[cossie]

A bridge that stirs troubled waters
M. Bakri Musa
13 March 2006

The water in the narrow Strait of Johore is usually calm. In fact it is unhealthily stagnant, as the causeway had effectively dammed the waterway and stopped the natural ebb and flow of the tide across it.

This will soon change if Malaysia were to proceed with its planned suspended bridge. The bridge threatens to stir the water, literally and figuratively.

The new structure would not increase capacity, as it would still have the same number of lanes as the existing causeway. Even if the lanes were increased, the bridge would not appreciably increase the capacity, as the other (Singapore) half of the causeway remains the same.

The suspended bridge could markedly improve the marine ecology, as there would once again be free flow of tide across the strait, at least on the Malaysian side. That would reduce the stagnancy and the stench, as well as enhance the aesthetics and the marine environment. If that is the reason for the bridge, then I would applaud its proponents for their ecological consciousness.

That objective could however be achieved just as effectively and at a considerably lower price by burrowing a series of wide tunnels. This retrofit could be done without disrupting traffic. There are already a few culverts, but they have silted up for lack of maintenance, as are the drains and rivers in town. There is no assurance that the more expensive bridge would not be similarly neglected. Even with the new bridge, the strait would still be blocked because the existing causeway would remain to carry the railroad. Transferring the tracks onto the crooked bridge would be the height of folly; I have yet to see a curved railroad bridge.

Of course the much cheaper tunnel alternative would entail correspondingly smaller profits, and, let us also openly acknowledge, less generous “commissions” and “Kopi Oh!” money. This more than anything else is what drives this common sense-defying and exorbitantly expensive project.

Underwater tunnels, being not visible, would not give rise to bragging rights. There would be no showpiece monument for visitors to behold as they drive across.

I do not dismiss this vanity aspect to the bridge. A beautiful suspended bridge on the Malaysian half would be a spectacular contrast to the drab causeway on the Singapore side, remnant of the utilitarian, low budget, and “good enough for the natives” colonial mentality. Singaporeans, being residents of a First World city, would not be easily impressed with the suspended bridge; their reactions would likely be one of detached bemusement. They and other foreign visitors would more likely be impressed with Malaysia if our customs and immigration counters were more efficient, and clean.

Considering our culture, I do not minimize the “show off” factor to the new bridge. Drive through the exclusive residential areas of Klang Valley, and we see palatial mansions behind gilded gates and ornate fences. Step outside the well-manicured and immaculately maintained grounds and the stark reality of urban Malaysia hits you: roadside brushes uncut, rubbish all over, and drains plugged.

Yet, for a fraction of the price of these expensive gates and brick fences they could have the drains covered and thus effectively expand their usable land and simultaneously eliminate the stench. If they would jointly maintain their common public areas instead of having to depend on the city, the enhanced aesthetic, health and other benefits would far outweigh the costs, not to mention the increase to their property values.

The owners of these ostentatious residences are also likely to be the ones responsible for our public polices. So it is not surprising that they would want to build an expensive bridge to show off to visitors when the money could have been better spent sprucing up the waterfront and cleaning up the deadly polluted Sengget River.

If there were to be a bridge, let it be right across, replacing the entire causeway. Apparently, Singapore’s opposition is over the cost, especially in relation to the expected benefits. If that were the case, make the project subject to the realities of the marketplace. One way would be to invite potential concessionaires and allow them to charge toll fees. This would spare both governments the expense, with the risk borne entirely by the operators and the revenues paid by users on both sides. Another would be to privatize the project, with the two neighbours owning equal shares and the project funded through private financing to be repaid by user fees. To ensure transparency and to get the best price, open the bidding to international competition.

A joint venture with Singapore on this bridge might teach Malaysia a lesson or two, like how to get the best contract and run an efficient public utility. The most important lesson would be how much cheaper a project would cost if it were subjected to rigorous competition and spared of corruption.

If either option were to happen, the new bridge would truly symbolize the physical, social, economic and other bonds linking the two nations.

This half bridge proposal has already created considerable anxiety across the causeway. There are those who think that anything that would provoke such reactions in Singapore must automatically be good for Malaysia.

This is an exception; scraping the project would spare Malaysia the unneeded expense and at the same time improve relations with our neighbour.

This post has been edited by cossie: 14 March 2006 - 12:12 AM

[cossie]

INTERVIEW - Mahathir's daughter denounces Muslim 'apartheid'
By Jalil Hamid
Reuters
16 March 2006

She's a firebrand, articulate and just like her dad, passionate and outspoken.

Marina Mahathir, liberal-minded daughter of Malaysia's longest-serving premier, is at the centre of a storm after saying Muslim women in her country suffer from "apartheid" and discriminatory rules that don't apply to non-Muslims.

The eldest child of Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled for 22 years until 2003, offered no apologies for her outburst and said part of the problem was the mixture of politics and Islam.

"I think it's a very dangerous game that started some time ago and it's continuing all these times. There's no getting out of this," she told Reuters in an interview.

"You have two sets of laws for citizens of the same country, one is more disadvantageous than the other. To me, this is like the situation in (old apartheid) South Africa," the 48-year-old Muslim said in her office in a posh Kuala Lumpur suburb.

Just over half of Malaysia's 26 million people are ethnic Malays, who by definition here are Muslim.

The ruling United Malays National Organisation is the lynchpin of Malaysia's multi-racial coalition government but it faces a challenge from the fundamentalist Islamic opposition party, PAS, for Muslim votes.

Marina's outburst was sparked by recent amendments to Malaysia's Islamic family law that make it easier for Muslim men to take multiple wives, to divorce them and to take a share of their property.

Islamic or sharia laws in Malaysia are drafted by the government's Islamic Affairs advisers and apply to Muslims only, but they must be approved by state and federal legislatures before they come into force.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, an Islamic scholar who took over from Mahathir in 2003, later agreed to put the changes on hold, pending consultations with women's groups.

Writing in her column in the local Star newspaper last Friday, Marina noted: "In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women: that between Muslim and non-Muslim women."

THE BACKLASH

Inevitably, there have been angry reactions, with one group, the Muslim Professionals Forum, calling her ignorant.

"Marina's recent outbursts likening Muslim women in Malaysia to black South Africans under apartheid is completely ignorant of the reality on the ground. This renders a great disservice to a country praised by many as a model Muslim nation," said the forum founders, Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah.

PAS, the Islamic party, also condemned her.

"The statement is very dangerous, giving the impression of the inability of sharia laws to settle cases involving Muslim women, which is not fair," PAS deputy chief Nasharuddin Mat Isa told Reuters.

The mother of two said she was undeterred.

"I've been reading letters of complaints from women about all their matrimonial problems, all of them are complaining the (sharia) courts do nothing for them."

"What sort of Muslim man who leaves wives and their kids with no money to buy food? Are you not ashamed you don't work and your wife works and pays for everything and then you claim her property?"

"Islam is wonderful, there is nothing wrong with it in the Koran. But everyday application, that's where the trouble is. Where is the justice when man can divorce the woman by SMS?"

Marina ticked off her detractors who labelled her as a bad Muslim for not donning a tudung (headscarf).

"I think, it's not for them to judge. What is a definition of a good Muslim? I try and do my best to help people, I don't make judgment on people...I don't lie, I don't cheat."

[cossie]

Marina sparks debate with 'Apartheid' remarks
Patrick Goodenough
International Editor
15 March 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Malaysia is considered one of the most moderate nations in the Muslim world, but the daughter of a former prime minister has sparked a row by comparing discrimination against Muslim women in her country with the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid.

"As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards," Marina Mahathir wrote in a newspaper column.

Marina, a women's rights and HIV/AIDS campaigner, was referring to new family laws that will make it easier for Muslim men in Malaysia to take multiple wives and claim property after divorce.

Under Islamic law (shari'a), Malaysian Muslim men already are allowed up to four wives. But the new legislation will give them more rights to claim assets after divorcing a wife, to seize property belonging to existing wives, and lessen their obligation to pay maintenance.

Organizations that came out against the proposals were attacked for promoting "western"-style gender equality, and parliament passed the legislation at the end of last year.

In multi-ethnic Malaysia, where Muslims comprise about 60 percent of the population, the proposed new laws will only apply to Muslims.

Marina wrote that, more than a decade after apartheid had ended in South Africa, an "insidious" form of discrimination was developing in Malaysia, between Muslim and non-Muslim women.

"Non-Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women," she said.

The article was due for publication last Wednesday, International Women's Day, but The Star newspaper - for which she has long been a regular columnist - held it because of the controversial content.

Marina then published it on the Internet, with a note saying: "For the first time in some 17 years, The Star is refusing to publish my column ... they said that the powers-that-be there think it's too tough on the government and it's not the right platform etc."

The column eventually was published on Friday.

Marina's "apartheid" accusation stung in a country which as a leader in the developing world saw itself at the forefront of the international campaign against racial segregation in South Africa.

The Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) accused her of doing "a great disservice to a country praised by many as a model Muslim nation."

"Her prejudiced views and assumptions smack of ignorance of the objectives and methodology of the shari'a, and a slavish capitulation to western feminism's notions of women's rights, gender equality and sexuality," two female founding members of the forum, Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah, said in a response.

The MPF statement itself sparked further discussion on Internet websites.

"Nowhere in the Koran does it say that we must suspend our intellect or reason in matters religious," wrote one contributor to the debate. "On the contrary, we are told to exert ourselves fully (meaning use our brain) to fully understand our Holy Book."

Some of Marina's critics noted that in Malaysia, women play a relatively prominent role in the public and business sectors.

