That was not all. As Dr Mahathir  spoke, a foreign TV reporter appeared before his camera, using  the on-going summit as a backdrop,  to say that the G-15 had little substance to work on.

It was the first day of the summit  but that did not stop the western  reporter, based in Singapore, from  passing off a prejudicial comment  as fact.

Completely ignored was the huge  amount of intra G-15 trade that had  been generated as a result of the  grouping.

The western press, which loves  to lecture the rest of the world on  objectivity, impartiality, fairness  and freedom of speech, seems to  have forgotten such ethics, preparing to sacrifice all these values to  suit its prejudices.

Accuracy is no longer of paramount importance, in the case of  many western reporters based in  the region, with opinions and comments passed off as news and analysis.

The hardest cut for these news  agencies over the past week has  been the chorus of support from  many countries for Dr Mahathir's  call to regulate currency trading.

Dr Mahathir has again become  the subject of their tirade simply  because he has been proven right.

The Fortune financial magazine,  in its Nov 24 issue, spared no  punches against Dr Mahathir, criticising Malaysia for not adopting  sufficient reforms in its economy.

But the saddest blow comes from  Bangkok's Nation, which has a sizeable number of expatriate journalists, including many former backpackers, who found themselves  stranded in Thailand and in need of  a job after running out of money.

Their only talent is their ability  to string a sentence correctly in a  country where it is difficult to find  reporters who can write proper English.

Last month, the newspaper said  in an editorial that it was time for  Dr Mahathir to go because he had  outlived his usefulness.

The same newspaper wrote another editorial on Nov 8 running  down the Malaysian media, saying  it was “long known for their selective publication of news  distort  views'' as it continued paddling the  same tired arguments against the  Malaysian economy.

It is incredulous that this paper,  which is said  to have ordered a pay  cut for its staff because of deep  financial problem, has seen it fit to  lecture the Malaysian media and  how Malaysia should run its economy.

The newspaper has also ignored  the fact that it was Thailand's economic crisis that sparked off the  region's economic woes.

It might be a good idea that this  newspaper should make sure that  its reports are written and edited  by locals. It is sad that the Nation,  which has earned a reputation for  good journalism, is prepared to  forego its respectability to try to be  a pseudo-western news outfit.

For the employers of many western agencies, their correspondents  are incapable of writing misleading  news reports because “native reporters'' are supposed to be sycophantic, apologetic and fearful.

In the tradition of Tarzan and  George of the Jungle, white is right  and might. They are supposed to  know better than the locals. After  all, they can even decide when the  Malaysian Prime Minister should  resign.

In all fairness, there are many  credible western journalists, who  sometimes have better access to  contacts than their local counterparts, but unfortunately they are  dictated by their employers who  have their own agenda and motives.

The current diplomatic tiff with  the 34 US Congressmen has given  these western agency reporters  plenty to write about.

Last week, Reuters sent out an  incredulous report about an unknown group called the Malaysian  Moslem (the agency's spelling for  Muslim) Martyrs' Movement and  had claimed responsibility for a  threat to kill four Americans in Malaysia.

Quoting an unnamed diplomat,  the report added: “This may not be  a serious threat but we have to take  it seriously.''

If it's not a serious threat, why  take it seriously?

Earlier, there was another report  on the alleged death threats to  Americans living in Malaysia. The  damaging part was that Malaysia  was lumped together with Karachi  in the news report.

The purported gag on the media  by Malaysian authorities has not  stopped the flow of foreign correspondents, many with little reporting experience, to Kuala Lumpur.

The blue skies which Malaysians  have enjoyed for the past weeks  doesn't seem to be newsworthy.

Foreign journalists, instead, continuously make long-distance calls  to Malaysian editors seeking their  views on the “worsening haze problem.''

When told that the haze is gone  and is probably in Australia now,  one could detect disbelief on the  part of these foreigners.

Dr Mahathir is said to be anti Semitic but the western media does  not seem to be interested to report  the fact that it was Dr Mahathir  who risked his political career by  bringing in the Israeli cricket  team.

