But the more one looks at the Bali bombings, the more the official explanations looks skewed and plainly wrong. Far from Al Qaida and JI being the culprits, subsequent events point to other more sinister groups. There is the nationalist Indonesian with a bone to pick with Australia for its role in forcing East Timor out of Indonesia. There is the Tentera Nasional Indonesia (the armed forces) still smarting from the secondary role they are forced into after President Suharto was forced out of office in 1997. What about those groups which lost power when President Megawati Sukarnoputi took office, and who want to isolate her? It could be comeuppance, as John Pilger says in a commentary, for the close co-operation Australia has with Indonesia in security matters that enables Jakarta to rein down hard on Muslim groups, and this is a retaliation for that. And let us not forget, that it could be a deliberate attempt by the United States to force both Indonesia and Australia firmly on its side in this war on terror that loses steam by the day.

Laws, in practice, are to keep the citizenry under control, not those in power. Those who do not mesh with the the rulers are given short shrift, even where the "rule of law" is supreme. The needs of justice is balanced with the needs of power, suitably amended as needs must. Justice in conflict with power must, in the end, give way. It is worse when the cultures these societies represent is in conflict. It is as true in the United States as in Malaysia, in Singapore as in Zimbabwe, in Jakarta as in Ougadougou. The rule of law stands for nought in the United States now, where those it accuses of terror in foreign countries are huddled like cattle into transport planes and flown to Guantanamo Bay, denied of basic facilities and rights.

But is it that simple? Two conflicting pressures surface. If Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's claim he is here illegally is accepted, then he must, under the amended Immigration Act, have Mr Bilal charged as an illegal immigrant, and the IIU rector charged for harbouring him. It is an open-and-shut case. An automatic caning must, under the law, be prescribed for both, along with a jail sentence. But he cannot. Then Indonesia's claim that Malaysia is selective about how she treats illegal immigrants rings true, and can only worsen bilateral ties between Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. If he believes what he said, and follow the letter of the law, then you can forget about getting Muslim scholars from around the world to teach at IIU. But can he not? Giving the rector six of the best across his rectum, as a headmaster would a recalcitrant schoolboy, is surely not a good advertisement for foreign scholars to teach in our lands.

Malaysia is, always has been, a good neighbour. She does not interfere in our neighbour's affairs, nor does our mature leaders comment negatively on another's internal affairs. She helps her neighbours by offering tens of thousands of Indonesians over the years. Her leaders would not make scathing comments of a neighbour as the speaker of the Indonesian National Assembly, Mr Amien Rais, did. The Indonesians are terrible people, we give them jobs and they burn our flag. They should be grateful for the honour, as Malaysians must to the National Front (BN) for what it wrought to Malaysia, and any who questions, be it a Malaysian, an Indonesia, a Thai, a Filipino, must be severely dealt with. Mark you, no one should question Malaysia's right to pass any law it deems fit. Foreigners should stay out. This is the gist of a comment in the New Straits Times today (29 August 2002, p12) on the burning of the Malaysian flag in Jakarta. But how should the United States view Malaysia when UMNO Youth, an adjunct of the main party in the governing BN coalition, burns the US flag in front of its embassy in Kuala Lumpur for an act that has nothing to do with bilateral ties -- Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

Malaysian-Indonesian relations is now at a nadir, at its worst since Confrontation in 1963, and could possibly get worse. The Prime Minister could not, in his recent visit to Jakarta, and despite reports in the local media of how successful it was, explain Malaysia's harsh policy on illegal workers. For immediately after the expulsions began, Malaysia announced a new plan to bring foreign workers in on payment of a special processing fee of RM1,000 for each. With an estimated 1,000,000 workers short in the construction and plantation industries, it would bring to the cash-strapped government RM1,000 million, plus ancilliary services costing three to four times that. The government has not explained why it did not legalise the illegal workers. The courts are busy jailing and caning those that remain. The pressure on airlines makes it impossible for them to return within the deadline, but the courts do not take that into account.

Malaysia's honour is besmirched. An Indonesian pressure group -- or as the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, described it, "a small group of radical Indonesian nationalists" -- burned the Malaysian flag, the Jalur Gemilang, in Jakarta in continuing protests over Malaysia's caning of illegal workers, many Indonesian. He is sanguine about it. Malaysia would not seek an explanation. "We cannot respond to the action since it is not reflective of the Indonesian Government's stand," he says. But his response reflects not confidence but impotence. During Indonesia's confrontation of Malaysia 40 years ago, Mr (later Tan Sri) Melan Abdullah, then editor-in-chief of Utusan Malaysia, led a band of UMNO ultras to the residence of the Indonesian ambassador in Kuala Lumpur and burnt the Indonesian flag. Indonesia took umbrage, the name calling became worse, reacted by airdropping Indonesian commandos in Labis, Johore. Tan Sri Melan, of Javanese descent, would not go to Indonesia until decades later though he was the editor-in-chief of the UMNO-owned Utusan Malaysia and had risen to the inner circle of both UMNO and the then Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

In one day last week, the newspapers reported three instances of nepotic behaviour of heads of government that must send shivers down the spine of the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, and his three sons. South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's son surrendered himself on the normal crimes and misdeameanours leaders' children are active in: influence peddling, wealth and businesses acquired by their closeness to the Leader, official favours they could otherwise not get. In Jakarta, Tommy Suharto is on trial for his unfair and extra-legal actions as the former president's son. In Singapore, the former Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children and in-law in prominent positions, which though justifiable on merit, nevertheless tarnishes the gloss on the island republic's vaunted meritocracy.

