The most obvious was the theatrical display of
representatives from the 60-or-so legal and 
human rights groups. Some of  them
demanded preferential  treatment, that
they be given  priority over other
Malaysians.

They insinuated that without  their
presence, the trial would  not be fair
and open.

The decision not to accord  them observer
status sparked a  controversy which led
to the foreign media alleging that Malaysia was afraid to let them witness the
trial.

(An observer is recognised by  the court,
gets a reserved seat  and can possibly
meet defence  and prosecution counsel.
Lawyers holding watching brief, particularly for witnesses, can raise  points of law in court.)

Three uninvited Filipino lawmakers also created a furore  over their inability to get a place  in court.

In the end, most of these foreigners managed to enter the  space-constrained courtroom  when they began queuing up,  along with Malaysians, at 6am  each day.

These representatives are  right up to a
point. It is certainly  unusual to reject
applications for  observer status; doing
so gives  the impression that they
have  been shut out intentionally.

It is unprecedented in Malaysian legal history. And since it is  an unpopular decision, Malaysia  must be prepared to face the  criticism and bad press.

But we shouldn't be unduly  worried. The
trial has gone on  smoothly. Local and
foreign  journalists have reported the  case at length. In some reports,  full-page transcripts have been  printed.

Anyone who has attended  court
proceedings would know  that the
goings-on outside the  courtroom are
sometimes more  interesting.

It has been a field day for fashion-conscious witnesses and  even some politicians.

PAS president Datuk Fadzil  Nor and his
party mates turned  up at 10am and
expected to get a  seat.

The fact that he did not get a  seat was
good enough for him to  create a ruckus.
Naturally, he  did not disclose why he
was late.

Then, the fuss over whether  Bahasa
Malaysia or English  should be used was a
case of  much ado about nothing because,  finally, both languages were  used interchangeably.

Ironically, on the table of High  Court
judge Datuk S. Augustine  Paul is a sign
declaring Gunakan  Bahasa Kebangsaan  and it 
has been there for years.

It must have been a relief to  most
people, not just foreigners,  that the
first prosecution witness   Datuk Said
Awang, the outgoing Special Branch director  
chose to give his evidence in English.

Even then, the foreigners received invaluable translation  services from volunteers, mainly law
graduates.

Others complained that the  proceedings
have been painfully  slow. The judge
writes down every single word said in the proceedings.

It must seem archaic to representatives of human rights and  legal groups who are accustomed to seeing
stenographers in  American and Australian
courts.

Aliran has proposed that the  trial be
televised live to discourage Malaysians from gathering  outside the court in their attempts to follow
the proceedings.

It is an attractive idea but the 
Malaysian judiciary is still conservative. Unlike the American  court system, the British system  which we have inherited still  does not accept cameras in  court.

Photographers are not allowed  in the
courtroom, let alone TV  crew.

Our legal officers still go to  court in
their black garb, bib  and, until a
decade ago, some of  the judges wore the
horse-hair  wig.

For the public, Said's testimony offered a rare peek into the  operations of the Special Branch.

He told the court that he was  ordered by
Anwar to obtain retractions from two people who 
wrote letters to Prime Minister 
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad alleging Anwar's sexual  misconduct.

The police, he said, went ahead  to
“neutralise'' the two “targets''   Ummi
Hafilda Ali and Azizan  Abu Bakar.

One foreign representative described the testimony as “chilling'' but those of
us who follow  the work of the CIA are
unlikely  to be surprised by such operative
words.

What is more important, however, is whether it will be a fair  trial 
not what language is  used, how
many foreign observers are allowed in, or live telecast of trial
proceedings.

The essence here is justice.

And because of the nature of  this case,
the nation is also on trial, rightly or wrongly. World attention is on the
country's institutions.

Every word printed by the media, both local and foreign, will  be scrutinised and their credibility will be
on the line. The public  deserves nothing
but the truth in  the media
coverage.

On this point, it is highly regrettable that the Asian edition  of Time magazine has printed a  survey based on 76,908 Internet  votes.

According to the report, which  will
appear in the coming issue,  93.7% of the
respondents found  Anwar guilty, 6.52%
voted innocent and 0.39% said they don't 
know.

Although the magazine acknowledged that the poll was not  scientific, the survey will only  aggravate the anxiety of those  involved in the trial.

It is best for the media to keep  to
straight-forward reporting,  without
having to resort to unnecessary commentary which  may be sub judice.

We should let the legal process  run its
course and not jump to  conclusions at
this point.

We should also not cast doubt  on the
judiciary. For those who  do, they might
find it hard to eat  their words if the
verdict favours them.

These street protests have, in  fact, taken on a more ugly dimension with
people getting hurt and  property
damaged.

As expected, both sides have  pointed
fingers at each other. The  police have
said the gatherings  were illegal and
that the demonstrators turned up prepared.

The protesters, in turn, have  claimed
that it was the police who  provoked them
with high-handed  tactics, resulting in
violent retaliation.

There is obviously a need to end  this
impasse. The police have, in  the past,
allowed opposition parties  to hold
political gatherings involving thousands of supporters.

PAS, for example, regularly  holds
gatherings at its headquarters while the DAP prefers dinner  ceramahs at restaurants and forums in hotels
to discuss controversial issues.

Often, opposition parties have  got away
scot-free with their illegal gatherings. The police would  allow the speakers to proceed and  then ask the crowd to disperse.

Since last month, the police have 
rejected applications to hold such 
gatherings on security grounds.