Admittedly, Malaysian leaders  and opinion makers realise that  they need the foreign press to put  their views across to the international audience, but they need to be  cautious.

Malaysian leaders have become  front-cover material, at least for  the Asian editions, because these  international magazines realise the  importance of the Asian market.

But it's time to be tough. The Malaysian Government should take  the western media to court for distortion of facts, let them pay a  heavy price for their misinformation, insist on clarifications and  corrections and even restrict the  sales of their publications here   they should learn to respect the  hand that feeds them.

Another report grumbled that it was not hard-hitting enough and  that more should have been done to address the current account deficit.

It is really a no win situation. Without doubt most people, including Malaysians, have expected the  Budget to be a tougher one but a “slash and burn'' approach would not have helped.

The aim of the Budget is to restore confidence and, hopefully, to  bring back the good times for Malaysians. It is a good mix of measures, aim at cutting away the fats. It is supposed to be a cure, not a  burial.

The signal  is Malaysians will be  thrifty and we will  be careful in  our spending. Known for his habit of introducing new Bahasa Malaysia words,  sometimes tongue-twisting ones, in his Budget speeches, Anwar decided to stick to plain language this time.There were no frills and certainly no need to attach a glossary to  his speech to explain the use of certain words.

His message was clear: The time has come for Malaysians to exercise prudence.

The Budget, he said, might not be well received by everyone because  it did not contain any “goodies'' and some segments of society might  even feel bitter about strong measures to control the growth in credit and imports. “Consider what is  bitter as medicine,'' he said.Though tough measures had been  predicted, the Budget can be described as a “right dosage''.

The bright points include a cut in the corporate tax which will help  companies reeling from the shock of the stock market losses and a reduction in petroleum tax. Foreign investors,analysts and the media got to hear what they  wanted  measures to curb the  deficit such as corporate tax exemption for exporters, lower duties  on crude oil exports, higher duties  on imports of heavy machinery, consumer durables, construction materials and cars.

The ordinary travellers who use  up only a few pages of their passports will feel the pinch of the sharp increase in fees for international and restricted passports, aimed at reducing the number of Malaysians travelling abroad.

An introduction in exit tax for Malaysians would, perhaps, be  more appropriate since the target should be the frequent travellers.

For the many Proton-driving Malaysians, they will welcome the  hike in import duty on completely  built up and completely knocked  down vehicles as it will control excessive credit and discourage  spending.

Malaysians now no longer see the car as a mere form of transport but  a status symbol to  flaunt their new found wealth. However,for Sabahans and Sarawakians, who need to use four-wheel drive vehicles for real reasons, the new tax will be a  hard pinch.One surprise omission is the imposition of “sin tax''" on cigarettes, liquor and gaming.

On the part of the Government,Anwar came out clearly with a list  of mega projects, worth RM66bil,which had been deferred.

The annual economic report accompanying the Budget forecasts  gross domestic product growing by 7% next year, down from an estimated 8% this year and 8.6% last year.

It maybe a damper for Malaysians used to high growth rates for  many years but many countries,including those in the West with massive unemployment,  would never  dream of such growth rate.

“It's like driving a Mercedes Benz for years and now we have to  drive a Proton Perdana.It's still a good car but we just have to get  used to it,'' said one businessman.

“And as you drive your Proton, to cut down cost, you are criticised by  some outsider who cannot even afford a car in his country. That  about sums up our economy.''

For the business sector, there should not be any reason to be too  unhappy, considering the Budget incentives.All this while, businessmen have been having it so good because of a pro-business and strong political leadership.Through privatisation,some have become super rich, enjoying  the kind of prominence and status they will never get elsewhere.

Now that some money was lost in  the stock market and currency attacks, they should stand by the leadership.They should not forget where  they were ten years back. Some were bankrupts and some had no records to show, let alone shout  about. A few have become rich simply  because they seem to have the  right political connections. But the years of wealth have made some  arrogant and a little too sensitive.

Now that the Budget has been tabled, Malaysians from all walks of  life should wake up with a clear  head and set their priorities right that is to restore the country's economy.