In an earlier column, Marina challenged that perception, saying that although 60 percent of undergraduates are female, only 23 percent of administrators and managers in the Malaysian workplace are women, and women are paid 47 percent of what men earn for the same job.

"Despite what looks like progress for women in our country, the participation of women in the workplace has not changed in 30 years."

Her column also drew attention further afield. An editorial in the Khaleej Times, a daily newspaper in the United Arab Emirates argued that any discrimination faced by women in Muslim countries has nothing to do with Islam but with "pre-Islamic customs and traditions."

"At a time when there are already enough misconceptions about Islam and Muslims, such an irresponsible remark by a Muslim woman can send a wrong message to the world," it said.

"It's unfortunate that a great faith that actually granted and recognized the just status of woman recognizing her rights and which transformed her status in Arabian society should be blamed for something that has nothing to do with it."

Some critics of Marina said it was ironic that she was speaking against discrimination when her father, veteran former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, oversaw racial policies aimed at benefiting Malays, the majority Muslim ethnic group.

The "bumiputra" policies were introduced in the early 1970s following race riots, and were designed to give the ethnic majority a greater share of the country's wealth, disproportionately controlled by ethnic Chinese.

The affirmative action policies include quotas for government jobs, admission to educational institutions and ownership in business. Stock exchange listing requirements also benefit Malays.

[eivan120]

I think that's truth in what she said....i mean in terms of Women in Marriage...

I don think there's any woman in the world would like to share a husband if they have a choice.Who would wan to share when u can have the man all by urself....Islamic Law permit men to have max 4 wives (condition applied), i'll say it's kinda unfair...y can't women have 4 husband then!?

I know that there're happy family of 1 husband n 4 wives n kids out there, but there r also those suffered from it.....be it the husband or the wives.....

In chinese most see these as "ungrateful husband" n " wu lei ching"....but islam women would have no choice
but to accept the fact that their husband wan another wife....I would rather divorce him than to share the family!

[cossie]

Taking the Malay out of the kampong
Raja Petra Kamarudin
27 March 2006

You can take the Malay out of the kampong, but you can’t take the kampong out of the Malay, at least not that easily. Malays are very attached to their roots. Even if they were born in the big city they would still treasure their roots, in this case it could be their parents’ or grand parents’ place of birth.

There is nothing wrong in being sentimental about your roots, and neither does it make you a country bumpkin. The Americans too treasure their roots. There was in fact a ‘roots revolution’ three decades ago in 1976 when Alex Haley, an African American writer, published his best-seller book, Roots, which was subsequently made into a twelve-episode hit miniseries the following year. I still remember the trials and tribulations of Kunta Kinte, the ‘hero’ of the story, which attracted one of the largest dramatic television viewers in American history.

I spent my most impressionable years, age seven to thirteen, in the kampong (after which I was packed off to the Malay College Kuala Kangsar). This was when our family lived in Bukit Kuda, Kelang. Invariably, I grew up in kampong surroundings where I picked up many ‘values’ and beliefs that come with a kampong environment.

Looking back now, I can see how naïve and misguided we were in our beliefs. Many were steeped in superstition, most were prejudices, and all were the result of what the elders taught us, passed down through the generations by word of mouth. British writers and historians have addressed this issue of Malay customs and beliefs at great length and it is certainly not complimentary to the Malays at all. We would of course not expect our colonial masters to look up to us. But then, though we cannot deny that the British, being our colonial masters, would look down on the Malays -- as all colonial masters would on the subjects they have subjugated -- we also cannot dismiss totally what they wrote.

One of our childhood beliefs was that fireflies are souls of dead Chinese wandering about. We would catch these fireflies and place them in bottles. A bottle-full of fireflies would light up the night and could be used as torch-lights in the days when Eveready was not yet available. But we were warned not to bring these bottles into our bedroom or else it would become haunted if the dead souls of these Chinese were to escape.

During the month of Ramadan, even we kids would fast though it was not compulsory for those below the age of puberty. We fasted not so much to train ourselves for when we reached the age when fasting would be mandatory -- which the elders would encourage us to do to -- but so that we could sit and break fast with the seniors, a feast not usually seen in ‘normal’ months and certainly something no kid would want to miss. Of course, sometimes we cheated. We would secretly eat, away from the prying eyes of the elders, and feign hunger by sleeping the whole afternoon. The younger the kid, the more VIP treatment he or she would get come break fast time, much to the envy of the older kids who knew we were faking it.

One of the cardinal rules of fasting, the older kids would teach us, is that we must not swallow our saliva. To do so would nullify our fasting, so we would constantly spit all day long until our throats became so dry. But we must not spit indiscriminately. If we did, and if a non-Muslim were to step over (langkah) our spit, our fast would batal (nullify). So, whenever we wanted to spit, which was all the time, we would look for a drain where there was running water to ensure that our spit got washed away and there would be no danger of an Indian or Chinese langkah our spit.

Hindu temples were something very frightening to us kids. The various patung (statues) of the Gods were actually devils, we were warned. Hindus, we were told, are devil worshipers. So, if we ajuk (made fun of or mimic) the statues, we would die and our faces would become just like that statues. Horror stories were related how one unfortunate soul who made fun of such statues became sick, his face transformed into one of those statues, and he died. To ensure we did not suffer this same fate, we would always turn our face away from a Hindu temple if we were ever forced to walk pass one.

Chinese cemeteries are another thing we were told to be very careful of. Muslim cemeteries are okay. In some places in the East Coast, houses are actually built on top of graves. Though not very common, it would not be odd, until today, to see a wooden house on stilts with graves beneath it. There is no danger though. Your house would not become haunted. But be wary of Chinese graves. Just crossing a Chinese cemetery is enough for you to become possessed by the spirits and you would get sick and die. We took this warning very seriously.

These are but some of our many ‘teachings’. There are certainly more but I can’t remember them all. Anyway, this is not the issue. What I want to demonstrate here is that Malay kids in the kampong were groomed from a very early and impressionable age to believe in all sorts of hogwash that eventually cultivated deep-rooted prejudices against all those who are non-Malay. But the objective of these ‘teachings’ was not so much to make Malay kids despise or fear non-Malays. They were to ensure that kids behaved themselves and would not stray too far from home.

But not all ‘teachings’ were racial in nature. For example, we were told that unmarried people should not eat the necks of chickens lest our head would senget (lop to one side) when we bersanding (marriage ceremony where the bride and groom sit on the pelamin or stage). Also, we should not play outside when dusk arrives, especially if we hear the azan or call for prayer. When the azan sounds, all the devils would run helter-skelter and in their panic to run for cover may accidentally bump into us and we would get sick and die. Undoubtedly, this ‘teaching’ was aimed at ensuring kids stayed indoors at night and not go wandering into the dark forest surrounding the kampong, where all the devils resided.

Nevertheless, though the intention may not have been to turn Malay kids into bigots, the fact that non-Malays, or their religions, are used as the object of fear, this would invariably inculcate anti-non-Malay and anti-non-Islam values. Like it or not, this would be the end result.

Malays, then, were also very confused about what represented religion and what represented culture; and what were old wives' tales and what was fact. Of course today it is not that bad as Malays have become wiser compared to the old days. But some prejudices still remain. Nevertheless, Malays are not the only bigoted lot. I used to have many Indian and Chinese friends in my schooldays and I had to put up with a lot crap from them as well. For instance, my Chinese friend would always tell me, “Mo tiu Malayan”. This can be directly translated to ‘no f*** the Malays’, which means ‘to hell with the Malays’. I would just grin and bear it. Well, what could I say to that? To our Indian friend, the Chinese friend would say, “If you see an Indian and a snake, kill the Indian first.” He too would just smile.

Being kids -- whether Malay, Chinese or Indian -- we would just laugh it all off and not take it to heart. But you cannot run away from the fact that it would leave you with a feeling that maybe the Chinese and Indians are not really friends to the Malays after all. When I visited one of my Chinese friend’s home, his father took out some pork from the fridge and asked me whether I wanted to taste some. “This is pork,” he said. “You want to try it?”

I told my friend’s father that Muslims can’t eat pork. “Why?” he asked. “Hindus don’t eat beef because the cow is their God. Is the pig your God?” I was at a loss as to how to respond and I could detect the embarrassment on my friend's face. But then Asian kids are taught to never go against their parents, so he just sat there and wished the floor would open up and swallow him.

Prejudices and intolerances are planted in our hearts at that most impressionable age. Once we reach our teens, whatever we have been taught to believe will be carried to our graves. If kids grow up to become bigots, it is because the parents or elders teach them to be so. I was more fortunate. I had a Welsh mother who thought all Malay ‘values’ were ridiculous. She did not believe in charms and bomohs (witch doctors). She resented it when my father’s Malay relatives said she had ‘masuk Melayu’ (become Malay), which means she had converted to Islam. “I am Welsh,” said my proud mother who resented even being called ‘English’. Yes, the Welsh are very nationalistic, just like the Irish and Scots.

I suppose you could say my mother ‘poisoned’ my mind to reject all Malay customs and traditions as hogwash. This is quite unfortunate because I am sure there are some good values I could have picked up. My mother stayed British right to the very end and it upset my father’s relatives quite a bit. For example, if they dropped by without an appointment during dinnertime, they would be asked to sit in the living room while our family enjoyed our dinner. ‘Proper’ Malays would have invited the visitors to join them for dinner even if there was not enough food and though they had dropped by uninvited.