The proposed pro-government  rally by the
Barisan Nasional  Youth at the National
Stadium in  Bukit Jalil was rejected
outright.

The sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from the Government  and Umno has been an emotional  and divisive issue with many taking a
partisan stand.

In discussing the issue, many  Malaysians
find themselves having to take a stand despite their reluctance.

There is no such thing as being  neutral.
Everything is black or  white, with no
grey area. You are  either pro-Anwar or
pro-Mahathir.

The impression given by certain 
non-government organisations now 
is that freedom of expression has 
been denied. The street demonstrations, they argue, is the only  option left in the absence of such  an avenue.

It is obvious that we need to consider some form of channel for dissidents to
let off steam.

Fighting for human rights is fine  but
traders in Jalan Tuanku Abdul  Rahman and
the surrounding areas  are upset that
their right to earn a  living has been
affected. Taxi drivers and tour operators have also  complained of a drastic drop in income.

The police have to seriously consider allowing groups to hold ceramahs in
designated areas.

Organisers of such gatherings  can work
closely with the police to  ensure that the
security and logistical aspects are taken care of.  They will also have to keep to the  time limit and the number of  speakers allowed.

If these conditions are not met,  the
police can immediately call off  the
gathering. If necessary, a deposit must be placed with the owner of the
premises and the police to  pay for any
property damage.

We cannot ignore the importance  of
allowing Malaysians to express  their
legitimate concern in a democratically-elected society. It is a  right that must be respected.

But we must also not be so naive  as to
believe that a well-intended  gathering
will not turn violent.

In a crowd of 10,000 people, all  you
need is a group of rabble-rousers to charge the atmosphere.

The police may have good reason  for not
issuing a permit  from  the security aspect which we may  not be privy to  but where security threat is unlikely, people
must  be allowed to gather.

This will earn the authorities  much
goodwill as it will rebut allegations that police are curbing basic freedoms.

However, demonstrators must  realise that
when they attend such  gatherings, they
should be prepared to face the consequences.

A demonstration is not a picnic.  It
holds elements of danger and  risks.
Bringing children to the  street to
demonstrate is obviously  the height of
irresponsibility.

There is certainly a need for the  police
to restrain themselves, even  in a tense
situation where the likelihood of injury is real.

At the same time, we must admit  that a
certain degree of force and  fear is required
when dealing with  a mob.

It is not right to say that the police have not given enough warnings to the
protesters.

The weekly demonstrations have  been so
well-organised that their  time and place
are known to the  public in
advance.

Warnings are given by the police  through
the press, through the information ministry van and  through loud hailers on the spot.

Arrested demonstrators often  claim
innocence and say they are  mere
bystanders. The point is: If  you have no
business to be there,  stay away.

That aside, democracy has no  meaning if
we deviate from democratic norms.

It is the right of the Opposition  to
check the Executive and to question any decline in freedom and democracy.

In the past, massive signature  campaigns
have been successful in  mobilising
public opinion on such  issues as Bukit
China, the Societies  Act and the
Official Secrets Act.

Public demands contributed to  the
Government's decision to review various aspects of these issues.

Groups could also lobby MPs to  push for
their concerns  which is  why NGOs should forge a coalition  among themselves rather than  with opposition parties. Government
backbenchers would be more  accommodative
with NGOs if they  are not linked to any
opposition  party.

In issuing statements, NGOs  must realise
that they can influence the people, either directly or  indirectly. Public condemnation of  street violence by oppositionists  and NGOs would not help if they  themselves were contributing factors to such
irresponsible actions.

We Malaysians must constantly  remind
ourselves that we are one,  irrespective
of political differences.

Let us not be quick to criticise  those
who genuinely wish to see  greater
democracy in this country.  At the same
time, let us not throw  away in a moment
of haste what  has been achieved over the
last 10  years.

While NGOs have long been a  feature of other countries which  emphasises civil society, they continue to be
viewed with suspicion  here.

They are perceived, rightly or  wrongly,
as being antagonistic and 
confrontational towards the Government. They are seen to be quick  to criticise the Government but  turn mute when it involves the  wrongdoing of the Opposition.

Human rights group Suaram, for  example,
has been in the forefront  in pushing for
greater democratic  space.

It has actively sought to make  the
development and governance  process more
transparent and people-oriented.

Other NGOs which have taken  similar
roles include Aliran, Hakam, Tenaganita and Abim.

It will be wrong for us to view  groups
fighting for the cause of  human rights,
environment, consumer rights, women's rights, minority rights and democracy as
enemies of the state.

Dissent must be part and parcel  of
democracy. Divergence of  views in a
rapidly expanding middle class will continue to be a feature of Malaysian
politics.

Important changes are taking  place in
Malaysia and politicians  will have to
accept open debate to  seek consensus and
common  ground.

It is only natural that as society 
becomes more exposed, there will 
be more individuals with a critical 
outlook.

Having said that, some of our  NGOs, too,
need to evaluate themselves before they can be accepted  and, hopefully, operate in a more  open environment.

The current stance of some  NGOs, which
openly ally themselves with the Opposition, has not  endeared themselves to the Government.

These NGOs lose their right to  question
others when they work  with political
parties  either in  the Opposition or the Government.

They lose all their claims of being non-partisan when they see  themselves as pressure groups to  foment discontent.

It's worse when they break the  laws by
organising illegal gatherings.

Then, there are those who  claimed that
their decision to set  up NGOs was a
result of their disdain for politics.

But how do they justify their decisions to work with opposition  parties?

