan Daniel Oon Abdullah and Ghazali Ho in the Merbuk and Tanjung  Malim parliamentary seats, respectively,
while Kamal Koh contested  in the
Seberang Jaya state seat.

PAS also put up several candidates in predominantly Chinese  constituencies but the strategy  failed.

The majority of the votes went to  the
Barisan Nasional who promised  a stable
government, good constituency service, liberalisation, and  funds for Chinese and Tamil  schools.

More than 10 years later, PAS  leaders
are doing the same again.  The party has
a new set of younger  leaders, but the
leadership structure headed by Datuk Fadzil Noor  is still intact.

The party has not changed its  policies
but there are moves, albeit  cautious
ones, to amend its constitution to allow non-Muslims to become associate
members.

As associate members, they will  have no
voting rights and no influence in the party decision-making  process.

The party is aware of the possibility of non-Muslim voters tipping  the scale in a tight contest against  its traditional foe, Umno, during  the general election.

PAS has made early moves by  forging ties
with non-Muslim based  political parties
and non-government organisations, including the 
DAP, Parti Rakyat Malaysia, 
Suaram, Just, Abim, Aliran and 
Tenaganita.

It has, to some degree, successfully propagated the ideals of social justice
among young, middle class non-Malays, many of whom  were still in school when the Alor  Star dialogue took place.

PAS has also cleverly seized the 
euphoria over reformasi to gloss its 
somewhat conservative image, preferring to emphasise values and  concepts which cut across religion  and race.

Pre-empting possible criticism  that it
was working with DAP, Fadzil announced that it would not  work with any non-Malay or non Islamic party
during the polls.

Likewise, the DAP realises that  to be
seen working with PAS would  only mean
the kiss of death from  its traditional
backers in the urban  areas.

As a community-oriented organisation incapable of developing a  genuinely multi-ethnic, all-rounded  national character, it is understandable that
PAS wants to project  a softer
image.

Realising that neither PAS nor  DAP can
offer itself as a viable alternative to the Barisan Nasional,  the two parties and some NGOs  have tried to cooperate on a minimum
programme.

For the first time, both opposition parties have talked realistically of
denying the Barisan a two thirds majority instead of capturing the
government.

It is through this strategy that  they
hope to get a bonus. If enough  protest
votes go to PAS and DAP,  the two parties
may just get more  than what they hope
for.

Many PAS leaders and supporters have taken to wearing the white  ribbon instead of the party's symbol of a
white moon on green background.

Like many of the NGO leaders,  PAS has
said the party is against  injustice but
not supporting the reformasi movement.

Aware of the anti-establishment 
resentment of some Malaysians, 
PAS has, however, exploited the issue.

In some ways, PAS has succeeded if their claims over the increase  of membership and the sale of Harakah are
authentic.

The willingness of PAS to be  more open
is good for the country  as it will mean
another step towards removing communalism 
from Malaysian politics. After all, 
Umno has provided membership to 
non-Muslim bumiputras from Sabah.

But PAS leaders must realise  that the
Chinese community, in  particular, is
known to be pragmatic.

Moderate Malaysians are aware  that good
governance and political  and economic
stability are better  bets for long-term
efforts.

It is easy to be a leader of a community or to whip up emotions on a  single issue. It is harder to be a  leader to all Malaysians.

The 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec)
will see the presence of leaders from countries that matter.

We all know Indonesian President B.J. Habibie and President Joseph Estrada of
the Philippines would want to be on the world stage despite their earlier
decision to stay away.

It is hard to imagine Estrada, with his fondness for theatrics, missing a
photography session with President Bill Clinton.

Never mind if the former B-grade actor has little interest or knowledge in
economics.

There is always the diplomats to fall back on. They can be relied upon for the
prepared text. A little something like those lines from a script for a movie,
you may say.

But before that, someone ought to tell him at Malacanang, diplomacy is all
about national interest  that's the
bottom line.

Leaders can preach aloud about lofty global ideals but this won't do their
countrymen much good if they return home empty-handed.

They have to secure something tangible from the talks and  the bilateral meetings.

And then, of course, there is Habibie. For all his bravado, he has also
requested for a meeting with Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

With all the starving, burning, looting and lynching back home, it is
surprising  he still has time for other
people's problems.

Meanwhile, President Bill Clinton and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
have decided to snub Dr Mahathir by refusing to one-to-one talks.

Their decision was based on “deep concern'' over the treatment of Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim.

No matter how one looks at it, it is a blow to Malaysia. Not just to Dr
Mahathir. Let's be honest here.

But consider the bright side, too. Dr Mahathir could also ask Clinton
embarrassing questions such as his back-ache, his affair with Monica Lewinsky,
perjury and the misuse of cigars.

Clinton is more likely to thank Dr Mahathir for criticising the CNN's continual
show of Clinton embracing the former White House intern.

Should Chretien lecture Malaysia about police high handedness, it would be pure
hypocrisy.

During last year's Apec summit in Vancouver, the rights of Canadians were
violated when protesters were arrested, pepper-sprayed and manhandled by
police.

Many of the protestors from non-governmental organisations, it seemed, were
beaten to a pulp.

Suits were filed by protestors alleging their right to freedom of expression
was violated. It is all very familiar for Chretien, really.

The French-speaking leader had hoped to use the Vancouver summit to raise his
international stature.

In the end, the summit was remembered for its open display of police
brutality.

Finally, someone ought to tell them, perhaps subtly, that Malaysians expect
their guests to be gracious to their host.

It is not just an Asian value or tradition. It is a universal value, very much
like human rights.

Apec leaders need to get their focus right. There is just too much at stake
here with the regional economic crisis threatening to grow into a global
recession.

We are talking about the jobs and the welfare of the ordinary people. Apec
leaders have a responsibility to us.

There is also the danger that the US officials would be preoccupied with the
looming confrontation with Iraq.

After 10 years, Apec should not be allowed to be just another talk shop where
meaningless lengthy communiques are ritually issued at the end of the
meeting.

People have begun to question the relevance of the organisation conceptualised
in the context of growth.

But it is obvious now there are too many holes and flaws in the financial
system and that all is not well with the system, a point Dr Mahathir brought up
in Vancouver.

He was then ridiculed for his attacks on the dangers of speculative
funds.

When capital controls were introduced in Malaysia  the critics charged that such controls would
only have short-term gains.

The imposition of capital controls, they argued, would prevent foreigners from
investing in Malaysia. The point here is that Malaysians want serious
investors, not speculators.

Less talked about is the fact that no one has said that the fixed rate of
RM3.80 to a US$1 is an unrealistic figure. In fact, many said the ringgit is
under valued.

The attention of the world will also be on the American attempts to stop
Japan's US$30 billion promised aid to Asia.

The Apec summit will be timely for all thinking Malaysians to ponder what their
priorities are and which countries can be counted upon to deliver real help to
get us out of the financial crisis.

But we are living in interesting times. Foreign leaders who come to our land to
bash us are suddenly regarded as heroes by some.

Notes: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (November 12 – 18, 1998 : Kuala
Lumpur).