That there are newspapers and Internet sites which buck the trend of unalloyed and gratuitous support of the establishment and damning its detractors is neither here nor there. Abdullah Ahmad, in his jottings in the New Straits Times, says Asiaweek's three top positions are held by non-Asians. It must be since it is now in the Time magazine stable.

Dato' Seri Abdullah's visit is a subtle political manouevre to push him as the natural successor to the Prime Minister, the endgame of whose rule has begun. He is seen playing golf, the reporting suggesting, as the New Straits Times did, "Abdullah's visit has helped to provide that starting point for better understanding and re-establishing close co-operation that is mutually beneficial." Starting point? Really? Do we start to get to mend ties with Singapore with each change of leader? He is not a stranger to Singapore. He can pick up the phone to sort out routine problems. So, why did he take a big delegation last week, which showed Malaysia in a bad light. Singapore does not restart mending ties with each new prime minister. Malaysia, with its instant ill-thought-out fixes, will always be the loser.

The New Straits Times gushingly tells us he is the first to attain federal political office since 1952. The Seenivasagam brothers, SP and DR, were giants in Ipoh and the PPP represented their ideals and hopes, went out to root for the underdog and, especially DR, fiery parliamentarians; SP, on the other hand, was more calculating and less prone to histrionics as his brother was. DR's death robbed the PPP of its vitality, and in the aftermath of May 13, SP brought the party into the National Front but refused to hold office when Tun Abdul Razak offered it to him.

The New Straits Times, on the morning of Christmas, was without its "Life & Times" and "Computimes" sections. A note on its front page the following day blamed "technical problems" for it. The previous day's Computimes was delivered with it, but not the "Life & Times". But it was not "technical problems"; a senior editor abruptly censored an article on angels, to mark Christmas, with a photograph of a Russian icon depicting angels. This meant the pre-printed section was jettisoned. But higher-ups in the company had cleared the article earlier. The editor, it seems, did not want to fall of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The story itself is the usual Christmassy story one expects in newspapers, did not offend.

The new Attorney-General, Datin Ainum Mohd Saaid, should not have thanked the government and the Prime Minister for her appointment. She is appointed, one hopes, for her competence. By thanking both, she tells the world the she is beholden to them for her appointment. She does not have to parrot to the world she would, as the New Straits Times says, "do her best to discharge her duties in the interest of justice and fairness". Tan Sri Mohtar, when he took office, said so too. And he is asked to leave without by your leave. Her competence and her independence is not in doubt. She resigned from the Securities Commission than soften a tough report she did which angered the chairman. She was in limbo, as director of a public listed company, for five years before he appointment.

The New Straits Times, in an editorial yesterday (3 Nov 00, p14), decides press freedom is when foreign publications are allowed to be printed in Malaysia without censorship. The government, in its magnamity, allows it, and in return it must be paraded as the paragon. This freedom does not allow anyone, local or foreign, to write critically, only to praise those the government wants praised and condemns those who should be. Foreign newspapers printed in Malaysia should forever Praise The Lord for this licence to make money. And since we have press freedom, economic freedom follows. And vice versa. So any who challenges this does not begin to understand press freedom. As the Asian Wall Street Journal does not. Like most NST editorials, it spouts a contested view confusingly, unsure if it is fish or fowl, losing its ground as its gets deeper into its argument. Interestingly, it did not accept that journalists and newspapers should publish divergent views and news, and their role in encouraging public debate on issues of the day.

Instead it attacks Dato' Seri Anwar in its media outlets, often on false premises, lashing out to no purpose, thinking this would offset the accusations levelled against it, not just by Dato' Seri Anwar. So, Dato' Abdul Kadir Jasin, who after his removal as editor-in-chief of the New Straits Times group buys over Bernama, the Malaysian news agency, and other choice media assets, comes in to the attack in a forum widely disbelieved. Instead of a principled reasoned argument -- and one can be made if he thought hard enough -- he resorts to character assassination, which is how the Malaysian government dismisses the Anwar enigma. He takes the unusual journalistic view that a man whom government wants destroyed, and all his backers, must stay destroyed, with no right to challenge his destruction.