Some NGO leaders are, in fact,  actively
involved in opposition parties. They will have more credibility if they forge
coalitions against  any particular issue
among themselves rather than with political 
parties.

Confrontional strategies are 
counter-productive. Worse, such 
strategies have given NGOs a stereotype image.

NGOs can play a complementary  role. They
don't have to be in collaboration with the Government  but they need to adopt a more neutral
stand.

NGOs must be part of the democratic process. They must be seen  to be strengthening our democratic
institution.

If they can stand out as being impartial, then they will be more  readily accepted for being able to  provide feedback, including criticism, to the
Government.

They can still play their role in  making
the Executive more accountable to the public without the  pretence of representing the people.

NGO leaders are not elected representatives; they should not have  the illusion that they speak for the  people. They don't have the mandate and many
of them are, in fact,  no more than
one-man organisations.

One NGO leader, for example,  demands
transparency from the  Government but has
failed to submit the organisation's accounts for  three years.

For the matter, the financial position of many NGOs remains a  mystery to members of the public.

It is understandable that NGOs  are often
short of cash but their  position is
compromised when they  seek financial
assistance from foreign sources.

Not all NGO leaders are paid but  some
are said to draw handsome  salaries in US
dollars through contracts with foreign bodies.

A major complaint among NGOs  is the
limited coverage by the  press, which
they said had led to  the poor
understanding of their  role by
Malaysians.

It is often easier to blame others.  The
press does have its reasons for  not
using NGO press statements  sometimes
because they do not  have a blank cheque
to talk about  any issue under the
sun.

It will be more appropriate for  an NGO
registered as an environment group to stick to its scope of  interest.

In the case of the Consumers Association of Penang, consumerism  is its concern. It is registered for  that purpose but when it gets involved in
Gerak, it becomes more  complicated.

The rules are applicable to all.  NGOs
are no different.

If you have a licence to run a coffeeshop, you don't turn it into a  karaoke bar selling liquor. That  comes under another set of rules.

Similarly, if Cuepacs or MTUC  wants to
talk about other things besides workers' rights, it shouldn't  go overboard.

As the MTUC found out the hard  way,
workers may also be consumers but consumerism should be left  to CAP and Fomca.

Our NGOs need to seriously re evaluate how their quest would  help in nation-building.

For example, the newly-formed  People's
Anti-Homosexual Volunteer Movement (Pasrah) seems  odd.

It claims to be apolitical but it  will
have to do a lot of convincing,  given
the present political circumstances.

Pasrah has said it wants to curb 
homosexual behaviour among Malaysians, which is fine, but it  should not give any impression  that it will go on a witchhunt  against the gay community.

If it does, then it is no different  from
the religious bigots.

Neither should Pasrah send any  wrong
signal that homosexuality  has gone out
of control in Malaysia.

NGOs should realise that they do  not
gain automatic respect by  adopting an
anti-establishment  stand.

Those which are pro-government will lose their credibility if  they merely echo government  views without taking into account  ground sentiments.

NGOs must always remember  that while
they are for the people,  they are not
necessarily of the people and by the people.

Another report, in the same Oct  15 issue, carried a story about  singer Rafique Rashid with his latest spoof
on the country's political  events.

Both pieces gave the impression  that
Malaysians were now defying  authorities
and were finally willing  to speak up in
a country where  freedom of expression
supposedly  never existed.

The truth is that taxi drivers and  kopi
tiam customers have been  talking
politics openly for years.

Rafique and the Instant Cafe  Theatre,
for instance, have been  making a lot of
money over the  years by taking a dig at
the establishment.

Thanks, in many ways, to a decade of unprecedented economic  growth. There was a lot of money  around and many Malaysians could  afford their high-priced comic  acts.

Over the past one month, we  have been
hearing the cry for freedom of speech and expression. And  the cry has been loud.

Freedom of speech and expression is what all of us cherish and  well-meaning Malaysians would  certainly want such liberties to be  given more leeway.

Without doubt, a democratic government must be ready to face  public scrutiny. It must be held accountable
for its actions.

While at times it must make unpopular decisions, the government  must also be sensitive to the sentiments on
the ground.

The people, on their part, must  also
abide by the laws. Their grievances must be within legal parameters.

Besides the ballot boxes, we  must let a
responsible, vibrant,  credible and fair
press grow, without forgetting the country's sensitivities.

With or without the reformasi  movement,
there can be no dispute  that greater
efforts need to be  made to create a
civil society,  where the people can
participate  more actively in the
governance of  their country.

There is certainly room for democratic expansion. Freedom of  speech is thus a basic tenet of any  democratic country to ensure  there are no abuses by the Executive.

Various legislations, such as the 
Internal Security Act, the Official 
Secrets Act, the Printing Presses 
and Publications Act and the Sedition Act have been described as
repugnant to the meaning of democracy.

For many Malaysians who have  had the
benefits of liberal Western  education,
these laws are regarded  as draconian and
repulsive.

Their stance is further reinforced by the many foreign news  reports they read.

Unwittingly, they judge Malaysia in the context of the social conditions of the
country they studied  in.

It will be difficult justifying the  need
to maintain these laws but we  must admit
that they have served  the nation well,
in several instances.

Some of us shout ourselves  hoarse when
oppositionists are detained but look the other way when  drug traffickers, religious extremists and
forgers are locked up under the ISA.

Still, laws shouldn't be static. If  they
need to be reviewed to suit  the times,
they must be reviewed  and amended, at
least.