Malaysia, he argued, was in big trouble. The political leadership was in a mess and the people were upset.

He said there was no evidence to show that American financier George Soros was behind the attack on the ringgit.

It was the same with Thailand and the Philippines. However, he reserved some good remarks for Indonesia.

Going by his standards, Malaysia was a lousy place to invest but that did not stop him from trying to sell his articles to Malaysians.

Over the past one month, Malaysia and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad have become the favourite bashing boys of the foreign media.

One regional financial newspaper painted Kuala Lumpur as a place under siege, where bankers and analysts lived in fear of being detained by police.

“They worry about being grabbed by the security police, and some comtemplate catching a plane and bailing out of the country,'' the Asian Wall Street Journal reported on Sept 22.

One American fund manager, the paper said, sat nervously in a plane  taking off from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok.

Asked what was troubling him, he replied: “I'll tell you when we're 10 minutes out of KL.''

Such exaggerated reporting, with pre-determined tone of pessimism and negativity, seems to have become the order of the day for almost all international magazines over the last month.

The Sept 22 cover of Newsweek had the headline Trouble for Tigers: How Asia's Economies Lost Their Bite.

Asia, it said, had stumbled and the East Asia miracle had finally hit the wall.

Business Week went a step further, putting Malaysia's Mahathir on the cover and alleging there was serious flaws in the management.

Time treated Soros almost like a saint, putting him on its cover and  praising him for “spending millions to save the world and getting blamed for wrecking Asia's currencies.''

The pattern has been the same. Call it paranoia if you want, but it  suspiciously smacks of a concerted effort.

Besides walloping Dr Mahathir's handling of the economy, casting aside what he has achieved over the past decade and more, the foreign media has also tried to drive a wedge between the Prime Minister and his deputy.

There is almost a refusal to acknowledge that Dr Mahathir has repeatedly said Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is his designated successor.

Efforts by Anwar in expanding and clarifying any point raised by Dr Mahathir are often taken out of context and his statements edited to sound as if there is a contradiction between the two leaders.

We should read more than one news report to get the full picture these days. But not everyone has the avenue to do so. That's when the damage sets in.

Even reputable international magazines have been guilty of sensationalism. To jazz up their stories, they throw to the wind the cardinal principle of balanced reporting.

Malaysian media, which has adopted straight-forward reporting, has been accused of being “sycophantic.''

The country is certainly going through tough times. To overcome the difficulties, we are on an austerity drive, trimming the fat, cutting down on luxury, reviewing and tightening macro-economic policies.

This is not the first time we have been told that East Asians are not  getting their act right.

We are not being xenophobic but these are the same “experts'' who wrote “analyses'' predicting the doom of Hong Kong after 1997. The Chinese Government has proven them wrong.

It was the same with Mexico after its peso crisis in 1994 but instead the Mexican economy grew by 5.1% last year and is expected to grow by 6% this year.

There is renewed confidence and vibrance in South America over the past one year.

East Asia, which has seen stunning double-digit growth, is now taking a breather. Even tigers need a rest.

But we will learn from this experience. Known for our determination, we will regain our pose and confidence.

What the western press has failed to mention is that Malaysia's property market has remained intact and that political stability, high savings, skills, competitive exports and a willingness to adopt a more prudent economic management are some of the country's assets.

Malaysia also has competent, credible and strong financial institutions. There are no lay-offs or closure of factories because of the attacks on the currency and stock markets.

We have said that we will delay mega projects to deal more effectively with the current account deficit. We will live within our means.

Malaysia will learn to cope with globalisation and financial liberalisation. If we wish to talk about economic basics, the fundamentals are all there.

Our companies, especially those listed in the stock market, may make less money this year but they are still profitable.

Soros was wrong when he claimed that his criticism of Dr Mahathir would not be reported in Malaysia.

Magazines and financial newspapers which have been critical of Malaysia are on sale in the streets. So are books written by Soros himself.

But it's time for foreign reporters writing about Malaysia to adopt a more realistic and objective view. They shouldn't just talk to the same  Malaysian critics for the same predictable quotes to suit their editors.