I suppose I am what I am today because of my mother’s didikan (nurturing). Your father is not always there except for a few hours during dinnertime, and even then not every night. So the upbringing one receives is usually from one's mother. Many say I am a strange animal. Well, what do you expect from a Bugis-Welsh half-breed who is torn between being an ‘Anak Raja Melayu’ and a 'Mat Salleh'? One minute I am an elite Malay Raja and the next a Welsh nationalist. Would this not fry the brain of any sane person?

Actually, if you look at the recent poll conducted by Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research, things have not changed much since I was a growing kid 50 years ago. Then too we harboured the belief that Malays are lazy, Chinese are greedy and Indians can’t be trusted. How far have we come in 50 years in eliminating our prejudices? Not far I’m afraid. Oh, one thing that has changed though, I no longer spit when I’m fasting. I suppose there is some progress after all.

[cossie]

I am in my mid 20s. An eldest daughter of a Malay parents who I most value all my life. I grew up in a kampong environment with all the values and beliefs were passed on to me from my beloved grandmother, the lady who looked after me. Nothing that Raja Petra mentioned here in his article that I haven't already heard.

Stories and all these "kepercayaan karut' or I will, gladly use the word "pagan beliefs" couldn't be avoided no matter how. The big haunted tree, the ancient grave that of course smells nice whenever you pass-by and how an old nenek, with her stick, was cleansing the whole kampong from an evil spirit by making a full round circle around the kampong while chanting 'lailahaillahla..' and mind you, she was old and couldn't hardly walk without the help of her stick. She seemed to walk quite in a fast pace that night, the night that I will always remember for the rest my life. I was scared. She is an Arwah now.

Our ancestors came all the way from many parts of the world. My grandma is a Bugis and another grandma has got Siamese blood and my grandpa, came from as far as China while the other, was a grandson of a 'Bengali carpet’. Of course the misconception of Bengali has always been wrong and never corrected. Even those that we thought were real Bengalis are not even Benggalis. Funny but true. He was from Turkey. Stories that they brought along with them, are stories that have been passed through generations. Maybe created here. But the point is some are good stories to fill in your time when Astro wasn't there yet. It makes me think, or feel scared or make me who I am today. And oh yea, of course most of them are not so Islamic. Notwithstanding the fact that my grandma is also the person who's been for Hajj more than 3 times and umrah several times. Beliefs are one thing, Islam is another.

It's really up to the individual in taking it as it is or to use one's rusty brain to think, or ask questions, to the person who's telling or to yourself. Maybe have a discussion with just anybody. My dad, he is quite different. He taught me what's Islamic and what are just beliefs and customs. Till today, I will never go against my weak grandma just to fight over something I think ridiculous but I surely will tell all her stories to my kids so that they know, if not believe…

[cossie]

I could remember only two unpleasant experiences (and perhaps more than two among folks from my own community!), one of which happened not long after May 13, when I accompanied a girl student back to her kampong because it was very late. When we could see the first huts, she turned to me and said it was all right she would walk the rest of the way herself. Her voice seemed anxious: I looked ahead and found a couple of guys walking towards me. She quickly moved off and one of them asked me what I was doing. I said the obvious, that it was dark and not proper for a teenager to walk back alone. The other fellow asked who I was, and I said I was her teacher. The first guy didn't seem to believe me and looked threateningly. I was brought up in a gangster-infested area (Ipoh) and knew I couldn't back down. So I left it to them -- let me go peacefully or fight it out. I was slightly bigger than either of them, and of course much fitter. It could be because of my appearance, and the fact that I was a teacher, but also could be because one of them did not want to cause trouble that they finally let me go.

The other incident had to do with a minibus conductor who refused to catch a pickpocket on the grounds that things were "lagi teruk" at Chow Kit. I was appalled that he would bring race into such a matter.

But other than the two incidents, which were rather mild, most of my experiences with kampong Malays were very positive. I mingled with them often, visiting them not only during hari raya, but also played sepak takraw and badminton with them in open air courts, and enjoyed free durians and rambutans (they would ask me never to return if I paid for the fruits). The funniest thing was that, when you're a twenty-something, some of the girl student's parents seem to regard you as a marriage prospect, and suggest that you marry their daughters. But that's another story.

[cossie]

Muslims always do things in the name of Islam. So, when they do something wrong, then Islam gets the bad name. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho, Mao, and many, many more are probably as bad as or worse than Saddam. But did they kill millions of their own people in the name of Christianity or whatever religion they subscribe to? Cruelty (kezaliman) recognises no religion. Bad people come from all religions and races. But only Muslims commit cruelty in the name of God or Prophet Muhammad.

You reap what you sow
Raja Petra Kamarudin
10 April 2006

Most Muslims -- and I mean Malays when I say this because this does not necessarily apply to non-Malays -- do not like to raise what they view as confrontational questions. Malays would rather use proverbs than call a spade a spade. I suppose this can be taken as the good traits of Malays and should not be perceived as negative. Being direct or confrontational is considered insolent (biadap) in Malay culture. Remaining silent on the other hand is considered good manners.

Now, before I go on, let us reflect on what one-time Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam said 20 years or so ago. He said it is time for Malays to become kurang ajar (rude, uncultured or insolent). And what did he mean by this? He meant that no longer must we remain silent just to be polite but should instead speak out and question those elder or senior to us (meaning the leaders).

If you were to attend the Friday congregational prayers (solat Jumaat), you will notice that the imam tells us in his sermon (kutbah) that we are not supposed to dispute Islamic teachings. Further to that, we are not supposed to argue (what we would call debating but they call argue) with the religious teacher (ustaz) or doubt what he says. The ustaz is supposed to be learned, speaks Arabic, has memorised most, if not all, the contents of the Quran, plus knows what it means when he reads it. The ustaz is also ‘licensed’ (bertauliah) to teach religion and even people like the PAS President, Ustaz Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, though he is a university graduate from the Middle East, is not licensed to preach religion in some states -- such as in Selangor -- and he can get arrested if he does.

So, if even a man like Haji Hadi cannot preach religion unless licensed to do so, can you imagine those lesser equipped than him, like me? We can go to jail if we were to teach religion. So religion is reduced to a personal matter between one and God, and everyone else will have to manage on their own, or go look for a licensed religious teacher. Malaysia is probably the only country in the world where one requires a licence before one can preach religion. And those who preach without a licence will be classified as deviants and can be taken to task for this. And those who oppose the government will find it hard getting a licence.

I have attempted in the past to set the record straight by posting articles on Islam but many of Malaysia Today’s Malay readers whacked me and told me to shut up. It is not that they are more knowledgeable than me. It is just that they feel I am most unqualified to talk about Islam and I should therefore leave this to the experts. I do not pretend to be an expert. I just go by the Islamic teaching that one must never accept anything that cannot be verified. And since I am not able to verify certain things, and these matters have raised doubts in my mind, I question them. This, my belief tells me, is what Muslims must do. But Malays are quick to label such people as murtad (apostates). So most would clam up rather than be called a murtad.

Even the Prime Minister is not exempted from this. Remember when Dr Mahathir Mohamad commented on Prophet Muhammad’s beard? Malays accused him of mocking the Prophet and said he should be put to death. Maybe Dr Mahathir was a bit out of order. He was in fact trying to say that just because one sports a beard does not mean one is pious. No doubt Prophet Muhammad too sported a beard and Islam says it is optional (sunat) for Muslims to follow the Prophet’s example. But the Prophet sported a beard, said Mahathir, because there were no Gillette shaving blades in his time.

Dr Mahathir had a good argument here but unfortunately he used the wrong anecdote. Of course they had shaving blades in the Prophet’s time, though not the Gillette brand. Arabs had been shaving their heads during the annual pilgrimage to the Kaabah long before Islam. So they must have had shaving blades even before the Prophet’s time. If not how could they have shaved their heads? What Dr Mahathir should have said is that external appearances like beards do not mean one is pious. After all, pirates of days gone by all had beards as well. Does this mean they were pious? Many did not even believe in God.

Anyway, I am not out to defend Dr Mahathir. What I am trying to demonstrate here is that even the Prime Minister is not spared contempt when he makes a wrong statement with regards to Islam, notwithstanding he meant no malice but spoke in all sincerity. This makes the common man like me wary. At the end of the day, we just throw up our arms in despair and say, “What the hell. Do what you want. I don’t care a darn.” The whole concept of amar maaruf nahi munkar is defeated. We just can’t be bothered anymore. It is safer to ignore all issues related to Islam rather than show concern and then get whacked by others who condemn you as murtad, jahil, and more. “Go learn first before talking,” is the common response you will receive. Just because your views differ, they assume you are jahil and do not know what you are talking about. They cannot accept that probably it is because you have gone deep into religion is the reason you have different views from them.

In a nutshell, is why most would rather remain silent. And I have now also taken that stand as well. I don’t care anymore. Let Muslims do what they want. I am not bothered. I am, after all, as they say, not qualified to talk about Islam.

I will not directly address the issue of Osama but speak generally. What is being done by Osama and his extremist followers is the result of the US attacks on Muslim countries. Of course, the retaliation has done much damage to the image of Islam which is now viewed as militant and extreme. But then we choose to blame this on the West, the enemy of Islam, who, we say, is out to destroy Islam. This, we argue, has been written in the Quran. The kafir (infidel) will not rest until we abandon the true path and follow their misguided path, argue the religious experts.

Okay, I will not even attempt to dispute this argument. You know how sensitive it can be when we disagree with the ulamaks (religious scholars). But don’t we, especially Malays, always say that all the good comes from God while all the bad is our own doing? Countless times have I heard speeches where the speaker sums up by minta maaf (apologising) in the event he said something wrong or his words slighted anyone. The good, say the speakers, comes from God and the bad from our own weaknesses.