At the same time, we must also  deal with
the fact that the economic, education and exposure levels  of Malaysians are still very much  behind the Westerners.

Just recently, a mere rumour on  the
Internet about foreign immigrants rioting was enough to panic  Malaysians.

Those who rushed to stock up on 
foodstuff included many educated 
Malaysians who pride themselves 
as being “critical and thinking''.

Many of us, unfortunately, were  unable
to differentiate between rumour and fact from the mass of information in the
Internet.

The Kampung Rawa temple mosque incident in Penang is also  another recent example of how  fragile we can be.

The reality is, unlimited freedom  of
expression has never existed 
anywhere.

Freedom of expression comes  with
responsibilities. That is why  the laws
of slander and libel exist,  even in the
most advanced nations.

This democratic tenet becomes  more
difficult in a multi-racial and 
multi-religious country like Malaysia.

Malaysia has a history of racial  riots,
including the May 13 incident in 1969. In 1987, we almost  saw a similar explosion of such  ugly racial sentiments.

In both cases, racial slurs and  demands
by politicians using racial slants were contributing factors.

Many politicians clearly used  ethnic and
religious sentiments to  win votes
without givig a thought  to national
security and unity.

They include many of those who  now wear
the cloak of reforms,  talking about
social justice and  freedom.

Against the backdrop of such experiences, Malaysians need to ask  themselves whether the freedom  of speech should be unlimited per  se or do they still believe some  form of legal restraint is required.

The biggest dilemma for Malaysia is that freedom of speech can  also become a source of destabilising factor
if not exercised correctly.

Our opposition parties, for example, have little in common except  in seeing Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir  Mohamad as a common enemy.

PAS, the prime mover of the Malaysian People's Justice Movement  (Gerak) has openly said it will not  work with any non-Malay and non Islamic
party.

Strangely, many well-intended  liberals,
caught up in the current  political
euphoria, have not given  any serious
thought as to what will  be in store if
PAS were to come to  power.

The fact is that there is no real  sign
of the Opposition offering itself as a viable alternative.

The possibility of a real challenge to the present leadership  seems remote although the intensity of
people's protest has been unprecedented.

Ironic as it may seem, under his 
leadership, Dr Mahathir has allowed the media industry to flourish more
than any prime minister  before
him.

There are now more TV and radio stations, more newspapers including the
Harakah, the official  publication of PAS.

Malaysians who refuse to read  local
newspapers, for what they  perceive as
being biased and pro government, still have a choice of  foreign magazines.

They still get to enjoy CNBC  and CNN
despite the two TV stations' hard-hitting and distorted reporting on
Malaysia.

Neither is there any restriction  on the
number of circulated copies  of regional
magazines, unlike in a  neighbouring
country.

For non-Malays, we remember  we were
entitled to only one Chinese and Indian movie a week on  TV. Today, there is no limit to our  choices.

In the 1995 general election, the  DAP
admitted these liberalisations  by
adopting a slogan pushing for  greater
liberalisation.

Yet, Dr Mahathir has probably  received
the hardest knocks for  his purported
moves to stifle the  freedom of speech,
expression and  information.

In many ways, the Prime Minister has become a victim of his own  success. More than anyone else, he  has single-handedly pushed the  country to greater heights.

The kind of confidence he has instilled in Malaysians has also led to  the young to speak up and to demand for
more.

His outspokenness has led Malaysians to shed their inferiority  complex.

National unity has never been  greater.
Thanks to a large economic cake, there has been a single mindedness among the
population.

But lest we forget, politics and 
economics are inextricably linked. 
National unity can disappear overnight if we believe too much in
opportunistic politicians.

In a multi-religious and multi-racial society, governance becomes  more complicated. It goes beyond  slogan-shouting.

As academician Dr Colin Abraham puts it aptly in an article, people cannot eat
freedom of speech.

Rafique Rashid and the Instant  Cafe
Theatre, we believe, will admit that talent and a good script  are not enough to draw the crowd.

In conservative Malaysia, such allegations are viewed
seriously. Morality aside, the political implications are enormous.

The expression of anger and disbelief by his supporters are understandable in
such circumstances.

And now, the sacked Deputy Prime Minister has appeared in public with a bruised
eye. He has alleged that he was punched and slapped by police until he fell
unconscious.

No person in his right mind would condone such actions. If his allegations are
true, then swift action must be taken against the culprit or culprits.

The police have taken the right direction by setting up an independent team to
investigate the allegations.

It is in the interest of the police to ensure that the truth prevails. The
negative pre-trial publicity generated by allegations of police brutality has
been a bad start for the authorities.

Pictures of Anwar with his blue-black left eye have appeared on the front pages
of local and foreign newspapers, marring the charges levelled against
him.

The beating, if true, serves no purpose for the police. Now, the police need to
clear their name and the sooner the investigations are completed, the better it
will be for us.

Many people, including politicians, have been detained under the Internal
Security Act but this is the first time Malaysians have heard of a detainee
being beaten up.

Former ISA detainees, who have written about their experience, talked of
psychological pressure while under detention.

Under the law, the police can detain Anwar up to 60 days before deciding
whether to release him. The usual procedure would be to send the detainee to
Kamunting camp in Taiping.

Anwar alleged that he was beaten on the first day in custody. Malaysians have a
right to be concerned as this is a high-profile case.

In all fairness, it is pertinent for us to note that Anwar was given the opportunity
to let the court hear his complaints against the police. He was also allowed to
lodge a report against the police.