They must be objective in their reporting.

He was told he had to pay RM2.60  for a US dollar and RM1.78 for a Singapore dollar. If he were to buy a lot  of greenbacks, it could come up to a  big sum.

That's the immediate impact of a  weaker ringgit against the US dollar.  It also means that Teh, who is going  overseas, will have to pay more for his  shopping.

Teh, a stock market punter, has also  felt another pinch  the prices of  shares have plunged.

The high interest rates to prop up  the currency is no good for the stock  market, he was told by his remisier.

For the average Malaysian, that is  the immediate impact of the attacks  against the Malaysian ringgit, which  has been headline news over the last  two weeks.

Finger-pointing, with names openly  mentioned, has been made against US based fund managers dabbling in foreign exchange as central banks struggle to defend flagging currencies.

The worst hit has been the Thai baht  and the Phillipine peso. Indonesia's  rupiah has also been hit by regional  spillover sentiment.

Unlike in Thailand, the impact of  the ringgit speculation is still negligible on Malaysian consumers unless  the lower ringgit persists for a longer  period.

Should that happen, according to  economists, it would cost importers  more to bring in their goods and the  cost will be passed on to consumers.

In Thailand, motorists found they  had to pay more for their petrol as  foreign oil companies such as Caltex,  Shell and Esso raised their retail  prices. In the Philippines, consumers  had to pay more for wheat.

Angry with rumours that its economy could collapse, Thai police raided  the offices of two large foreign brokerage firms in Bangkok last week,  saying they wanted to investigate  whether these firms were responsible  for talks that five banks would be shut  down.

In Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian  ringgit dropped to a 33-month low at  RM2.57 against the US dollar earlier  last Tuesday, before recovering to  RM2.55. On Friday morning, it opened  at RM2.58.

But, as in everything, there's a silver lining. A lower ringgit will make  our local goods more competitive. It  will also make Malaysia a more attractive place to visit.

Moreover, the ringgit is still one of  the most stable currencies around.

On Friday, the Asian Wall Street  Journal quoted economists as saying  that the ringgit was not overvalued  and was not expected to weaken significantly from current levels.

These speculators, who are said to  make billions from such attacks, cannot be trading on the dollar-ringgit indefinitely.

There will come a time when they  will move on and start selling.

For the average Ahmad, Ah Beng  and Arumugam, they do not understand why TV and newspaper reports  about the ringgit speculations use so  much of economic jargon.

It does not help when ministers,  bankers and the media fail to explain,  in simple terms, how such speculations affect their daily lives.

For Teh, his family members have  advised him to postpone his trips.  They told him to check how many US  dollars he has left in his bank safe deposit box.

His daughter, who is no economics  expert but who understands the basics of making money, told him: “Sell  your leftover US dollars from your  last trip … make some money-lah.''

It must have been a let-down for many of these western reporters.  Nothing much seems to have changed.The immigration stamp on their  passports to register their departure is still the same. It just says  “Hong Kong Immigration'' not  SAR for Special Administrative Region.

And certainly not the People's  Republic of China although there  are now more splashes of red in  Hong Kong as Chinese flags fly  side by side with the SAR flag. Against a backdrop of Asia's  most stunning skyline, the world's  media were here to cover the end  of a part of the British empire and  the raising of the Chinese flag.The western media had expected  more.

They were ready to record the  chaos and panic among locals as  the People'sLiberation Army and their tanks entered the city.

They expected screaming pro-democracy protesters to be clubbed  and dragged away by baton-waving policemen under political pressure  from the Chinese might. All that didn't happen. And most  of the western reporters who came  to record the biggest hyperbole  must have been disappointed.

It would have been difficult to  explain to editors in some sleepy  towns in the United States that the  rain-soaked Hong Kong folk were  actually waving tiny Chinese flags to welcome the PLA.

Surely, there must be a mistake  somewhere. Those money-minded  Hong Kong people were supposed to hold placards and candles to protest against the “massacre'' at  Tiananmen Square.