But the Prime Minister's crocodile tears, which the New Straits Times editorial today (19 October 00, p14) reflects, must remain that. "The Prime Minister is rightfully concerned with the state of affairs because it is detrimental to the smooth functioning of parliamentary democracy if MPs are frequently absent from parliamentary sittings and what is more disturbing is that the people's respect for their elected representatives could erode over time if the absenteeism persists and is not checked." Phew! But where was the New Straits Times when the National Front did just what it says MPs should not: deliberately preventing the functions of parliament. Couching the problem in cliches does not address the problem of National Front credibility. It is not disrespect for parliamentary democracy the Prime Minister rails against. The editorial suggests House sittings be televised. Would that help the National Front? Or the Opposition, whose MPs argue with purpose, often to taunts from the government backbenchers whose role more often than not just that. Another irrelevant quick-fix to an intractible problem.

Within UMNO itself, after Tun Abdul Razak's unexpected death in January 1976, there was no clear cut successor. Tun Razak had, as Tan Sri Abdullah, points out in his New Straits Times column "On The Record" (NST, 26 September 00, p12), identified a brood of politicians who could take over from him. Amongst them were Dr Mahathir, Tengku Razaleigh, Dato' Musa Hitam, Tun Ghafar Baba. Indeed, if Tengku Razaleigh had joined the cabinet, instead of continuing to head Petronas and Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad, after the 1974 general elections, he would have been deputy prime minister under Tun Hussein. But he miscalculated. He was not an outsider. The outsider was Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie, the then home minister. When Tun Hussein wanted him as deputy prime minister, the three UMNO vice presidents -- Ghafar Baba, Tengku Razaleigh, Dr Mahathir -- in a demarche said none would serve if one of them was not appointed deputy prime minister. Only the three said they would not serve, not as Tan Sri Abdullah insists the UMNO Supreme Council. Ghafar was not considered, Tengku Razaleigh was not in the cabinet, leaving only Dr Mahathir, who was. This was done in anti-Hussein surroundings, in the fallout from the Selangor mentri besar, Dato' Harun Idris's arrest for corruption, with his backers accusing close aides of Tun Razak as being pro-communist. This led to Tan Sri Abdullah's detention under the Internal Security Act for five years. But that is another story.
Tan Sri Abdullah is right when he suggests Tan Sri Lee and the MCA president preferred Tengku Razaleigh to Dato Seri Mahathir Mohamed as UMNO deputy president and therefore deputy prime minister after Dato (later Tun) Hussein Onn became Prime Minister in 1976 after Tun Abdul Razak Hussein died in London. He was close to Tengku Razaleigh, and he paid the price by being forced to resign. There was no question that UMNO stabbed him in the back. He miscalculated in his support for who should be UMNO president and paid dearly. He had to go. The MCA leaders themselves decided it could not have as president one who backed the Prime Minister's rival. That they did underlines not that the MCA has Chinese support but when the crunch comes, they had no choice but to kill their leader for putting lucrative contracts at risk. The non-Malay parties in the National Front survive, especially after the 1969 riots, by destroying their own standing with their communities if their leader's links with the UMNO president suffers. The MCA leaders' ability to shoot themselves in the foot when everything works in their favour is uncanny. It also makes Tan Sri Lee's claim the MCA had Chinese support even more questionable. When Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister in 1981, Tan Sri Lee's political career had come to an end, especially when Tengku Razaleigh prepared to challenge Dr Mahathir for the UMNO presidency after Dato' (now Tan Sri) Musa Hitam was appointed deputy prime minister. The MCA realised that with Tan Sri Lee as their leader, it would suffer at the hands of a vindictive Prime Minister. So, he had to go. That paradoxically proved how misguided Tan Sri Lee was at his victory in Seremban in the 1982 general elections.