It is natural for Malaysians to speculate how Anwar sustained his injuries but
it is best that let the due process of law take its course.

Similarly, we should let Anwar's team of lawyers, which is said to be the best
in the profession, handle his defence.

Like the allegations of police brutality, we must see the charges against him
as allegations at this point.

It is the job of the police to provide the evidence for prosecutors. That is
how the legal system works, and should be allowed to work without
prejudice.

There should no longer be any concern that Anwar may be denied a fair trial.
Besides the foreign media, representatives of foreign missions have been
present in court.

They will be able to see for themselves how the trial will be conducted under
our British-inherited judicial system 
and handled by mostly British-trained lawyers and judges.

It is easy for us to be distracted along the way. Malaysians now get to read
both local and foreign news reports.

Credit must be given to the government for allowing free circulation of these
foreign reports, despite their distortions.

That is the essense of democracy. We may not agree with what you say but rest
assured we will defend your right to do so.

The Singapore-based CNBC Asia's correspondent here should ask himself why he
still gets to report negatively on Malaysia.

If Malaysia is a third-rate banana republic, he would have been booted out long
ago. He has injected his emotions and prejudices into his stories and
continuously run down the country on every possible issue  in the name of fair reporting.

Although there are no more riots in Kuala Lumpur, that has not stopped the foreign
media, particularly CNN, from using old footages of protests.

In the final analysis, Malaysians will be able to judge for themselves how much
of what they read or see is factually correct.

If they truly uphold the principles of fair play, then Malaysians cannot accept
foreign news reports that refuse to let the Prime Minister be heard as
fair.

Objective reporting isn't about emphasis on dissidents and opposition figures
but also the establishment.

It is not for reporters to decide who is right or wrong. Our job is to report
as objectively as possible under the circumstances.

According to the foreign press, the tight security in Kuala Lumpur has turned
the country into a police state.

But for most Malaysians, the visibility of these policemen has given some form
of assurance for us to go about our daily business peacefully.

By Western standards, demonstrations are normal expressions of grievances by
groups of people. Western reporters are therefore perplexed as to why permits
are required for such gatherings.

Many Malaysians, too, are sometimes critical of the authorities. But before we
readily embrace this concept totally, we must not forget that we have a history
of such gatherings becoming racial as they progress.

Young Malaysians should ask themselves whether they can risk allowing the
country to plunge into chaos.

For those of us who have been scarred by the experiences of the past, we see
the need to have a more cautious perspective.

The recent events have shown how difficult it is to run this country. It is
easy to change a leader but more difficult to find someone who can provide real
leadership.

It is also easy to become a leader of a group or community but to be a leader
of all Malaysians, that's tough.

Interestingly, while Anwar and  his supporters have all questioned  the fairness of the local media, the  other side has hit out at the foreign  media for their sensational reporting and for
jumping to conclusions  and inaccurate
assessments.

Objectivity, unfortunately, has  become a
thin line. It depends on  which side you
are on as sentiments become more polarised. For 
some, fair reporting means whether these stories are favourable to  them.

It also depends on their political 
orientation. On one hand, those who 
are anti-establishment say the police over-reacted when dealing  with the protestors.

On the other, the conservatives  think
the protestors have organised  far too
many illegal gatherings and  criticise
the police for being too  slow in
enforcing the law.

According to their arguments,  those who
talk about upholding the  principles of
the law are not qualified to talk about it if they break  the law.

Then, there are those who are angry at commentaries they do not  agree with.

They include those who preach  the
freedom of expression but  seem to put
aside such a liberal  stance when it does
not suit them.

It's toughest on the political writers, including foreign ones  they 
risk losing their contacts, friendships and, in some cases, even
their  jobs, should they offend
certain  powerful figures.

Political writers, who don't aspire to be spin doctors, will tell  their listeners that many things are  not what they seem on the surface.

Rightly or wrongly, to this cynical lot, politics is about power and  patronage. To them, what politicians preach
is mere sales talk.

Some even liken politics to selling hopes and nothing more than  that. There is no guarantee it will  be delivered.

It's a difficult job because the political writer needs to have a wide  grasp of political, social and economic
events, past and present, and  strong
contacts with politicians and  analysts
to allow him to draw the  distinction
between facts and half truths.

More than that, he has to be careful of the danger of being swayed  by over-friendly politicians and being used.
There is also this constant  vigil
against being naive  the  worst sin of all, says a veteran political
writer.

There is a certain resentment by  members
of the local media against  their foreign
counterparts because  they believe that
the foreigners,  who have just arrived,
may not understand the twists and turns of local politics.

To justify their stay here, some  foreign
reporters have resorted to  highly
dramatic reporting.

After all, Malaysia is unlikely to  be a
top news item unless the story  is
attention grabbing enough.

As a political battle is being  fought, a
responsible media will  have to reduce
the drama, check  out the facts, cut out
mere allegations and spot exaggerations.

This sober approach that takes  into
account the laws of libel and  slander,
however, can result in reports which are often 
scorned at  for being too overly
cautious or  docile.

Any experienced reporter will  know that
when one covers a riot,  you stand behind
the police line.

For greater drama in their stories, some may decide to join the  demonstrators, running the risk of  getting hit by tear gas.

Perhaps that's what they hope for 
because then they can say they suffered for their craft and are able
to  write a gripping reporting-from
the-scene-of-mayhem-and-mace account, like that “eye-witness'' report in
Singapore's New Paper. It  must all seem
very heroic.