Yes, there were some protests   after all, protests are still allowed  in Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems'' policy.

The scare campaign against China and the SAR flopped. None of  the western newspapers, despite  their claims to tell the truth, will  admit that the response from the  Hong Kong people to the protests  was feeble.

The protesters were sparse and  they were having a good time taking pictures of each other to record  their “contributions'' to the historical occasion. The truth was that the locals had  a great time playing mahjong or  watching the celebrations on TV.

Many were out on the streets  watching the fireworks  just like  Americans do on Independence  Day.The July 1 “super holiday,'' as  the locals dubbed it, was also the  best time for shopping  another  favourite pastime in this consumer  society.

The ringing of cash registers, since June 30 midnight, for the  Great Handover Sales had never  been sweeter. Who cared about  demonstrations?

That would be really tough to explain to western editors who wanted follow-up stories about Hong Kong in danger,the doom of democracy, self-censorship of the  press and the end of civil society.

CNN, despite its international reputation, was equally guilty of  lop-sided reporting for it was more  concerned with its largely-American audience.

Anchorman Bernard Shaw, an  African-American, showed his ignorance of East Asian politics and  even disrespect to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. At one point, Shaw  told Tung “to cut out the modesty''  when, in typical Asian humility, the  latter played down his clout.

The sad part was that even a  leading local English daily in Hong  Kong was lapping up the western influence by carrying reports and  editorials similar to that of western publications. The contrast has never been  greater. Western TV was showing a  Hong Kong and Southern China “gripped with tension'' while Hong  Kong TV had scenes of celebrations.

The western media referred to Tung as “Beijing-picked'' and by an  “autocratic government.'' No one referred to Governor Chris Patten  as “London-picked'' or “appointed governor.''

Who are we to believe? The western press which spoke only to the  likes of Democratic Party chief  MartinLee who are British-trained  and liberal, or the local media  which listened to the Cantonese speaking locals who read racing  tabloids passionately while eating  chok (porridge) for breakfast?

The truth, as they say, is somewhere out there.

“Suddenly the phone stops ringing. My name no longer appears in  the newspapers, no one seeks my  opinions and, most of all, no one  thrusts the mike and tape recorder to my face now,'' he lamented.

But the media have always been the punching bag of the influential.

When pushed into a corner, blundering politicians often find it easy to shift the blame to the  press.It seems that to accuse the press  of misreporting or misquoting has become a favourite excuse when all else fails.

Recently, one politician blamed  the press for losing a by-election.  Next, he denied having said money was “missing'' from a fund,  claiming he did not even know  what the word lesap, attributed to  him, meant.

Last week, another politician  blamed the foreign media for misquoting him, apparently because he had a poor command of English.

The press was again held responsible for not giving enough publicity to Sukom 98. The media is usually reluctant to reply to such accusations or denials simply because it does not  wish to prolong the issue and see a  strain in ties with the politicians.

In March, one newspaper, however, decided to publish the full transcript of a press conference  given by a minister after his denial on toll-free alternative routes. Another politician, who had once denied a press report, told a  reporter: “I said it but I didn't  mean it'' after being confronted  with a tape recording of his remarks.One opposition politician, who is  in the habit of burning newspapers during elections, slams the  media at every opportunity but  that has not stopped him from  sending press statements to the  newsrooms of the various newspapers almost every day and most  of the statements get printed!

When his statement is not carried because of poor or libellous  content, the press gets blamed for blacking him out.

One reporter may get it wrong  but when all newspapers have the  same report, it is highly unlikely  everyone is wrong. After all, reporters today are armed with tape recorders.

But that does not mean that the  press is always right and free  from blame. Misreporting and irresponsible reporting can be damaging.

A media organisation, especially the electronic sector, in the hands  of young and inexperienced editors may suffer serious consequences.

For example, several months  ago an alleged road bully was  brought to the court by the police for a remand order. The case was given prominent  press coverage. His face appeared on television and in some newspapers without being camouflaged.In fact, he was never charged.Similarly, it was unethical to  show on news broadcasts the identities of minors alleged to be drug  pushers when they are mere suspects.This is because if there is  no case against them the damage  would have been done to them.In all healthy relationships,  there must be lots of love and understanding. I guess it's the same with the  media and the news-makers.