If this is what we believe, how come when anything bad befalls Islam we blame others for it and not accept it as our own weakness? For example, we are angry with the US and Bush for invading Iraq. Would anyone have been able to invade Iraq if the Muslim nations had remained united? Would they have been able to invade Iraq if Iraq had not given them an excuse to (like the more than one million Muslims killed by Muslims)? Can the US invade Iraq if none of the Muslim countries allow the US to use their countries as military bases -- plus fly over their air space and use their territorial waters? What I am arguing here is, the US managed to invade Iraq because the other Muslim countries allowed them to. In fact, it was not only allowed, the other Muslim countries wanted the US to invade Iraq. Then we argue that all Muslims are brothers and Muslims must not side with non-Muslims against Muslims. Which one is it now? It cannot be both. It can only be one or the other. The truth is; many Muslims see the US as their ally instead of regarding their fellow Muslims as brothers. So why are we upset with the US?

I always say that it is intrinsic (sifat semula jadi) in the fox to eat chickens. Why get angry with the fox when it does? We should be angry with those who brought the fox into the chicken run (reban ayam). In this case, the US is the fox and Iraq the chicken. So, who brought the fox into Iraq if not the other Muslim countries -- or at least allowed the fox to trot past their territory on the way to the reban ayam?

One important point to note is that Muslims always do things in the name of Islam. So, when they do something wrong, then Islam gets the bad name. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho, Mao, and many, many more are probably as bad as or worse than Saddam. But did they kill millions of their own people in the name of Christianity or whatever religion they subscribe to? Cruelty (kezaliman) recognises no religion. Bad people come from all religions and races. But only Muslims commit cruelty in the name of God or Prophet Muhammad. Sure, one thousand years ago, Christians too killed in the name of Jesus. But that was so long ago and has not happened since the last couple of centuries. But Muslims till today are still doing this and they label it as jihad. Then Muslims point out that jihad is an obligation in Islam and all Muslims must perform jihad. When jihad is interpreted as killing, especially by non-Muslims and those who do not understand Islam, what do you expect? Islam equals jihad equals killings. This is what people are led to believe. So how do we counter this perception when it is still going on?

Muslims, in particular Malays, carry this superior and holier than thou attitude and this upsets many. For example, we say Muslim or non-Muslim and Malay or non-Malay. Do the Chinese say that Malays are non-Chinese? Or do the Christians say that Muslims are non-Christians? We use Muslims and Malays as the ‘accepted norm’ or benchmark and all those who are not Malay or Muslim become non-Malay or non-Muslim. Considering that Judaism is the first Abrahamic religion, which even Islam agrees, should therefore not all Christians and Muslims be non-Jews? But which Muslim would agree to this? It is Muslim first and all others last. And all others are non-Muslims (or non-Malays in the case of race).

You see that trying to be honest with your views is not tolerated in Islam and even I, how direct I normally am, find it very hard. Well, I am over trying to reform the mentality of the Malays and Muslims. This mental revolution cannot happen in my lifetime and I have accepted the fact that Malays and Muslims do not tolerate criticism. For example, Muslims like to draw the line between ‘them’ and ‘us’, as if they would like to isolate themselves or live separately from those who are not Muslims (I am trying to avoid the use of the word ‘non-Muslim’ here). We come out with Islamic banking, Islamic hospital, Islamic insurance, Islamic food, and so on. Do the Christians have Christian banking, Christian hospital, Christian insurance or Christian food? Or do the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., for the matter? The Jews no doubt have kosher food, but then this is just like halal food or vegetarian food. To the Muslims, Muslims are ‘us’, and everyone else ‘them’, and ‘us’ and ‘them’ can never be ‘fellow mankind’. This is why Muslims are isolated, because they choose to isolate themselves and not because others isolate them.

As what Malays always say, I apologise to anyone who may have been slighted by what I said above. The good comes from God and the bad from my own weaknesses, not from the kafir, the Americans, the Jews, or enemies of Islam.

[cossie]

Scrapping the bridge the best solution
BY WONG CHUN WAI
15 April 2006

IT WAS the best solution. Enough time and energy have been wasted by Malaysia and Singapore officials on the proposed RM1bil controversial bridge to replace the 82-year-old Causeway.

We have been talking about it since 1996, when the idea was mooted by then Prime Minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad. A decade is a long time and after the endless rounds of negotiations it does make sense to call it off if both sides are heading nowhere.

Let’s be honest about it. The idea to build the bridge sounded like a good idea, at first. It was supposed to have helped to ease traffic congestion in Johor Baru, as well as improve water quality and reduce pollution in the Tebrau Straits. A modern bridge that would allow ships to pass underneath, it seemed attractive and many Malaysians liked the idea, hoping it would bring more economic benefits to the state. But too many demands have come into the picture, clouding the issue at hand. Singapore has long wanted a decision on the bridge to be part of a package deal on unresolved bilateral issues.

In 2002, when the water issue was separated, Singapore called off talks on the bridge plan. The following year, Malaysia announced that it would build its half of the bridge unilaterally.

Despite the posturing of some Malaysian politicians, it is unlikely that Malaysia could simply start to build a bridge through unilateral actions. It would have invited serious legal implications. We can expect Singapore to take the case to the International Court of Justice, and despite Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar’s optimism, not many legal experts share his views.

Threatening to go ahead with the construction could well be a negotiating tactic on our part to pressure Singapore but the facts were staring at our faces. We are not sure whether our gung-ho politicians knew what they were talking about when they flexed their muscles, but Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is just being practical.

Bilateral negotiations to build the bridge, yes, but to proceed with unilateral action does not seem possible. Building a bridge or demolishing the Causeway is a bilateral decision, it is that clear. Whether the Malaysian part was called a “scenic” or “crooked” bridge, it would be built on half of the 900m Causeway.

Although it involves a mere 450m, the bridge had to be curved
and extended more than thrice the distance, to 1.4km, so that
heavy vehicles could cope with the maximum incline of 4.2
degrees. Suddenly it wasn’t so attractive anymore from a
political, scenic or engineering perspective.

Presumably, the negotiations had proceeded because Singapore was prepared to talk “if there was a balance of benefits for both sides.” In the end, the benefits seemed to tilt heavily to the island republic. The conditions were just impossible to be met.

No Malaysian can accept the sale of sand to Singapore for a reclamation project for 20 years or to allow its jetfighters to use our air space as a trade off for it to agree to the proposal. It is like asking Malaysia to give up its sovereignty.

There are sections of Malaysians who are angry at the decision to cancel the proposal, with some implying weaknesses on the leadership. But even if the Malaysian part of the bridge was built we would have the other half of the Causeway problem to deal with. No one would be surprised if more demands were imposed by Singapore later. What is the point of spending billions in taxpayers’ money only to end up with more problems?

Let’s not forget that there is still the RM2bil Second Link, which was opened with much fanfare in 1998. Then Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said “the construction itself is testimony to the achievements that we can attain by putting our hearts and minds together.” In the case of the bridge, there were obviously no hearts and no minds together.

It is unfortunate that Singapore has still not learned to be a good neighbour, continuing to be preoccupied with its uncompromising attitude on only gains. Sometimes you have to lose a bit to gain. In the case of dealing with neighbours, one must sometimes be prepared to sacrifice more in the interest of the long run.

If Dr Mahathir had adopted an unfriendly attitude towards Singapore, Abdullah took a different approach. He was determined to mend ties, but Singapore has not seized the opportunity.

The bridge issue should also serve as a lesson to our politicians. They should think before they speak. Clashing statements, indecisiveness, back-pedalling and constant change of policies does not help our image as a serious, efficient country. The public should not be left confused or even caught unprepared on major issues affecting the nation. Building a bridge between two countries is not as straight-forward as it looks. Singapore can talk about the environmental impact of the proposed bridge but extracting a huge amount of sand can also be environmentally disastrous to Johor.

[cossie]

Malaysia, Singapore torn by love-hate relationship
AFP
18 April 2006

Often seen as squabbling siblings, relations between Malaysia and Singapore continue to see-saw between co-operation and mistrust, confounding ordinary citizens and officials alike.

They are among Southeast Asia’s most developed nations and major trading partners whose people are intimately interlinked, but they still struggle to overcome historical antipathies dating back to the British colonial era.

In the latest installment, Malaysia abruptly dropped plans to build a new bridge joining the countries after nearly a decade of prickly negotiations with Singapore.

Citing public opposition to concede to Singapore the use of Malaysian airspace and its sand for the city-state’s vital land reclamation projects, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pulled the plug on talks on Wednesday.

While analysts in both countries have hailed Abdullah’s decision as pragmatic, the development has left a bad aftertaste for some Malaysians.

“It is still unfortunate that Singapore has still not learned to be a good neighbour, continuing to be preoccupied with its uncompromising attitude on only gains,” wrote editor Wong Chun Wai in the Malaysian Star daily on Saturday.

But in Singapore, analysts said the move was seen as a “pleasant surprise”.

“The important thing to watch is what the two sides do next,” said Simon Tay, chairman of Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

“Both have developed an audience which tends to treat this as a football match, so both sides cannot be seen to be throwing the game away,” he said.

The friction dates back to the late 1800s in the era of British colonialism, when Singapore was built up as the region’s most vibrant port.

While the two were briefly united in 1963 under the Malaysian federation, Singapore was ejected in 1965.

Arising from the separation is what many have called an “abang-adik” (older brother-younger brother) psychology, with tussles arising from the two trying to command each other’s respect.