In a similar vein, the foreign media glamorised the Indonesian uprising,
describing the mob as “the 
dispossessed''. To the victims 
though, the mob was made up of 
looters, rapists and thieves.

They also described the Tiannamen Square incident as a massacre.  But to many people, including  those in China, it was necessary action taken
by the government to  stop the unrest in
the interest of  the majority of the one
billion people.

Russia's former president Mikhail Gorbachev was a hero to the  West but a pariah at home. He  brought democracy to Russia but  turned it into a beggar state.

What the “truth'' is depends on  which
side you are on and what you  choose to
believe.

For the foreign media, events are  looked
at from their perspective.  What is right
to them may not necessarily be right to us.

Therein lies the challenge to and 
concern of real journalists, whatever their origin  balancing things  out for their readers and viewers.

The task gets more difficult as 
political temperatures rise but, as 
they say, somebody has to do it.

The world's most powerful man,  we now realise, does not seem to  care that cigars are for blowing  and nothing else.

The blow-by-blow account in independent counsel Kenneth Starr's  report on Clinton's sexual encounters has, no
doubt, dealt a deadly  blow to Clinton's
future.

That aside, his sexual encounters  with
intern Monica Lewinsky described in graphic detail in the report for the world
to see, put all  parents and serious
newspapers  around the world in
trouble.

Malaysian newspapers, for example, have had to, well, skirt  around the issue. Serious newspapers are,
after all, for the family.  All the gory
details won't be appropriate for any newspaper in education (NIE)
programme.

So the only decent thing to do is  to leave
out those naughty bits.  That's certainly
fine with most  parents. All the
skirt-chasing and  voyeurism would just
have to be  read on the Internet.

But that leads to another problem. You think your kids are surfing the
Internet, trying to earn a  college
degree online, but they are  actually
looking up the 400 pages  of Clinton's
bizarre sexual acts  which certainly make
more interesting reading.

You are a liberal parent and you  think
that explaining safe sex to  your pimply
teenage kid is the best  thing. But hey,
the footnote in  Starr's report says
Clinton had  hundreds of sexual affairs
in the  early years of his
marriage.

And before you can even explain  the
consequences of full-blown  HIV cases,
your kid will be interrupting you to ask `what is a blow  job.'

Next, you will be asked how Clinton could manage to talk on the  telephone to members of the Congress when you
would think his attention would be otherwise engaged.

Now, you know why you are  struggling
with your job while  Clinton still has
the Americans insisting he shouldn't be sacked despite his sexual sins.

Like any sex scandal in any part  of the
world, blowing to pieces  what has been
built politically over  the years, leads
to a certain degree  of disbelief among
the voters.

What we know about people in  high places
are the visual images  that come to our
living rooms  through the television and
in the  newspapers.

And we all tend to equate high  politics
with high standards because politicians all over the world  preach morality. They tell us that  whatever they do is for the people,  justice and good governance.

The followers sometimes get  carried
away, forgetting that politicians are also human beings.  Strip away the trappings of power  and the larger-than-life image created by the
spin doctors, and they  are just normal
people.

There's always a dark side which  we
sometimes do not know. When  the
character flaws are  exposed,  there's the initial shock.

Starr's report looks like an improbable script with unconvincing  acting. It looks more like a sexual  farce rather than a political tragedy.

But take away the lurid details,  it's
simply a case of a politician  who has a
history of lying and getting away with it.

It's not a case of adultery or a  man who
cannot control his appetites but about perjury and obstruction of law. He has
denied  sexual harassment under
oath.

Clinton has, of course, said it's a 
right-wing conspiracy. His lawyers have used a string of legal  jargon to get him out.

But like someone who is armed  with a
blow-gun, Starr has finally  hit his
target.

Like other politicians, Clinton  has his
followers and admirers. As  more details
are released, Clinton  has found himself
cornered.

His followers, who had dedicated  their
lives to him, now feel betrayed. Clinton was a man who  could do no wrong, as far as they  were concerned.

This was, of course, the very  man who
said he did not “inhale''  but merely
“blew'' it, when asked  if he had smoked
grass in college.

Now, his lawyers are saying he  did not
lie, in the legal sense. Of  course, he
did not have any sexual  relations, if
you were to trust him.

The political weather at the  White House
certainly looks dark  and windy now. The
Clinton expose  comes just two years
after Dick  Morris, Clinton's image
consultant,  was dismissed because of his
affair with a prostitute, like something from the movie, Mars Attack.

Blown out of proportion by the  media,
Clinton has been reduced to  a sexually
compulsive liar who is  now begging for
forgiveness.

Like the presidency, the once 
prestigious appointment of an internship to the White House has  now become a huge, salacious joke.

American parents may not be so  keen for
their kids to work in the  White House
anymore, what with  all the worrying they
have to do.  After all, other middle-aged
officials may be equally menacing.

Herein, lies a lesson for parents  from
the baby-boomers period.  Many
politicians, who grew up in  colleges
protesting against the establishment and singing Bob Dylan's Blowing in the Wind,
may not  necessarily hold the same
views  now.

It's like the wind that blows the 
lallang. For some politicians, their 
stand can swing from side to side, 
depending on the circumstances.

For these politicians, the lesson  is:
Don't blow your own trumpet  too much or
the fall from grace  can be very hard
indeed.

The schoolboy had experienced  probably the most spectacular  opening of the Commonwealth  Games, bringing back some of its  lost shine.

Malaysians who caught the dazzling opening on TV were joined  across the globe by a record 800  million viewers.

It was a grand moment for all  Malaysians
to cherish.