In any case, Malaysia is disbelieved. Malaysia is caught in its Afghan policy. The then education minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, hijacked the official Malaysian policy of neutrality in the Afghan war, by persuading the Cabinet to ignore the official stance of Wisma Putra and forcing the recognition of one faction, that of Gulbudeen Hikmateyar. He came here on an official visit a few years before the Taleban routed his forces from Kabul. He was so well guarded by the then education minister and the Saudi Arabian ambassador that one Middle-Eastern ambassador refused to meet him in their presence, and had to ask his colleague in Jakarta to obtain the information from Gulbudeen his government wanted. Malaysia then switched loyalties to the Masood faction shortly after, with the Gulbudeen ambassador replaced by the Masood envoy. But we still do not have an Afghan policy.

The New Straits Times foreign editor is livid at the misreporting he alleges from Jakarta in the runup to President Megawati Sukarnoputri taking office. The Western foreign correspondents and reporters did their reporting from bars in five-star hostleries, and dramatised the confusion in Jakarta. He writes in his "Diplomatic Crossroads" column in the New Straits Times (30 July 01, p10) that his contacts in Jakarta told him of the exaggerated reporting. His best source is the NST reporter on the spot who curiously did not write of this in his reports. This is a serious accusation which he cannot back up. Yet, he, as foreign editor, encouraged his paper to carry the "untrue" reports of these whisky-swilling reporters who presumably manufacture the stories from the bars in Jakarta and elsehwere. If they were inaccurate, why did he insist of giving them the prominence the paper gave it?

The more frightening is its impact on UMNO. Rumours abound on what could happen at the UMNO General Assembly this year (EDITOR: COULDST CHECK THE DATES AND AMEND ACCORDINGLY). There is talk amongst divisions of a vote of confidence: against whom varies from Dr Mahathir, Daim to the UMNO Supreme Council. So, when Dr Mahathir treated the Daim resignation as a huge joke on his return from Jakarta, he misjudged the Malay mood yet again.

The Prime Minister today confirmed, if the past is any guide, Tun Daim Zainuddin would resign as finance minister. He told reporters, when he arrived from Jakarta from the G-15 Summit, he did not know. But how he said it suggests he was not telling the truth. If he had intended to spring a surprise, he lost. If he thought he was clever in what he said, it backfired. When he was asked if Tun Daim's resignation, he replied, according to the New Straits Times, "I don't know. Did he say it?" The Utusan Malaysia had reported on rumours of it yesterday (01 June 01). It is a fair bet that Tun Daim would resign soon. Not just his two cabinet posts, but as UMNO treasurer as well.

Malaysia looks to India for servicing its MiG and other fighter aircraft, and for future purchases of defence equipment. It wants to do that with counter-trade in palm oil, as Jakarta. The price of palm oil is a sensitive issue here. It could bring down the government, especially now when it is caught in the political maelstrom the jailed former deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim had let loose. It is for this reason, as a political analyst from the University of Malaya, that "much could not have been expected bilaterally of the visit".

Malaysia looks to India for servicing its MiG and other fighter aircraft, and for future purchases of defence equipment. It wants to do that with counter-trade in palm oil, as Jakarta. The price of palm oil is a sensitive issue here. It could bring down the government, especially now when it is caught in the political maelstrom the jailed former deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim had let loose. It is for this reason, as a political analyst from the University of Malaya, that "much could not have been expected bilaterally of the visit".

The Prime Minister, helpless as Malaysia in this Abu Sayyaf kidnap fiasco, watch in frustration and anger as the Philippines orders its military to root out the rebels at whatever cost. He thunders Malaysia would not accept if the three kidnapped Malaysians with the rebels are harmed. Kuala Lumpur expects this threat would reduce President Joseph Estrada, in the Malaysian view suspect as a personal friend of He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost, to slithering jelly. But the ground rules have changed. When there were foreigners in rebel hands, Manila and Kuala Lumpur were careful not to upset the applecart. When Malaysia and the European nations paid ransom to get the hostages released, the groundrules changed. Manila did not want them paid, but the European Community, facing political pressure at home, decided to. The Malaysians sent in the deputy education minister, Dato' Aziz Shamsuddin, and the former Sabah chief minister, Tan Sri Yong Teck Lee, with sundry ministers and deputy ministers to make their own deals, much to Manila's consternation. This bull-in-a-china shop approach to bilateral ties with Manila and the release of the 20 hostages kidnapped from an island claimed by Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta queered the pitch. Manila cocks a snook at Kuala Lumpur -- and justifiably.