“The two are like Siamese twins locked in a love-hate relationship. They have deep differences between them but can’t leave each other,” said Yang Razali Kassim, senior fellow with the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore.

“They want to make the best of their relationship, but there is this baggage which hinders the good progress they have made on many fronts,” he said.

Rarely addressed but crucial to the bilateral dynamic is their differing racial composition, with Malaysia a majority-ethnic Malay nation, and Singapore a mostly Chinese one.

“When people in Singapore think of the mainland, they think of Malays, and when people there think of Singapore, they think of Chinese,” said historian Khoo Kay Kim from the University of Malaya.

The difference in ethnicity and worldviews — Singapore has adopted a Westernised approach, while Malaysia’s relations are tied to Malay cultural mores — has led to a clash of styles which stymies talks, analysts say.

Amongst the more bitter quarrels dogging relations are those over the price of raw water that Malaysia sells to Singapore.

A heated row over water saw resource-scarce Singapore in January 2003 sensationally release diplomatic correspondence to prove Malaysia’s “constant flip-flops” on setting a price.

That, along with rival claims to a rocky islet, elevated temperatures so much that Singapore was forced to denounce alleged “loose talk of war” by Malaysian politicians in early 2003.

Amidst the disputes, an intense rivalry has also developed between the two, with Malaysia aspiring to challenge Singapore’s status as a regional centre for commerce and trade.

In the most recent round of one-upmanship, both countries dashed to open the region’s first low-cost airline terminal, with Malaysia narrowly scraping in first by days.

“What’s really holding back the two sides is a mindset that one is always trying to outdo the other,” said Yang Razali.

[cossie]

US-Malaysia Defence Cooperation: A Solid Success Story

Yet another Red Herring
Raja Petra Kamarudin
16 April 2006

The talks between Malaysia and Singapore stalled because the Island Republic set two conditions -- the sale of sand to the republic and the use of Malaysian air space by its air force -- to be agreed to by Malaysia before it would give its consent to the bridge plan, said Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Abdullah also said the government would pay Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd, the bridge contractor, about RM100 million as compensation for scrapping the project.

Now, which is it? Is the abortion of the crooked or scenic bridge (‘cynic bridge’ according to Dr Mahathir Mohamad) because we refuse to allow Singapore planes to fly over our air space or because we want to pay the bridge contractor RM100 million for doing nothing? Is the ‘defence’ of the ‘kedaulatan’ of our air space really that important? I think not if you go by what Defence Minister Najib Tun Abdul Razak said in his 2002 speech at the Heritage Foundation in the US entitled ‘US-Malaysia Defence Cooperation: A Solid Success Story’.

The US and Malaysia have in fact for many years now engaged in a secret deal that allows US planes more than 1,000 flights over Malaysian air space every year. That is roughly an average of three flights a day. And, since 911, this has been drastically increased in the interest of battling ‘international Islamic terrorism’.

According to Najib, Malaysian security forces regularly conduct joint military training with its United States counterparts and the United States routinely enjoys access to Malaysian airfields and ports. Also, Malaysia provides one of the few bases outside the United States for US military jungle-warfare training. US troops are warmly welcomed in Malaysia and enjoy training here, reiterated Najib.

Further to that:

1. There have been more than 75 US military ship visits in the two and a half years since 911. We do not know how many visits were made since 2002.
2. The United States conducts training exercises with the Royal Malaysian Air Force, flying with and against them in mock battles.
3. US Navy SEALs conduct training in Malaysia twice a year.
4. The US Army does field exercises with the Malaysian army.
5. The United States has excellent access to Malaysian intelligence services (and Malaysia’s intelligence agencies send its people to the US for training).
6. Since 911, Malaysian security forces have been protecting US ships plying the Straits of Melaka.
7. Malaysia has a considerable number of troops and military assets on our islands to thwart the threat of Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Southern Philippines.
8. In addition to that, Malaysia is actively identifying assets of terrorists and teaching Indonesia and other ASEAN countries how to freeze assets of suspected financiers of ‘Islamic terrorists’ (the suspect list of course supplied by the United States).

Well, that was what Najib said in his speech in the US in 2002. So is this issue of Singapore planes flying over Malaysian air space for real when we grant the US more than that, plus the fact that Singapore is clearly a US ally? I think the excuse about Singapore wanting more flights and Malaysia not agreeing to this is a Red Herring.

Hey, I am not opposed to Malaysia having secret military alliances with the US! In fact, if Malaysia wants to hand over one of its military bases to the US so that it can set up a US military base on Malaysian soil, I am even okay with that. But why is it we grant the US so much concessions but when it comes to Singapore we are so uncompromising? Or is this thingy with Singapore just a sandiwara (staged) meant to fan the sentiments of the Malay nationalists and unite the Malays under UMNO (while Singapore does the same thing to unite the Chinese in Singapore under PAP; especially since the general election is coming)?

Anyway, whatever game Malaysia and Singapore are playing, read the full text of Najib’s speech below and see whether it makes sense:

I considered titling my talk today: "Malaysia-US Defense Cooperation: The Untold Story”. The reason is that for many years US and Malaysian forces have cooperated on a wide range of missions with virtually no fanfare or public acknowledgement. And, in spite of its success, our bilateral defence relationship seems to be an all too well-kept secret.

So, I very much appreciate the chance The Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have provided for me to reveal this well-kept secret. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Ed Feulner of Heritage, not only for his kind introduction, but also for his ongoing contributions to enhancing Malaysia-US understanding. I'd like to thank Dr. John Hamre as well, both for the hospitality CSIS is providing today and for his leadership on defence issues. Dr. Hamre may be among the few to whom our bilateral defence cooperation is not in fact a secret.

Before I begin, I'd like to touch briefly on our bilateral relationship as a whole--as a kind of preview to Prime Minister Mahathir's official visit to Washington in two weeks.

Certainly, I am aware that a visit by a head of state to Washington, D.C., is not a rare occurrence, especially these days. So why is this particular visit significant?

Historically, Malaysia has been a steady, reliable friend of the United States. Our multitude of common interests includes trade and investment on a sizeable scale and security cooperation across a range of fronts. An equally important point is the common values our two countries share, including a commitment to democracy, religious tolerance, and equality for all our diverse citizens. In times like these--in a time of war--it is these values that bind nations together.

But I would point out that there is still another factor that makes our relationship important. Malaysia--though a small country halfway around the globe--occupies a somewhat unique position. We are an Islamic country. We are stable. We are prosperous. And our Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir, has gained a certain status and sway, not only in the Southeast Asian region, but throughout the Islamic world. An Unsung Story I would like to elaborate on this subject later, but--to alleviate any suspense--I will first address the unsung story of our defence cooperation.

Take the recent hit film Black Hawk Down. The scene was Somalia, 1993. And although Hollywood saw it differently--I guess you could say Malaysia's role was left on the cutting room floor—the fact is this: More than 100 Malaysian peacekeeping forces engaged in that fierce fighting to try to rescue the trapped U.S. Army Rangers. Fighting together with the U.S. Rangers, one of our troops made the ultimate sacrifice, along with the 18 US soldiers who died.

Fortunately, our troops do not serve to become stars in Hollywood.

We were indeed gratified, however, when we were honoured by the Pentagon for our contributions. And then, in New York this past March, a total of 23 Malaysian peacekeepers were awarded the Dag Hammarskjöld Medal, which is presented by the United Nations to peacekeepers killed in the line of duty.

In fact, since 1960, Malaysia has participated in more than 20 United Nations missions, from East Timor to Kosovo. For Malaysia, peacekeeping operations are an integral part of our foreign policy. Like the United States, we believe that nations--even small ones--have the responsibility to contribute when and wherever possible to a stable world order.

A Special Relationship with the US

Malaysian forces regularly conduct joint training with United States counterparts, and the United States routinely enjoys access to Malaysian airfields and ports. Also, Malaysia provides one of the few bases outside the United States for US military jungle-warfare training. U.S. troops are warmly welcomed in Malaysia and enjoy training there.

In particular:

1. There have been more than 75 U.S. military ship visits in the past two and a half years.
2. The United States conducts training exercises with the Royal Malaysian Air Force, flying with and against them in mock battles.
3. U.S. Navy SEALs conduct training in Malaysia twice a year.
4. The U.S. Army does field exercises with the Malaysian army. I might mention here that, for their expertise in jungle warfare, Malaysians are known in the business as "whispering death."
5. Finally, 1,500 Malaysian defence personnel have benefited from the U.S.-sponsored IMET (international military education and training) program.

As you can see, cooperation between our two nations started long before September 11, 2001. But the horrific events of that day galvanized our relationship as never before. Prime Minister Mahathir has been vocal in condemning the attacks, and we have been happy to provide an elevated level of cooperation with the United States on the range of fronts.

For example:

1. The United States averages more than 1,000 over-flights per year. Since September 11, this number has increased dramatically, and all requests have been approved.
2. The United States has excellent access to Malaysian intelligence.
3. Malaysia occupies a strategic location along the Strait of Malacca and southern South China Sea, and devotes considerable resources to maintaining safe and free shipping lanes for commercial and military vessels. Since September 11, Malaysian forces have been protecting U.S. ships in the Strait.
4. Malaysia has a considerable number of troops and military assets on our islands to thwart the threat of Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Southern Philippines.
5. In addition, Malaysia is actively identifying assets of terrorists and teaching Indonesia and other ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries how to freeze assets.