And the timing could not have  been
better, coming just weeks after the country's 41st National Day  celebrations.

The pride of Malaysians was  clear as
they sang the national anthem loudly, a habit which we  should all cultivate.

The stadium roared when the  Malaysian
team, in their smart  baju Melayu and
songkok, marched  into the stadium.
Inappropriate as  it may seem, the crowd
of mostly  young Malaysians could not
help  but hiss at the Singapore
team.

Malaysians are unlikely to forget  the
cultural dance performance involving 2,000 schoolchildren and  dancers dressed up as bees, flowers, birds
and leaves, depicting Malaysia's rich floral and fauna heritage.

The organisers did the right  thing by
depending on an all-Malaysian cast for the opening show.

Ella, Sheila Majid, Ziana Zain and  Amy
Mastura proved to be world class acts.

It would have been disastrous to  have
the Spice Girls, Celine Dion  and Rod
Stewart for the opening, as  rumoured
earlier.

To insist that the Spice Girls cover themselves up would have made  them lose their spice and for Celine  Dion to sing the Titanic theme song  for an auspicious occasion would  have been out of place. No one  needs that sinking feeling on opening
night.

Rod Stewart, the aging former 
grave-digger, would have been a 
clear misfit.

The opening showcased Malaysian talents to the world. Standing  In The Eyes Of The World, that  catchy Commonwealth song by Malaysian rock
queen Ella, could have  been performed in
the main segment. The song was rendered in the pre-opening which ended at  7.30pm.

Malaysians can hold their heads  high.
The opening went without  hitches. The
execution was precise  and
brilliant.

Kuala Lumpur has proven the  critics
wrong. The athletes arrived  and found no
haze. The humid Malaysian weather has been tolerable.

The political drama, unfolded  days
before the opening, has  turned out to be
a side show, fast  losing steam.

For a while, there was fear that  the
sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar  Ibrahim
would lead to some disorder.

Still, the media critics looked for 
faults. The Singapore-based CNBC 
television network claimed that the 
sports facilities would become 
“white elephants'' after the Games.

The same reporter ridiculed the  city's
transport system and the differences of the sponsors over marketing
rights.

In a nutshell, CNBC was trying to  imply
that Malaysians are incapable of hosting a world-class event.

But that does not seem to stop  CNBC from
accepting the high budget advertisements of Tourism  Malaysia.

Perhaps it's time we consider  pulling
out our advertisements  from unfriendly
news organisations. They must learn that they 
should not bite the hand that feeds 
them.

In all fairness, not all foreign media has been biased against Malaysia.
Certain Canadian newspapers  covering the
KL Games have reported the event objectively and  have given the thumbs up for the  facilities and organisation.

Malaysians should ignore minor 
irritations for now. We shouldn't let 
them spoil our fun.

The Unity Towards Progress  theme was
apt, reflecting the richness and diversity of the Commonwealth family, and the
cultural performances of the different races 
symbolised the strength of the host 
nation.

Malaysia Boleh! has been shown  in word
and deed. To Datuk Seri Dr  Mahathir
Mohamad and all Malaysians involved in the Games, it's a  well-deserved syabas!

Just a year back, Anwar was regarded as the Prime
Minister's heir  apparent. He was a man
who could  do no wrong. But over the past
one  month, it became clear that he
had  found himself on the wrong
footing.

The unprecedented sequence of  events
last week  which saw the  sacking of Anwar as Deputy Prime  Minister, Finance Minister and  then as an Umno member  has 
stunned the general population.

Equally astounding were the details in four affidavits filed in the  High Court implicating Anwar in  sexual misconduct and of being a  threat to national security.

The allegations of sexual misconduct include 15 counts of sodomising an unnamed
man, illicit sex  with a number of women,
and trying to seduce the wife of a businessman on a working trip to
Washington.

Several of the alleged sexual  trysts
took place at an apartment in  Tivoli
Villa in affluent Bangsar.

The affidavits were tendered to  support
the detention of Magnum  Corporation
Berhad public affairs  director Datuk S.
Nallakaruppan at  Bukit Aman.

Malaysians can be forgiven for  being in
shock because the events  that have
unfolded have been dramatic and the information they received has been equally
incredible.

Last Wednesday, even as Anwar  walked
into the Prime Minister's  office to
attend the weekly Cabinet  meeting, there
was already talk  that his career had
come to an end.

When the Cabinet meeting ended  at 11am,
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir  Mohamad and Anwar
walked off together in conversation. It was to be  Anwar's last Cabinet meeting.

Despite repeated denials of a rift 
between the two men, Anwar's fall 
from grace became apparent over 
the past two months.

The events leading to Anwar being stripped of his powers are now  academic.

What is clear is that Dr Mahathir  has
obtained the support of all state  Umno
liaison chiefs for the decision.

The next question would be who  would
fill the two ministerial positions left vacant and whether there  is a need for a Cabinet reshuffle.

Under the Federal Constitution,  there is
no requirement for a Deputy Prime Minister.

Dr Mahathir himself has said it  was likely
that he would not appoint a new Deputy Prime Minister  but he needed a Finance Minister.

Saying he would be Acting Finance Minister, Dr Mahathir added  that he hoped to find somebody  willing.

Several names have been mentioned, but a strong possibility is  Tun Daim Zainuddin, now Special  Functions Minister.

It might be burdensome for  Daim, who
also heads the National  Economic Action
Council, to take a  third job, but no one
can dispute his  capabilities and
experience.

