Don't misunderstand. Elections are not everything but they are still important. We should therefore take elections seriously and defend the right to contest. However, the UMNO election appears to be a non-starter if we apply the democracy test. The same twisted logic of pretending to be a democracy by adopting "people-friendly" gestures and rhetoric appears to underscore the attitude of UMNO leaders. Nominations for the various posts are being conducted.

Yet a directive, which is officially termed "a recommendation," has also been issued by UMNO's Supreme Council that there be no contests for the top two posts. Having no contests for the top posts will, according to their logic, avoid infighting – as apparently occurred at the Tedong Pekan branch meeting in late February, when chairs were thrown, a car was splashed with acid, people were elbowing one another and someone even choked. There's also fear that the contests could develop into wars - no-holds barred, winner takes all – and another split in the party.

But what if we encourage the winner not to take all? Not to go on a witch-hunt and search-and-destroy all who voted against him? Not to remove them from positions, or to deny contracts, or recall loans? Might not the loser accept defeat gracefully? There would be no need to go to the courts on the grounds of phantom voters, illegal branch meetings, vote buying, etc. (Incidentally, such "internal" party matters can no longer be taken to the Courts according to the amended party constitution). Put another way, if criticisms were valued, differences of opinion accepted as natural, and elections considered healthy occasions for important issues to come to the fore and deadwood to be removed, etc, one begins to appreciate the value of contest, and of having an Opposition.

We need a culture of tolerance towards others with other ideas even when they criticise and challenge us. Then we would not need to fight at meetings or run to the Courts. Or ban and restrict publications, arrest people who protest peacefully, or jail critics. We would then have a more democratic society and the government would be truly "people-friendly." Unfortunately the curbs on Harakah and other publications, the arrests of Karpal and others, and the recent developments in Malacca suggest that the opposite is happening.

Ali Rustam In, Ibrahim Ali Out

Just when we began to miss Ibrahim Ali, the former deputy minister in the prime minister's department, well known for his antics, and not one to hide his crude ways behind double-speak – he already had difficulty speaking straight - along comes Mohamed Ali Rustam, the new Malacca CM.

Ali Rustam first directed his officials to terminate the contracts of their panel doctors and other professionals whom he claimed were aligned with the opposition. He also threatened to transfer out civil servants found to be opposition party members. He next initiated moves to transfer out state funds from two banks which, he claimed, were staffed by opposition supporters who posted confidential bank documents in the Internet. Bank managers must be responsible for the actions of their subordinates, Ali Rustam argued. Then he began blacklisting contractors.

Now, if a doctor is found wanting in treating patients who seek his services because he is too engrossed in political activities, or worse, refuses to treat some sick person belonging to a different political party, that doctor should rightly be removed from any panel of doctors. But whether the doctor supports one party or another is the doctor's privilege, indeed his civil right as in any democracy.

Likewise, for any civil servant. According to the government's General Orders, if any civil servant wishes to hold office in any political party (N.B. this includes both BN as well as opposition parties) s/he has to apply for permission first. If s/he wishes to contest elections, the individual has to resign from the Civil Service. This is proper. However, the rationale for resigning is not because s/he belongs to an opposition party, or that as a civil servant s/he must be pro-government. Rather, it is because the neutrality of the civil service must be preserved.

It is not surprising if Ali Rustam gets confused here; Ibrahim Ali used to be confused over many matters. In fact many BN leaders considered the civil service to be an extension of the BN and used it to serve party as well as their own personal ends. The civil service especially at the upper levels was anything but neutral. But since they were all pro BN, it was therefore considered okay.

Now it is the reverse case. Hence Ali Rustam's high-handed and punitive moves - nothing new except that they're absolutely blatant. One might even say "transparent", a la Ibrahim Ali's ways. A case could also be made against Ali Rustam's directives, which amount to discrimination and are hence unconstitutional. For all citizens are supposed to enjoy equal rights regardless of race, religion, sex, age or party preference.

But instead of leaving things there, Ali Rustam tried to justify his punitive ways: it is the democratic right of a client to take his business to another provider especially if the provider does not maintain Asian values. He even mentioned "unIslamic". Come, come. Take a cue from Ibrahim Ali who didn't bother to do a spin. Considered somewhat dim, by some, Ibrahim Ali might have been ahead of his time!

The PM's support for Ali Rustam's antics (as for Ibrahim Ali's in the past) is predictable. In all probability they were first discussed in Putrajaya. The mainstream media's support for Ali Rustam and the PM was also predictable, but don't you think, getting unnecessary? For, after their role during the November 1999 elections, which descended into the pits, really, most Malaysians are more critical and do not take their cue from mainstream media commentators anymore. Better that these commentators do not bother for someone will catch them out.

Just in case you did not catch this attempt at double speak about Zimbabwe by a former chief spin in his weekly column let me share it. I'm not sure why the columnist sought to highlight this matter except perhaps because Mugabe and Mahathir are great chums and several Malaysian companies have massive investments in Zimbabwe. At any rate the columnist was surprised that the people rejected Mugabe's recent referendum although it "sought to acquire land belonging to the rich White farmers and apportion it among the poor Black majority".

Now that's misleading! In fact, the referendum was about amending the constitution to give the prime minister more powers, which Mugabe claimed he needed to transfer land from the rich White farmers to poor Blacks. All power to the Zimbabweans – and we're referring to the Black majority - who saw through Mugabe's double-speak and rejected his attempt to concentrate power by playing racial politics. Shame on the (is this why he's a) former chief spin for trying to mislead us.