The latest joke making the rounds involves a politician, a self- proclaimed religious expert and a lawyer, all members of a local political party.

The three were given an envelope with RM30,000 each by their pensioner friend. They were told that they must return the money when he died. “Just put the envelopes with the money in my coffin.  Don't ask me what a dead man is going to do with it. I will try to bless you and your family in my  after-life,'' said the old man.

At the funeral, all three did as they were told. On their way home, the religious expert confessed that he had just returned RM20,000.

“I don't think he would mind. I need RM10,000 for my organisation and it's for a good cause after all,'' he said.

The lawyer next confessed that he only left RM10,000 in the coffin.“He won't mind, he's already dead. I need the money to pay my debts,'' he justified.

The Yang Berhormat became upset, scolding the two for their lack  of trustworthiness.

“How can you steal from a dead man? It's pathetic and sinful. I am so ashamed I don't think I can talk to you. As for me, I do everything for the people, for development and for the country. Yes, I took away the entire RM30,000 but I gave the dead man a blank cheque, so my conscience is clear.''

Over the last week, even sceptical Malaysians must have been surprised at the swift action taken against certain public figures and senior government officials for alleged corruption.

They include former Malacca state executive councillor Datuk Sahar Arpan who was charged in court.Deputy primary industries minister Siti Zainab Abu Bakar was sacked for her involvement in the “missing'' RM1.8 million from the  Wanita Umno accounts.

At the same time, the Cabinet has approved heavier penalties sought by the Anti-Corruption Agency against those found guilty of graft.

It is significant to note that Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has  declared that elected representatives “should not only be clean but also seen to be clean, or we will lose our credibility.''

This is not the first time that Dr Mahathir has spoken against corruption. He brought up the matter at last year's Umno general assembly, stating his views on money politics.

Dr Mahathir's warning of a war against corruption came a day after Acting Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced that all new state executive councillors must declare their assets to the ACA before taking office.

The actions of the top two leaders deserve the backing of all Malaysians. A strong political will is necessary to fight corruption. While it is often difficult to gather evidence in such cases, Malaysians want to see clear actions against  unscrupulous politicians.

The leadership should perhaps go a step further by insisting that those holding public office must declare their assets periodically.

To be fair, there are many Malaysian politicians who have given up a fortune to serve the country.

Unfortunately, there are those who believe that they would be in a better position to make more money, either legally or illegally, once they have the authority and right connections.

The time has come to send a strong message to those who spend millions on party political campaigns that there is no guarantee they will be rewarded with a government position.

While Malaysians should retain their “can do'' confidence and even be euphoric over Malaysia Boleh, a line should be drawn over matters involving ethics and public accountability and that's when we say tidak boleh.

Rightly or wrongly, some Malaysians perceive the local media,  particularly the mainstream dailies, as docile and pro-government.

But when some foreign magazines base their reports on rumours and hearsay, these same readers would regard the content as gospel truth.

On the other hand, vernacular newspapers are regarded as bold but the accuracy of their reports are sometimes suspect and they often quote unnamed sources.

Last week, two major English dailies reported on their front pages that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad needed more time to choose a clean person to take over as the new Selangor Mentri Besar.

Two Bahasa Malaysia dailies and another English tabloid reported instead that the Sultan of Selangor did not consent to the choices made by the Prime Minister.

So which is which? The Sultan clarified in a statement that there was no disagreement between him and the Prime Minister while Dr Mahathir said he did not hand in a list of candidates to the Sultan, so the question of a consent did not arise.

Surely, reporters from different dailies cannot be hearing different things from the same person.

Checking what a person said on tape is one thing. An equally important factor to consider is how the questions were phrased and asked, and in what manner or tone were the questions answered.

Was it said in jest or was his reply quoted out of context by reporters?

Sometimes, public figures make vague statements, leaving reporters with the chore of having to interpret what was said.