A Regional Leader in the War on Terror

Beyond our bilateral cooperation with the United States, Malaysia has been at the forefront of prosecuting terrorists within our region. The capture in December of Philippine terrorists in Malaysia and the subsequent arrests of al-Qaeda-linked terrorists’ cells in Malaysia and Singapore have underscored the need for regional coordination, which we are actively advocating.

Some 62 terrorists and militias with global and regional links have been arrested under our Internal Security Act, and more are currently being hunted down.

Malaysia's approach in fighting terrorists and militants is worth mentioning here. In addition to pursuing a military/security solution, we believe that we must win over the hearts and minds of our people by ensuring higher standards of living, eliminating poverty, providing quality education and health services, and creating more jobs. In essence, we must create hope, not despair; a more promising future is the antithesis of a breeding ground for future militants.

At the same time, of course, the proper interpretation of Islam by our people is imperative; that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and is against violence and senseless killing.

As well, we should mention the leadership among Islamic countries of our own Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir.

When you think of Dr. Mahathir, it would be interesting to take a quick survey to see what adjectives come to mind. I would think the responses might include "outspoken," "man of conviction," "tells it like it is." A recent news story referred to him as "habitually straight-talking," and I think that is a fair description. Basically, Dr Mahathir speaks his mind.

Over the years, some in the United States have misinterpreted some of this straight talk. Let me be clear: Strong friendships can withstand strong words. Malaysia and the United States have been close for decades. Our multi-faceted relationship will have its high and low points, but the core values our nations share endure.

So as I said, the Prime Minister speaks his mind, but he also speaks from the heart. He is a man of principles, and he is consistent in this.

For example, in his widely publicized speech at the World Economic Forum in New York this past February, the Prime Minister explained that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been radicalized--or hijacked--by a few for political or personal gain. He explained that in Malaysia, where the government recognizes Islam as the primary religion, non-Muslims are free to practice their own religions, not only because this is permitted by Islam, but because religious tolerance is an essential component of modern society.

An even more recent example of the character of Prime Minister Mahathir occurred last month in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia was hosting representatives from nearly 57 OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) countries to try to build a consensus for tracking down terrorism. Part of the objective was to take a step to try to de-link Islam and terrorism. We want to make it clear that true Islam does not stand for violence and terror. Our own country is testament to this. We also tried to arrive at a definition of terrorism.

The conference convened just at the time that the Middle East situation started to go from bad to worse. And Dr. Mahathir opened the session with an eloquent and courageous speech that suggested that all attacks targeting civilians--whether by September 11 hijackers, Israeli troops, or Palestinian suicide bombers--should be regarded as acts of terrorism.

Suffice it to say that this view was not a majority opinion among the OIC members. But that was, and remains, Dr. Mahathir's position, and as a result, the communiqué that emerged was relatively balanced. And that was a classic example of the posture we've seen, and will continue to see, as Prime Minster Mahathir seeks to exert a moderating influence on even the most inflammatory of issues.

I am sure the Prime Minister will talk more about our common battle to eliminate terrorism during his upcoming visit here to Washington. You might not like to agree with some of the things he says. But if you listen to him and hear all of what he is saying--not just a sound bite from last month or a headline next week, but the full scope of his arguments formed over the course of many years' experience--I think Americans will find a bit of common ground.

In conclusion, the world has changed much since September 11. What is it that Malaysia can offer the world, including the United States, in this new strategic landscape?

1. Malaysia is resolute and steadfast in fighting all forms of terrorism in Malaysia and is committed in supporting the global war against terrorism.
2. Malaysia is a model of an Islamic nation that is moderate, progressive, and tolerant; constant with modernity; and more importantly, a model that has succeeded in a multi-racial, religious, and cultural setting. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Animists live harmoniously together, enjoying the fruits of prosperity and stability. I hope more Americans will experience for themselves this remarkable success story.
3. Malaysia is playing a key leadership role in Southeast Asia to promote peace and stability, as exemplified by our role in supporting the peace process in the southern Philippines and ensuring the territorial integrity of Indonesia.
4. Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir, as the longest serving leader of the region, and increasingly regarded as a world statesman and Muslim leader, is a credible voice of reason, moderation, pragmatism, and progress, which makes him a key world figure in our quest to eliminate terror and to achieve a more prosperous and peaceful world.

So let me close by saying once again, thank you all for giving me the chance to get some of the good news about the US -Malaysia relationship on the record. We are looking forward to the Prime Minister's visit on May 13-15 (2002) to continue to enhance both personal and governmental relations with the United States of America.

[cossie]

The crooked bridge and cultural enmity
M.G.G. Pillai
14 April 2006

WHY DID DATO' SERI SYED HAMID, the foreign minister, and others in the cabinet, make fools of themselves days before the Prime Minister, Pak Lah, said the crooked bridge to replace part of the causeway with Singapore would not be built? Why had they not been penalised for making the Malaysian government look stupid? What was the basis for Pak Lah making his decision? Was it because his son-in-law, Mr Khairy Jamaluddin, is reported to be close to Singapore and many believe is its representative here? Why did Pak Lah defy his cabinet ministers? He cannot say he is boss and can do what he likes. He was a member of the Mahathir cabinet which approved the bridge. Much money has been spent in preparing for it. Just because Singapore says the crooked bridge is unworkable? The public reason for the crooked bridge is as obscure as against it.

Politicians and academics from both sides of the causeway agree with Pak Lah's decision. But they will be proved wrong. Pak Lah had agreed to a cabinet decision in the past to build the bridge. Johore support it for economic, political and cultural reasons. But the problem is that it is sold to the man-in-street and journalists as an exercise in fantasy, and a way to make money. I knew it had a security purpose, which is not mentioned. Singapore would have known it, and told everyone who would listen it is not viable, changing the public attitude, for it would have a difficult time for its tanks should it ever invade this country. The people at the top in Malaysia forget their priorities when money was the prime consideration.

I learnt of the crooked bridge when mooted in the 1990s, accepted why it had to be built. But what the prime minister's office said then in public and private were contradictory, but this was politics, and par for the course. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore, neighbours and rivals, have the other in their policy planning. Look at India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. One cannot consider a policy except in reference to its neighbours. In Malaysia, the problem is complicated further because Johore has its own reasons for wanting the bridge, and its agreement is necessary. All agreed to it because it would have money in the promoters’ and individual’s pockets. There must have been an equally good reason for Pak Lah to not have the bridge built, having approved it during Dr Mahathir's time as prime minister. But he does not say what it is.

It is fashionable to criticise Malaysia in public. It is difficult to see officials. Junior officials threaten local journalists with detention without trial if they ask the minister if he keeps a mistress in a love nest in a housing estate. Foreign journalists rarely go to Putrajaya, where the most important officials are, unless they have to, and those they meet in Kuala Lumpur, including the Singapore High Commission, tell them otherwise. Transport to Putrajaya is not easy and will set you back about RM150. Contrary to official belief, people, even foreigners, are not wealthy. The Malaysian government is becoming aware, the first word in the ear, frequently repeated, that this is bound to get the public ear, and that it is often not Malaysia's. The public perception now is the crooked bridge is wasteful and irrelevant, and rightly for those reasons attacked.

I have been allowed into Singapore on a visit pass specially applied for, from 1971, and banned permanently from 1991. It did not bother me since an Italian journalist wrote in his book, I had done my shopping. I had written in an Indian paper of Israeli-made Singapore tanks and why they were bought. It was true, but local journalists could not write about it as they can never get official confirmation. In defence matters, Singapore is touchy. The speeches I gave to the military staff college here on Singapore led me to be banned from it. A Singapore lecturer was invited to give the lecture instead. I still talk privately to senior military officials on Singapore. Malaysian officials do not want to hurt Singapore even if that makes Malaysia look silly. But is it not time for Malaysia to take decisions that are for Malaysia's good and not other countries?

But there is one difference between Malaysia and Singapore, apart from the majority in one being Malays and the other Chinese. Malays think long term. Singapore, short term. Coupled with good public relations, Singapore will steal a march in the short term over Malaysia. I believe in 2061, when the water agreements expire, Singapore will be part of Malaysia, not as a state but as an adjunct to Johore. Singapore made that possible when it rejected a Malaysian proposal to shore in the profits of the water sold to commercial enterprises. That led to the then prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, coming to Kuala Lumpur in 1987 to sort it out with his Malaysian counterpart. It was at this meeting that Malaysia took the upper hand culturally from Singapore, which has tried to wrest it back by other means. In public, though, the Singaporean is seen as a go-getter, a Malaysian a bumbling fool harping on his past but quite happy to fill his pockets with money from any source.

It is not that the Singaporean is not corrupt. He is, but the government controls that: certain people are authorised to be corrupt, but not others. I know of Singaporeans in high positions who got there because they had views different from the others. In Malaysia, this is not allowed. But given the society Singapore is, he would not do anything unless ordered. The Malaysian will take a different view in public even if he is pushed aside. But his view will eventually gain the public eye if sound and relevant. He would go against the government if he has to. The government is in trouble because of this. In Singapore, the naysayers tend to make known their ways in private or in closed quarters. In Malaysia, publicly. So we have, to the outside world, a disorganised, disoriented, speaking at cross purposes Malaysia and an organised, oriented and united Singapore in what matters today, the short term. But Malaysia will have its day in 2061. To paraphrase a saying: He laughs best who laughs last.

[cossie]

The Delusion of Right Decision, Right Timing, and Right Execution
M Bakri Musa
18 April 2006

The government’s decisions – scrapping the crooked bridge over the causeway and reducing the oil subsidy by 30 sen – are wise. I agree with both. Making the right decision is not enough; it has to be timed right, and then executed effectively.