Over recent months, Daim has  been
involved in many economic  considerations
affecting the country and in recovery efforts.

The need to fill the post is naturally urgent as Parliament will  meet next month to discuss the  Budget.

Also of concern is the impact of  Anwar's
sacking on party unity. A  period of
healing is needed at this  point.

Talk of a general election seems  remote
at this juncture, with more  pressing
matters at hand, but others have still not dismissed the possibility of snap
elections.

Dr Mahathir has correctly pointed out that in many countries, ministers are
sacked every now and  then.

As recent as last month, New  Zealand
Prime Minister Jenny  Shipley fired her
deputy, Winston  Peters, who also held
the Treasurer's post.

President Boris Yeltsin went further. He sacked Prime Minister  Sergei Kiriyenko as well as the rest  of the government.

The shock over Anwar's removal  from
power can be attributed to the  former
student leader's personality  and rise in
the hierarchy.

Although there had been rumours of his downfall, Malaysians  were confused by persistent denials from
party leaders, including  Anwar himself
who later explained  that until the last
minute, he was  hoping for some kind of a
reconciliation.

It remains to be seen what kind  of
action will follow but the coming  days
appear crucial.

The nation has watched the expression of support for Dr Mahathir and the
unhappiness of supporters of Anwar.

There has been some degree of 
uneasiness. Malaysians hope that 
the situation will cool down, and 
the constant reminders by Umno 
leaders to members to remain calm 
has been reassuring.

There is a need to ensure that the 
government machinery does not 
come to a halt with the political developments in the country as we  brace ourselves to tackle the economic
uncertainties.

Last week, the media pressed  Anwar for his reaction on talk of  his impending resignation.

That prompted a smiling Anwar  to ask :
“I cannot understand why  people keep on
talking about my  resignation.''

This is not the first time the deputy Umno president has had to answer such
queries.

The press has also asked Anwar  questions
about his purported differences with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
Mohamad.

On Aug 7, he laughed off a similar question: “These rumours  (have been) going on for some  time. I don't know whether this is  good news or disappointing, but  there is no basis (for them).''

The foreign media and the rumour-mongers, however, have not  left him alone despite his recent  renewed pledge of support for Dr  Mahathir in Penang.

For the first time, in fact, he announced the state's entire 11 Umno  divisions' endorsement for Dr Mahathir to
remain in the party presidency in next year's party polls.

The talk of Anwar's impending 
resignation could have surfaced 
following reports in the latest editions of Asiaweek and Time
magazines.

Under the heading “Fading From  the
Picture?'', Asiaweek drew on  the
differences between the country's top two leaders and Anwar's  supposedly declining influences.

The report also claimed that Anwar was no longer the unquestioned
heir-apparent.

The US-based Time, on other  hand,
reported that “Anwar is being forced to toe the line  or risk 
a dangerous showdown with his 
boss''.

Under the heading “Heir Unapparent'', the Far Eastern Economic  Review also ran a similar story on  the political future of Anwar.

At the same time, there are on going court cases relating to the  book 50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Be Prime
Minister.

These magazines, which enjoy a 
reasonably big circulation in Malaysia, have naturally created an  interest on the subject.

Most of these stories have plenty  of
backgrounder but little substance.

This could be attributed to the 
magazines' eagerness to come out 
with the story fast.  Competition
is,  after all, the name of the
game.

The trouble, however, is that  when one
is speculative, it means  one is
unsure.

Sometimes, it is best to wait for 
something more substantial and 
definite.   In journalism, one
must  be responsible.

Press freedom does not mean  one can
print stories based on  hearsay and adopt
the print-and be-dammed approach.

No journalist worth his salt  would,
however, dismiss anything  political.
Politics is, after all, the  art of the
possible.

What is ironic is that these were  the
same magazines which put Anwar on the pedestal but which now  seem as quick to write him off.

The attention on Malaysian politics by foreigners is the result of  the country's strong leadership.

Unlike Indonesia, Japan, South  Korea and
Thailand, the question  of a change in
the country's leadership is unthinkable.

Support for Dr Mahathir has  been strong,
judging from the reaction of his current nationwide  tours.

Cynics who dismiss these large  turnouts
as merely party loyalists  and government
servants should  have attended the
Bangsar carnival two weeks ago.

It was not the size of the crowd  that
was impressive but the spontaneous cheering for Dr Mahathir  at the constituency, an affluent  area known to often question those  in authority.

The hype over the question of  Umno
succession could also be because the Umno election would be  held next year. Thus, the intense  interest in the future of our top  leaders.

As in any democracies, elections  mean
contests. In the run-up, political manoeuvrings and under-currents can be
expected.

There is also speculation that the 
general election is imminent although the Barisan Nasional's  mandate only ends in April 2000.

Most Barisan component parties  have
directed their members to  get ready for
the elections.

With the dissolution of the Sabah 
legislative assembly in March, 
many believe that the general election may be held simultaneously  with the Sabah state elections.

Public figures have little private  life.
Dr Mahathir and Anwar can  expect
themselves to continue to  be subjected
to public speculation.

Every single sentence they utter  and
movement they make will be  interpreted
in a thousand ways, according to the motives of the speculator.

And in this country, there are  plenty of
unnamed political analysts.  Regional
magazines ofen  quote many such Hong
Kong-based  experts who dare to comment
on  Malaysian affairs with a
straight  face.

It doesn't matter if they don't  know
where  Cherok To'kun or Kubang Pasu
are.  All that they say is  often considered sound views fit  for printing.