Further confusion arose when, approached by reporters, several Umno leaders issued statements questioning the Sultan's purported refusal to give his consent.

Their immediate response to the press is commendable but the point is their information came from secondary sources the reporters they spoke to. The politicians were not at the palace to hear Dr Mahathir or the Sultan.

The result has been a suggestion of differences between the Sultan and Dr Mahathir and an impending constitutional crisis.

Misreporting is a serious matter and, as Dr Mahathir said just last week, it's an abuse of power and corruption by the press.

Reporters are only human. They make mistakes and sometimes interpret statements and actions incorrectly, but there is no excuse for being careless. Last week's events are nothing new. Such reporting has happened in  the past.

I recall interviewing a senior minister at the height of a party feud. Being not very fluent in English, the minister often paused and broke off his sentences with “you know what I mean-lah'' during the interview.

Those who had been covering his ministry knew exactly what he meant but one reporter, though experienced, became a victim of misinterpretation because she was unfamiliar with the lingo of the minister.

It was a disaster. Her report, published on the front page the next day, prompted the minister to retort that “she obviously didn't know what I mean.''

In another incident, a minister was asked by a reporter to comment on Malaysia's stand on an international issue. Hard-pressed for time, the minister told the reporter “tunggu-lah.''

The article that was published next day stated that the minister was taking a “wait-and-see attitude'' on the issue.

In a more recent case, all the Malaysian newspapers quoted ministers and sources as saying that the Cabinet wanted a freeze on dealings with Singapore following an unwelcome remark by Senior MinisterLee Kuan Yew  about Johor's security situation.

There was much confusion when a Cabinet minister later issued an official reply, saying that the press reports were “less than accurate.''

The Malaysian press, one may say, is hard-pressed at times but it certainly has no intention of being misleading.

Western reporters have been painting Hong Kong as a place of uncertainty with its imminent handover to China.

China is portrayed as the evil empire a nation burdened with corruption, soaring crime rate and a repressive regime bent on destroying Hong Kong's brand of free-market enterprise.

Almost every news despatch will talk about China's purported plans to curb civil liberties with Beijing's Tiananmen Square incident mentioned in one breath.

Suddenly, these gwai-lo reporters, who have been working and living in Hong Kong without a need for any visa passes, are talking about democracy and freedom of speech.

For years, they made no mention of Governor Chris Patten as  London-nominated but consider it fair game, in the name of press freedom, to label the territory's Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa as Beijing-picked.

They have also completely ignored the fact that for years the whites dominated the hierarchy of the civil service, especially the police force. Many locals, despite having the qualifications, were passed over in favour of expatriates because of the colour of their skin.

It is unfortunate that most newspapers, including those in Asia, will have to depend on lop-sided reports about the territory in the run-up to the handing over because of financial and manpower constraints.

In such circumstances, Asian newspapers will have to use their judgment on what is news and what is prejudice by these Western reporters. For example, the probable use of the Chinese language after July 1 has even become an issue.

One major news agency incorrectly reported Cantonese as a language instead of a dialect. But the issue of language should actually revolve around the lack of effort by the British to teach Hong Kong folk English.

The inability to speak English deprived many in Hong Kong of jobs and promotions.

At the same time, Martin Lee, the head of Hong Kong's opposition Democratic Party and a Beijing critic, gets the kind of attention given to only selected heads of government a meeting at the  White House with President Bill Clinton.

The United States now sees it fit to lecture China on how it should govern Hong Kong after July 1 when the Chinese have taken back what is rightfully theirs after 150 years.

The amount of misinformation on China is amazing but not surprising because Americans now consider China as its chief potential threat in economic and military terms.

Many of these concerns are rooted in ignorance and misunderstanding. Among the Republicans, liberal mass media and academics, China is a threat to the Americans on the world stage.

Efforts by Asian-Americans, mostly ethnic Chinese, to have some influence in the American political system faced a setback when donations by Asians became an issue.

An article in Newsweek on Feb 17 gave an early indication of what the US media would look for on July 1. Disruptions, protests and decrying of the abandonment of the Western values of freedom and democracy would be the diet of July 1.