Abandoning the crooked bridge was right; it would have been better had it been made a year or even a month ago. If the “robust” cabinet discussions that led to the decision to scrap the bridge had taken place last month, or better yet, last year, the government would have been spared paying the contractor RM 100 million for a non-existent bridge.

That RM100 million compensation is the quantifiable loss. The more devastating damage is to the government’s image and credibility. The impression projected is that of a government that goes ahead with major plans without first thinking of the consequences. In short, a bumbling bunch.

The oft-stated line about the government listening to the people is pure bunk. The Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues have not done their homework and due diligence; Singapore humbled them with the realities. Attempts at “spinning” it as otherwise are laughable.

A RM 100 Million Debacle Is No Game

This bumbling bunch image is reinforced with the recent Op-Ed piece in The New Straits Times (April 15, 2006) by Khairy Jamaluddin, widely regarded as the Prime Minister’s closest advisor, as well as being his son-in-law. Khairy likened the whole exercise of the bridge to a game with Singapore. Some game! He conveniently forgot the massive price tag for losing. Another laughable spin!

Khairy also characterized Singapore as the “slippery” adversary. Imagine Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi learning how to win and influence people from this character! It does not give one much confidence.

Even when the right decision is made at the most opportune time, but if the execution is wanting, the whole exercise would be for naught. It would be the same as if you have made the wrong decision. Worse, your incompetence in implementation would now turn people against what hitherto had been a perfectly good idea, had it been executed well.

Take the reduction in oil subsidy. It was not very smart to make that announcement at the same time when you declared giving Malaysia Airlines a RM 4 billion cash infusion (the same amount as the reduction in the subsidy). The message was jarring: you reduce the cooking gas subsidy for poor kampong folks while simultaneously giving billions to a giant corporation. You were in effect subsiding affluent flyers. A perfect example of shoddy execution!

A better strategy would have been to have a plan ready to help the poor, perhaps issuing “gas stamps” redeemable for the purchase of cooking gas. That would have softened the impact of reducing the subsidy. At the same time, educate the public on the fact that the subsidy is benefiting disproportionately those who own Mercedes Benzes more than the poor. With the ending of the subsidy, the government could now divert the funds to help the poor, and follow that assertion with tangible programs.

The government did promise improving public transportation. Unfortunately, it was only a promise, with no concrete plans. It should have the plans ready ahead of time.

The inept handling of the 30 sen reduction in subsidy makes the government’s job more difficult in the future should it need to reduce it further. The government has lost the public’s trust and confidence.

Poor Execution

Another recent decision was the use of English to teach science and mathematics. That too was correct and wise, but the timing was off. Had it been made a decade or two earlier, our national schools would not have deteriorated to its present sorry state, and our local graduates would have been more competitive.

If the timing of the decision was bad, its execution was worse. The decision was made without any thought given on how to implement it. No one bothered to ask ahead of time where the teachers or textbooks would come from.

I too have long advocated the greater use of English. Realizing that the standards of English in our schools have deteriorated badly, I suggested an incremental approach. First, try it only at the residential schools; work out the kinks there, make the necessary adjustments, and then with the experiences and lessons learned, modify the scheme before widespread adoption. As for books, I suggested buying texts already available on the market. I also recommended that some of the teachers’ colleges be converted to all-English medium institutions.

Had these been done ahead of time, the implementation of what essentially is a good decision would have been far more smooth and effective, with the results more to everyone’s expectations. It is far easier to sell a successful idea than a failed one.

When a good decision is not implemented effectively, the people will blame the original idea. Thus a good policy would be abandoned not because it was not a sound one but because it was poorly executed.

Going back to the crooked bridge debacle, Khairy Jamaluddin asserted that his father-in-law had every right to change his mind when the “facts changed”. Khairy is misinformed; the “facts” have not changed, they have remained the same since the idea was first floated a few years ago. The pertinent international laws have not changed, nor has Singapore’s stand.

On the contrary, what has changed is that up until recently (at least until the bid was signed with the contractor), the Prime Minister and his cabinet have not seen fit to educate themselves to the relevant facts.

Stated differently, the only “fact” that has changed is that a week ago the Prime Minister and his cabinet were woefully uninformed of the realities surrounding the project; this week they were made rudely aware of their ignorance. Unfortunately, the nation had to pay the humongous price tag for their mistake.

I keep hoping that our leaders would learn from their mistakes, and that with time and experience their collective learning curve would be less flat. It is a forlorn hope. Meanwhile what is certain is that the price tag for their mistakes keeps leaping up.

The unfortunate fact is that far from acknowledging and thus learning from their mistakes, our leaders would like us to believe that those were actually wise decisions! Sadly, there is no shortage of apologists and cheerleaders on the sidelines to cheer these leaders on. The grand illusion – and delusion – continues.

[cossie]

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop
Raja Petra Kamarudin
1 May 2006

Mahathir's ex-aide criticises the official explanation for scrapping of the project
Carolyn Hong
The Straits Times (Singapore) 26 April 2006

The Malaysian Foreign Ministry has issued a 17-page statement to explain the bridge saga in hopes of closing the issue, but its critics see it as proof that Kuala Lumpur has let Singapore run rings around it.

Mr Matthias Chang, a former aide of Tun Mahathir Mohamad, said yesterday that it was ‘clear evidence’ of Malaysia being outflanked and out-manoeuvred by Singapore. “What is worse, our negotiating team is at pains to justify Singapore's position, and appeal to us, the citizens, to appreciate the sensitivities of Singapore,” he said.

He was lambasting Ambassador-at-large Fuzi Razak, who issued the statement on Monday to explain why the government had to scrap the bridge project. Tan Sri Fuzi, the ministry’s former secretary-general who led Malaysia’s negotiating team, was asked by the Cabinet last week to reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's criticism of the decision.

It is not clear how much support the former prime minister has on this issue as the majority of politicians, including those from the opposition, have supported the government’s decision. In the statement, Tan Sri Fuzi detailed the sequence of events and explained the legal complications in going ahead without getting Singapore’s agreement for the project.

The Foreign Ministry also refuted the contention of former Prime Minister Mahathir that Singapore had agreed to the bridge in 2002. It explained that the agreement was revoked when Malaysia decided to stop negotiating the outstanding issues as a package. Singapore had regarded its agreement to the bridge as a concession in the full package, the Foreign Ministry said. Singapore’s position was confirmed in a diplomatic note sent in November 2004.

Mr Chang, however, did not agree. He was involved in the legal preparations for the negotiations from 2001 until the time Tun Dr Mahathir retired in October 2003. He contended that Singapore had unilaterally revoked its agreement on the pretext that Malaysia had dropped the package approach. He slammed the Malaysian negotiators for allowing Singapore to do so and, further, to negotiate on the issues of sand and airspace when the package approach had been abandoned.

“By linking airspace and a new factor (sand), Singapore has insidiously circumvented the single issue approach, and trapped Malaysia into adopting a limited package approach,” he said. Mr Chang also suggested that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry was holding back pertinent information, saying that the information disclosed was less than 10 per cent of the total negotiations.

Tun Dr Mahathir, who is in Britain on holiday, has not commented on this latest development. But opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said he believes that the majority of people agree that the government did the right thing by calling off the bridge project. He, however, noted that the “Mahathir group cannot be ignored”.

Barisan Nasional backbenchers club president Shahrir Samad said the people always react emotionally to issues involving Malaysia and Singapore. “Some accept the explanation, some don’t, but some don’t want to,” he said.

The Malaysia-Singapore ‘Crooked Bridge’ issue: who is lying?

Somebody is lying. Either it is Dr Mahathir or it is the Malaysian government. And it is the right of Malaysians to demand answers as to who it is that is lying.

Nevertheless, basically, most people share the view that the flip-flop or on-off manner the issue was handled reflects very badly on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration which, you could say, does not know whether it is coming or going. This also demonstrates the insecurity and poor decision-making of the Malaysian government while the Singapore government appears very cool in the way it is handling this matter.

Malaysians at large are no longer ignorant of the facts behind many issues like in the past. The Internet of course can be partly blamed for this, that is if ‘blame’ is the right word to use here. Furthermore, the government-controlled mainstream media has also been very generous in informing the Malaysian public about current developments, unlike in the past where much used to be censored or blacked-out. So Malaysians today are better-informed and have reached a level where they can analyse for themselves various issues.

Even if the mainstream media tries to hide the facts, people can still obtain them from the Internet. So it is very difficult to hide information from the public and the government has no choice but to come clean before the people find out for themselves. Also, Malaysians now look for not what is being told, but what is NOT being told. Therefore they look for the hidden messages in any government announcement. Thus the government has no choice but to reveal all before the people come to their own conclusions on what they perceive as true and false.

The ‘Crooked Bridge’ issue is proof of the power of the media and the government’s silent acknowledgement that the media can no longer be ignored. This is the significance of this issue as well as many others that have surfaced over the last two or three years since Mahathir retired.

We must remember: when Dr Mahathir was having his war of words with Singapore, the mainstream media (both in Malaysia and Singapore) published the exchanges of letters between the Malaysian and Singapore Prime Ministers. These are still available in the public domain and can be easily accessed if you search the Internet using Yahoo or Google. Malaysians still remember this quarrel between Mahathir and Singapore, which happened not too long ago.