The satellite TV operator, Astro, in the runup to its coverage the Sydney Olympic Games, ran advertising spots promoting not Maxis mobile phones, but its rival, Celcom. This is akin to the New Straits Times praising the Star for its unrivalled coverage, far better than the NST's. Astro and Maxis are in the business empire of Mr T. Ananda Krishnan, and Celcom Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli's. I did not see Maxis mentioned in the advertisements I saw, nor any explanation for this remarkable touting of a rival. But there is more than meets the eye. Even if enquiries hit a blank. More than rationalisation must come in the mobile phone market. Too many companies fight to dominate a saturated market as costs go through the roof and consumer pressures force the cost of owning a mobile phone down. Since Maxis and Celcom are on a GSM band, it is an ideal fit. But they had until recently fought tooth and nail to edge the other out, bleeding both. If both had buried the hatchet and co-operate, the newspapers would have reported it soon enough. The Malaysian national air carrier, MAS, in Tan Sri Tajuddin's stable, is in worse shape than admitted. The higher fuel prices, which it had not hedged against, bleed it. Tan Sri Tajuddin must also be rescued.

I would have thought, a simple exchange of Third World newspapers represented overseas send their articles to a common editorial pool, besides the news agency or newspaper he writes for, and from there despatch it to member countries. But this is too simple and does not allow delegates large expense accounts to decide about it in Tahiti. Since those Third World journalists sent overseas often take it upon themselves to go on an extended holiday with pay, even that would be self-defeating. Bernama and several Malaysian newspapers have staff correspondents in regional capitals, Hong Kong, United Kingdom and the United States. But open any Malaysian newspaper, and you cannot find the Malayan report of an event in distant fields. The New Straits Times had had an office and reporter in London for decades, but don't expect any reports from its bureau of events in the United Kingdom. The Star has one in London, New York, Hong Kong, but they do not file, except a wrapup of news culled from the local newspapers. When I once took a British cabinet minister to lunch, on a visit there nearly two decades ago, I invited the Malaysian reporters there to come along, all there for more than three years. None had met him, and they were upset with me when I told them everything heard at the table was off the record. Yet, when these journalists work for Western news organisations, their output and their professionalism rises beyond their wildest dreams.

Tun Eusoff Chin brought the judiciary into bad odour with his narrow interpretation of his office, insisting on appointing as judges those beholden to him -- one indeed was master to Dato' V.K. Lingam during the great man's articleship before his admission to the Malaysian Bar -- and then given high profile cases. The two Anwar trials were presided over by two just-appointed high court judges. The other more traditional judges, unreliable in the chief justice's view since they could give judgements he does not like, were sidelined. In the famous anonymous letter a judge wrote about the judiciary, the chief justice reportedly remarked one judge was shifted out so that he could get a heart attack! Tan Sri Mohtar proved his mettle of total subservience to the Prime Minister by his enthusiasm and call beyond duty to ensure that Dato' Seri Anwar was convicted, even making a mockery, even by Malaysian standards we have come to expect, of the prosecutorial process to ensure that. But he was not, as the Prime Minister told a just dismissed editor-in-chief of the New Straits Times more than a decade ago, 200 per cent loyal. One can at least understand why Tun Eusoff refused to recuse when Dato' Seri Anwar wanted him to: a public humiliation in court was more desirable than what the Prime Minister could have in store for him. Any other judge would have recused.

The New Straits Times' "surat layang" on pundits and public intellectuals, as usual, misses the point. Public intellectuals, he infers, should only back the government; otherwise, they are in league with foreign elements out to destroy Malaysia. The anonymous Special Correspondent misunderstands, as he often does on most things, the role of the public intellectual and, indeed, that of the media. He finds it offensive that foreign news organisations, with their worm's eye view of world events, should talk to these public intellectuals and pundits while ignoring those who back the government. He is right on one and wrong on the other. These organisations, with their limited time and the need to fight for space, contacts the persons readily available. These public intellectuals and pundits often are, the pro-government pundits now would rather not be quoted. The latter has disappeared from the public view.

The New Straits Times today has a potted history of the English College (or Maktab Sultan Abu Bakar) which does not do justice either to its history or its role in the growth of education in Johore, and Malaysia. It began, as the piece notes, in 1914. At that time, only government servants could send their children to government schools, and the intake until the mid-1920s were Malays. The reorganisation in 1928 after Mr H.R. Cheesman was appointed inspector of schools opened its doors for the first time to children of those not in government service. This accounts for why many prominent Collegians -- Tun Hussein Onn, Tan Sri Philip Kuok, his brother, Robert -- began their early education at the Johore Bahru Convent. The English College was part of the Macaulayian desire for schools to train clerks to be subordinates to the British administration. It was in that connexion that these changes surfaced.