It is difficult to impress upon Westerners that Hong Kong is no longer the world of Suzy Wong and that the People's Liberation Army is more involved in trading than military manoeuvres, with investments in over 20,000 companies worth billions of ringgit.

Asian watcher John Naisbitt correctly wrote in Megatrends Asia that the West should talk about how much the rest of China would end up looking like Hong Kong after July 1 and not the other way around.

There is no going back. When Macau returns to China in 1999, i  will be the end of Western dominance for the first time in 400 years, every inch of Asian soil will be controlled by Asians.

The year 2000 will be the Year of the Dragon, an auspicious beginning for Asians in the new millennium.

Following the meeting, at least, two ministers readily put on record  their displeasure of events that had taken place since March 11 when Malaysians first found out the disparaging remarks made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew against Johor.

Singapore Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar has much to do if the republic sincerely wants to mend fences.

Beside making the relevant quiet diplomatic approaches, he will have a chance to meet his counterpart Datuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawi next week.

It will be their first meeting after the diplomatic row between the two countries erupted.

The two leaders will attend the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)  ministerial-level meeting in New Delhi from April 48, and an informal meeting of Asean ministers has been scheduled on April 7. Asean countries are also members of NAM.

While Asean matters will be the concern of the meeting, there is nothing to stop Jayakumar from having separate bilateral talks, officially or unofficially, with Abdullah on how Malaysia and Singapore should get on with their relationship.

As chairman of the Asean Standing Committee, Abdullah will chair the informal meeting with discussions centred on the admission of new Asean members and preparation for the summit in December.

And there is nothing to prevent other Asean members from talking about the diplomatic tiff between Malaysia and Singapore and its effect on Asean.

At the summit, which Kuala Lumpur will host, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mr Goh Chok Tong will meet and going  by tradition, the two premiers will meet separately.

It will be a heavy task for Jayakumar because Malaysia is in no mood to restore diplomatic ties to the previous level. As Dr Mahathir said, it will take time to heal.

Jayakumar will have a second shot in Kuala Lumpur during the one-week Asean ministerial meeting beginning July 24.

The two foreign ministers will be the ones to assess the situation and  make recommendations to their respective heads of government.

Wisma Putra is fully aware of how Singapore has been reacting to Malaysia's increasing economic competitiveness in the region.

The Straits Times, which often reflects the views of the republic's  political establishment, acknowledged in its recent editorial that growing economic competition was a factor in the squabble that resulted fromLee's remarks.

“The fact is that competition for markets, investments and labour is  increasingly pitting one country against the other. Mr Lee's indiscretion was, in the circumstances, a godsend for those itching to knock Singapore down a notch or two,'' it reported.

While Goh has tried to blame the Malaysian press for inaccurate reports which were supposed to have exacerbated the issue, he should also look at the files of the Singapore media.

For example, the Singapore media has on numerous occasions taken a negative stand against Malaysia for issues such as the proposed land bridge at the Malaysia-Thai border and the East Asia Economic Caucus.

Even the private sector, such as the Genting Highlands resort, a favourite holiday destination for Singaporeans, has not been spared from bad press. Such reporting creates the perception that Singapore does not wish to see its people spend money outside the island.

The Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, which is far more attractive than its Singapore rival, is another favourite target.

Such finger-pointing by Singapore leaders, instead of admitting their poor handling of relations with Malaysia over recent years, will not help to end the row.

Goh, in reacting to the tiff, quoted a Malay saying Air dicincang tidak akan putus, walaupun dicincang dengan pisau (water cannot be separated, even by a knife) which he said was the nature of Singapore's relationship with Malaysia.

It is good that Goh understands the importance of a good relationship between the two countries but he must move beyond words.

As every schoolboy knows, there is a much simpler Malay saying Sesat di hujung jalan, balik ke pangkal jalan (if you are lost at the end of the road, then you must go back to where you came from). Similarly, sesat surut, terlangkah kembali.

There is a moral to both sayings while a person must admit when he is wrong, he must also correct the mistakes he has committed.