But surely the mainstream media is not into spin all of the time? Sorry. The truth does get told. Just read the newspapers or watch the TV. After having done that, just ask yourself: what was the gist of the news item? If it's not what the PM had just pronounced at some function, then it must be some trivia, and right now it's about UMNO's upcoming party elections. The sophisticated graphics utilised do not negate the point that who's getting how many nominations and how many more are needed before they are eligible to contest the elections is trivia.

What's worse, there have also been reports of grandstanding by this or another UMNO aspirant, sometimes with ethnic overtones. Still trivia. For instance, there's now some hue and cry about the television programmes we access via satellite. (Mind you, Malaysia does not practise an "open skies" policy as most of our neighbours do. The programmes we receive have already been censored, I mean previewed, by certain minders in Astro who follow strict government guidelines).

One of those vociferous UMNO politicians was Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, MP for Bagan Datoh. Remember him? (Once deputy minister, UMNO Youth chief and close aide of Anwar Ibrahim; now critic of Anwar and Reformasi, and trying hard to gain the attention of Putrajaya). He proposed that a National Communication Policy be drawn up "to monitor, implement, regulate and screen foreign programmes to ensure they were in line with Malaysia's culture and norms". Yet his concern was not all foreign programmes but only those from China and India. He and others of his ilk are concerned that these programmes could be "contrary to our national cultural identity", and even influence non-Malays to become unpatriotic.

Another loud commentator claimed that "Malaysians now idolise entertainers and artistes instead of the country's leaders…This shows that our Asian values are diminishing." Are we to take such comments seriously? Just a while ago when the non-Malay votes were so crucial for the BN, it appeared that the non-Malays could do no wrong. I suspect that Zahid and the others are simply trying to score points ahead of the UMNO elections. Be prepared. There will be many more such occasions of grandstanding with ethnic overtones as long as UMNO members do not dare to address and debate the real issues which caused it to perform so poorly in the recent general elections. And the media will continue to feed us with this kind of truth.

I wonder what the newly formed Indonesian Press Council would say about our media. Modelled after Britain's National Press Council, there are nine members in the IPC: three representing the print media, four representing radio and television, and two others the public. (One of them is a teacher of journalism, the other a member of the Indonesian Human Rights Commission). The IPC's task is to handle complaints from both the media and the public, to protect journalists from threats and intimidation (for their investigative journalism and revelations of korupsi, kolusi and nepotisme - but it's alright, no cause of concern here in Malaysia) and to act against media that violate the Press Code of Ethics (these violations might include acting as mouthpieces of the regime, misreporting and reporting trivia and engaging in double-speak, and dulling the mind of the people).

It's an important follow-up to Gus Dur's dismantling of the Indonesian government's Information Department almost immediately after he came to power. How unAsian! What a contrast to the Malaysian situation. Not only do we have to contend with spin doctors in a powerful Jabatan Penerangan, virtually all the media is owned or controlled by the government or the Barisan Nasional parties.

There was also some truthful reporting in the media about…yes, schoolbags. It appears that it's no longer fun to go to school, not when you have those heavy schoolbags to carry. As in all things educational, a debate ensued over those bags. The silliest statement was that by the deputy minister of Education Hon Choon Kim who proposed that the children could carry laptops to schools instead. Unless he's talking about 2020 or thereabouts, he wins the pea-brain prize!

Who is going to provide the hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren with laptops? Surely not Daim. Could it be the MCA? If he has the Smart Schools programme in mind, then he ought to know that it has virtually been put on hold not due to only lack of funds but also because of lack of development of the necessary software. The little that is available is not interactive. Often, the very same stuff that appears in the workbook appears in the computerised version of the lesson. The only difference being that one clicks to turn the page. So why bother?

Being a pilot project, only a few schools in each state had been identified to join the Smart Schools programme. A ministry official was better-informed than Hon and made the common-sense suggestion that the bags could be lightened if some classroom exercises were cyclostyled on newsprint or copied from the blackboards, as in the past. There would then be fewer workbooks required.

But look into the substance of these workbooks too. One reason why these books are so thick is on account of a subject which does not even appear in the regular curriculum, namely "colouring". Regardless of the subject involved, whether it is BM or Mathematics, Moral or English, Kajian Tempatan or Science, our children spend way too many hours in school and at home "colouring". And parents spend lots of ringgit purchasing workbooks and colour pencils. I'm all for making primary school education more attractive and colourful but not in this way.

Whatever, too many uninformed statements have been made by people who have not been looking into their children's schoolbags nor realising how often they buy their children colour pencils. Laptops indeed!

Seriously, there are more acute schooling problems which require Hon's and our attention. Imagine every single pupil in 22 Tamil primary schools in Selangor failed the Year Six UPSR! The UPSR results were announced in November but the poor performance of these 22 schools was only announced last month. Following a meeting with Tamil School headmasters, the Education Minister announced the appointment of an officer in each state to oversee Tamil school affairs.

This initiative does not hurt but might not help either. For the poor performance is directly related to the socio-economic problems of the poor Indians, especially those in the plantation sector, or those displaced from the plantations. One issue in particular must be addressed immediately. For decades, the plantation workers have been fighting for the introduction of a monthly wage scheme. Their plight must be resolved once and for all. Numerous studies on their plight and on how to resolve it are available. There's no need for the MIC or more university researchers to study the problem. Leave the studying to the children. Just act on the problem. Once the plantation workers receive a regular income, their housing and health problems must also be looked into. The children's academic performance might then improve.