In October 2002, Singapore already agreed that the bridge be built. Singapore also agreed that the Causeway be demolished by 2007, which is next year. Therefore the issue is a non-issue and for all intents and purposes has already been settled. Further to that, it was agreed that in the event the water pipes need to be relocated (say when or if the Causeway is demolished) Malaysia only needs to give Singapore six months notice. Singapore has no legal right to protest or oppose the relocation of the water pipes. On top of that, the cost to build the new pipeline will be entirely borne by Singapore.

All this had already been agreed in writing and settled in 2002. The statement by the Malaysian government about the ‘legal implications’, and the Singapore statement about ‘an act of war’, are therefore not valid. Malaysia has every legal right to demolish its half of the causeway, build its half of the bridge, and relocate the water pipes by giving Singapore six months notice. There is nothing Singapore can do about this. That is not the problem.

The real problem here is, after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister and Syed Hamid Albar took over the negotiations with Singapore, Singapore asked Malaysia to consider throwing in the supply of sand to Singapore plus allow the Singapore Air Force more flights over Malaysian airspace as part of the bridge package. During Mahathir’s time it was already agreed that each issue will be treated as a separate issue and will be discussed on its own merits and not as part of a package. Singapore had agreed to this. But Syed Hamid (probably with Abdullah’s blessing) agreed to Singapore’s request for sand and more flyovers to demonstrate that Malaysia is a ‘good neighbour’. In fact, it is not even clear whether the sand issue was Singapore's idea or Malaysia's idea. Did Singapore ask for it or did Malaysia suggest it?

Later, they found out that if Malaysia supplies the sand that Singapore wants, then this would raise legal implications (the ‘legal implications’ Abdullah spoke about but did not reveal what they are).

Firstly, Singapore’s land reclamation is causing serious ecological problems to Malaysia’s marine life and is affecting the livelihood of Johore’s fishermen. Secondly, the reclamation in the Tebrau Straits would make the waters too shallow/narrow and ships would not be able to navigate these waters. They would instead have to sail around Singapore. This would make the Johore port less attractive compared to the Port of Singapore. In terms of economics, Malaysia would eventually lose out to Singapore.

Now, if Malaysia decides to take this case to the international court in an attempt to stop Singapore from reclaiming land facing Malaysia (they are free to do so at the bottom part of Singapore that is not facing Malaysia as that is their right and it does not affect Malaysia) how can Malaysia have a strong case when Malaysia is supplying the sand that Singapore is using in its reclamation programme? And what would happen if it is proven that the sand supplier (or suppliers) is (are) linked to the powers-that-be, or worse, are actually members of the government? How would Malaysia explain this?

This is the ‘legal implication’ Abdullah meant but which he did not explain in detail.

In short, Malaysia blundered. We tried to ‘baik sangat’ with Singapore and later found out the mistake we made. The only way to get out of the agreement to supply sand to Singapore is to cancel the bridge. Since the supply of sand is tied to the bridge agreement, if the bridge is cancelled, then the supply of sand can also be cancelled.

But they cannot say that the issue is solely about the supply of sand. This is too sensitive an issue. What if someone starts spreading stories that the sand supplier is, Heaven forbid, related to Syed Hamid (like his brother)? Or what if someone starts spreading stories that one of the sand suppliers is a member of Abdullah's family by marriage? You know how people like creating stories. Would that not be disastrous? So, instead, they raise the issue of SAF planes flying over our airspace. This will stoke nationalist sentiments, especially in simpleminded Umno Melayus who love waving a keris over their heads and go into a frenzy. But they must hide the fact that US planes have more than 1,000 flyovers a year. People might ask: why US can and Singapore cannot? The Umno Melayus might drop the keris on their own heads in shock and disbelief.

It must be remembered that the supply of sand was never part of the bridge agreement in Mahathir’s time. It was Abdullah who agreed to it later. The bridge could have gone on without agreeing to the sand supply clause. But now that it had been agreed, they cannot get out of it unless the bridge itself is cancelled.

We must also remember, around mid-March 2006, Shahrir Samad and other Parliamentarians asked Works Minister Samy Vellu to guarantee that the bridge would be built without further delay. Samy Vellu assured Parliament that the bridge would go on and that nothing will prevent it from being built. In mid-March all the Parliamentarians wanted the bridge. Then, suddenly, three weeks later, they cancelled the bridge and all the Parliamentarians ‘sokong sebulat suara’.

This alone shows that something is wrong. The Johor Menteri Besar was not happy that the bridge was being cancelled. But he was instructed to make a public statement that he too agrees that the bridge be cancelled -- after he had enthusiastically agreed to it being built just weeks earlier.

It is clear the government does not know what it is doing. One day it makes one decision and the next it reverses this decision. Many are beginning to wonder whether the present government knows how to run this country. People no longer accept what the government says and all its explanations are taken as lame excuses. The bottom line is: the government silap and is now trying to cover its mistakes. Well, we are not allowing this to get buried that easily. We want to know who the sand suppliers are. Can we have their names please?

Actually, the bridge is not the issue. Ada pun takpe, takde pun takpe. It does not matter either way. It is the way the on-off decisions are made which is worrying. And what we read in the media seems to give this impression: that the government reverses its decision not long after making them. The government certainly runs this country in a most flip-flop fashion.

Sheesh....can Abdullah even decide what he wants for breakfast?

[cossie]

Shahrir's resignation story of the week
Zainon Ahmad
5 May 2006

There is no doubt that the announcement by Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad (BN-Johor Baru) that he was resigning as Dewan Rakyat Backbenchers Club chairman merits being tagged parliament news of the week.

Even though he had many times upbraided the media for focusing on novelties in the behaviour of MPs, their antics, scurrility and raillery rather than what intelligent things they say about poverty and development in the Dewan, what happened yesterday morning certainly is big news, especially to those interested in seeing parliament regain its integrity.

Known for his principles and persistence in getting MPs to work together to demand for parliament to become an independent institution again, the former cabinet minister had often stressed to fellow backbenchers the need to rise above party politics whenever they are in the Dewan.

"If a motion merits support because it is for the good of the people and the country, regardless who made it, we as MPs - as representatives of the rakyat - are duty-bound to support it," he used to tell his colleagues.

Thus he was miffed and disappointed when a proposal by Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang to refer a report in yesterday's New Straits Times, about a possible criminal misdemeanour by an MP, to the Dewan's committee of rights and privileges ? a motion he supported and pleaded with others to support - was rejected.

Others had said there was no need for the report to be investigated by parliament but Shahrir disagreed, saying the integrity of MPs and parliament was at stake and it was up to them to clear their name and the good name of the Dewan Rakyat.

Shahrir was also sad that his BBC colleagues did not back him when his call last year for the reinstatement of the Parliamentary Services Act, which would make parliament independent again, was supported by the DAP and PAS.

Would he reconsider his decision?

"Only if they are willing to abide by the noble practices of other parliaments and principles of parliamentary democracy which we must uphold in order to reform our national legislature," he said.

It is unlikely to happen, said MPs close to Shahrir as others, preferring the old ways, are gravitating towards another centre of power. Thus it is understandable that Kit Siang should exclaim that "it is a sad day for parliament" when told of the announcement. But the wily opposition leader's proposal did net something.

The second big story to come out of parliament this week is the telling-off former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad got from Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz on Wednesday over the crooked bridge issue.

Mahathir, who mooted the project about a decade ago, had been relentless in his criticism of the government for deciding to suddenly cancel the project a fortnight ago after more than two years of negotiation with Singapore.

To some MPs, the former premier certainly had it coming after making all kinds of unflattering remarks about the administration ? including the epithet "half-past six government" ? while arguing that the bridge project should not have been scrapped.

They said as Mahathir continued to blast the government and its officials, the awe in which he was held began to wear off, and it was only a matter of time before someone from the administration blasted back. It so happened that it was Nazri.

The MPs recalled that former longtime British Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher also gave hell to her successor John Major until someone told her to shut up.

Again it was Kit Siang's suggestion for a select committee to look into what Mahathir had been saying, about the government decision on the bridge in his letters to MPs that caused a debate and a demand for the government to come out with a firm statement, that caused Nazri to respond.

But not before Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (BN-Jasin) delivered a fiery denunciation of Kit Siang, calling for him to be given the title of "hypocrite of the year" when everyone knew he was a strong critic of Mahathir but preferring to defend him in the matter at hand. "Forever fishing in troubled waters," said Mohd Said.

Nazri hit back at his former boss during a debate on parliamentary expenditure in the Supplementary Supply (2005) Bill 2006 during which Shahrir once again made his pitch for a parliament with integrity and independence.

And the third major story to come out of parliament - which Shahrir said the media "played up" as news - was the group of MPs entering the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday wearing bow ties with the sole purpose of wanting Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib to rule whether it was part of the acceptable parliamentary wear.

They were, of course, parodying the speaker's permission to Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Dr Rais Yatim to wear an unscheduled Nehru-collar coat in the House three weeks ago.

The caper fell flat on their faces as Ramil had no objection as bow ties had entered the Dewan Rakyat even as early as the days when Tunku Abdul Rahman Putera and Tun Abdul Razak Hussein were prime ministers. Former deputy prime minister Tun Dr Ismail Rahman, former finance minister Tun Tan Siew Sin and former Agriculture Minister Datuk Sharif Ahmad were among the wearers. And a recent famous Mr Bowtie was former information minister Datuk Seri Kadir Sheikh Fadzir.

Kit Siang was often infuriated with the capacity of certain MPs to waste time when there was so much to do. And during the bow-tie imbroglio, he told the MPs to "please get serious".

In fact, on several occasions, he told MPs who were welcoming visitors in the gallery in the middle of their debate to stop wasting time. "There is more serious business to attend to and we have limited time to do it," he would say.