The Malaysian cabinet, we are told, orders the armed forces to patrol the seas off the coast of Sabah, deploy troops in all resort islands, and have the Abu Sayyaf rebels shiver in their pants should it kidnap Malaysians ever again. Why did the defence minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, take a national security operational matter to the cabinet? Should not the armed forces be deployed not because the cabinet wants it to, but to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country? Does it require cabinet approval to do that? Why was not the cabinet -- if indeed it is this price-fixing body which should approve armed forces' movements -- then depoloyed in April when the larger crisis broke out? And would the cabinet tell us whether Sipadan Island, which with neighbouring Litigan, has resorts operated by the Prime Ministerial son? And if they are Malaysia's, why did Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta refer their contending claims to ownership of these two islands to the International Court of Justice at the Hague?

The UN as a global force for peace is shattered. Its right to override a nation's sovereignty to right human rights abuses aggressively marketed from a western viewpoint would bring a backlash with more and more countries challenging it. India refused to send troops unless Jakarta had asked for it. So did Malaysia. Unlike in Kosovo, the UN became the "them" to Indonesia's "us". It finds itself embroiled in Kosovo, where it cannot disarm those it came to help. Its motives become suspect, as in East Timor, when its Western defence needs cannot be assured by a civilian government as President Suharto could. Indonesia took over East Timor in 1974 at the instigation of Washington wanting a secure stop in the nuclear arms supply chain between Guam and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The prospect of civilian rule following the departure of President Suharto made this important link subject to political vicissitudes. An independent East Timor would obviate that. And put Indonesia on notice should it get closer to the current beta noire of Washington, China. This is not to disregard the human rights violations in East Timor. But the human rights violations was fanned to provide it easier for the larger Western agenda to succeed.

The public is so afraid of the police that panic sets in when they want a word with you. Frequent police warnings of fake policemen around causes additional fear even in the cities, but especially when driving a lonely road and come face to face with an unexpected police block, usually so placed that should the driver, in fright, speed, they could be shot and blamed for fleeing in fright. The political events of the past year, and the police's hostility towards any action of He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost and his followers, coupled with the government's police mentality in handling the dissent, ensures the continued distrust of the police in the Malaysian mind. Crimes and murders are unsolved. Report a theft or an accident, and hear what the policemen tell you. I have. The reports are taken down by the policemen who has no intention of proceeding with it. Often they are made only for insurance purposes. The police professionalism, which like the judiciary once was second to none in the region, is a euphemism to mask an unprofessional force with a tendency to be hostile to any who disagree with the government on policy or politics. Why is the need, for instance, to lack the water cannons with ammonia and pepper and coloured with a corrosive indelible die (so corrosive that cars and motorcycles sprayed with it in the melee that the paint peel off) when spraying them on demonstrators? Why could they not use plain water like the Jakarta authorities?

So, the man who would be deputy prime minister would be promoted before long. This would rule out Datin Rafidah Aziz, the international trade and industry minister; she had been talked as a possible to wean back the women upset and unhappy at this demonisation of Dato' Seri Anwar. She cannot as prime minister make some Islamic appointments as the office would require. This was also why Datin Napsiah Omar never did, as was widely expected, become mentri besar of Negri Sembilan: as a woman, she could not, for instance, appoint muftis under Islamic laws. Similar problems would face a woman prime minister in a country where women judges cannot impose the death penalty. Tun Ghafar Baba, if he ever was considered, effectively ruled himself out with his undiplomatic statements in Jakarta. Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak is another likely also-ran; too many black marks against him just yet to have much hope for him. The foreign minister, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, has the best chance to succeed, if the normal methods are applied.

Pak Lah (1364)   United States (636)   Straits Times (412)   Samy Vellu (224)   Putra Jaya (200)   Chief Justice (200)   Saddam Hussein (188)   Vincent Tan (164)   Civil Service (154)   Parti KeADILan (148)   Islamic State (118)   Johore Bahru (100)   Sungei Buloh (94)   Bukit Tinggi (88)   Abdul Razak (80)   Pengkalen Pasir (68)   Ting Pek (64)   Armed Forces (59)   Soviet Union (58)

Malay Dominance (58)   Yong Teck (56)   Hong Kong (56)   Human Rights (56)   Syed Hamid (54)   Puteri UMNO (52)   Islam Hadhari (52)   Royal Commission (51)   Hussein Onn (51)   Rafidah Aziz (48)   Indian Congress (48)   Open House (44)   Vision Schools (44)   Shah Alam (44)   Malay Unity (42)   Chua Jui (42)   Abdul Taib (42)   Ampang Jaya (36)   Ras Adiba (36)

Osama Bin Laden (36)   Nik Aziz Nik (20)   Ling Liong Sik (18)   Lee Kuan Yew (18)

High Court Judge (14)   Wan Azizah Wan (9)   Lim Kit Siang (9)   Megat Junid Megat (8)

Mahathir (2960)

Anwar (2399)