Universiti Putra Malaysia looks over its shoulders for saboteurs, the deputy education minister threatens to expel 4,000 demonstrating undergraduates, over unmentioned fears of the dreaded "Reformasi" invading the campus. This, we are led to believe, is why 53 undergraduates were poisoned after "consuming a drink at their hostel" or "after having breakfast", depending on whether you believe column 5 or 6 of page two of the New Straits Times of 24 May 1999. The university and the canteen caterer is convinced it is sabotage; the student council disagrees; "unproven and hypothetical", it says. Fourthousand undergraduates staged a peaceful demonstration at the UPM campus in Serdang. The deputy education minister, Dato' Khalid Yunus, who has nightmarish dreams of Reformasi unseating him, said the students should have used "proper channels". He believes fresh undergraduates, who do not yet know their way around, should not be upset when 53 of them are felled by food poisoning, should not show their displeasure at the shoddy goods they are fed with? Or is the deputy minister saying that the undergraduates have no grounds to show their displeasure in public? Besides, does he seriously think the government would survive if he begins to expel undergraduates because they fear food poisoning?

The New Straits Times, in a front page banner headline today, screams: BANK OF ISRAEL DOESN'T ACCEPT DEPOSITS FROM INDIVIDUALS; a strapline above it reads: Embassy official dismisses claims that our ministers have accounts with it. Two NST reporters commendably telephoned the Israeli Embassy in Singapore to check on alleged bank deposits maintained with the BoI; the first secretary of economic affairs, Mr Oren Tamari, very correctly pointed out that as a central bank, it does not accept deposits from individuals. "The Bank of Israel is like Bank Negara in Malaysia, which supervises and regulated financial institutions," he said. "So, it is impossible for any one to keep accounts there. There is no way the bank will accept such deposits." Yes, the Bank of Israel had representative offices in several cities of the world, with one in Hong Kong, not Singapore.

The Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange Composite Index more than doubles in three months since foreign exchange controls were imposed. The minister for special functions, Tun Daim Zainuddin, who should know better, is ecstatic. "How can you even suggest that we are really badly hit?" he tells the New Straits Times. But this is where he, the two finance ministers, and other ordained authorities on the economy, are wrong. Their "fundamentals" begin and end with stock market performance; everything else, unless it is favourable, is ignored. Malaysia still manages her economy as a spiv goes about his business: focus on the wealth that is to come while relieving those around of the money they have, a rather more sophisticated form of make-believe than exchanging RM64,000 for a worthless piece of stone that is promised to turn into a RM64 million diamond overnight. Tun Daim and his ilk are past masters of this.

That this has become the current method of administration here is clear enough. Take just today's New Straits Times. The science, technology and environment minister, Dato' Law Hieng Ding, views the peat fires near the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) from a helicopter and declared that the peat fires should subside soon. We are supposed to take comfort from that statement, when he and his cohorts not so long ago assured us that these reports of peat fires were not true. The deputy agriculture miniser, Tengku Mahmud Tengku Mansur, insists Bolehland has found a new way to grow padi in drought conditions. He assures us the drought "will not affect rice output".

The Sabah state government ignores the drought, food shortages, the haze, the open fires as reports from the state suggest a gravity that can redound on it. The little news from Kota Kinabalu suggest the chief minister, Dato' Seri Yong Teck Lee, is oblivious to it all. Even the deputy chief minister (and possibly chief-minister soon), Dato' Joseph Kurup, state assemblymen and assistant ministers help in their personal capacity than as part of the state apparatus. Why? The starvation and drought is serious enough for the New Straits Times, on Saturday, to report it in stark detail. In some places, the drought enhances the starvation, with the lackadaisicalness of government agencies beggaring belief. Scant help comes from voluntary bodies, the federal Yayasan Salam, KFC, the fried chicken people, with state help, except for its staff, nonexistent, say those most affected. Yet, Dato' Seri Yong rejects federal help, as federal welfare services minister, Datin Zaleha Ismail, pointed out. Why?

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)