IT STARTED out as a quarterly magazine in 1980 and now 25 years later, with hundreds of issues produced, the Aliran Monthly is still trudging on like The Little Engine That Could. This it has done despite numerous challenges and crises faced over the years, including the threat of being closed down. REGINA WILLIAM caught up with Aliran president P. RAMAKRISHNAN who has helmed the organisation since 1993, for a chat recently in Penang in conjunction with the magazine's 25th anniversary.

theSun: Congratulations on Aliran Monthly's 25th anniversary. It is no mean feat for any publication to reach this milestone. What would you do differently if the magazine were to start all over today?
Ramakrishnan: I don't think we will do anything different. Our forte lies in analysing issues, we are not into breaking stories. With a monthly, we can never be very current. We will continue to do what we do best. We've got well researched writers who do a wonderful job, and the kind of analysis that we produce is not very commonly found in Malaysia. We are dedicated to raising the consciousness of the public. As such, it reflects our core concerns and universal values which we cherish. The same passion and dedication go into the production of the magazine.

The magazine runs entirely on volunteer power, and that's always difficult. Can you share some especially trying episodes with us?
I think we have the highest example of volunteerism in Aliran. Nobody is paid, it is entirely voluntary... from the writing right to the posting, from the menial work to the high profile work. Getting writers to deliver on time has always been a problem and as a result, sometimes the magazine doesn't come out on time, but it comes out faithfully once a month. Whenever there is a delay, people ring us up to ask when it is coming or have we been closed down. That is very encouraging, they look forward to it.

We have had several trying times. For example, immediately after Operation Lallang in 1987, we were not able to get the printing done. We walked the streets, we went all over the place, we couldn't find a printer who was prepared to do it. Finally we found one, and during this period, over a period of 18 months, we had three printers. After that, we just gave up. It is very difficult to believe why they didn't want to print. If we can go back to our original printer ... immediately after Operation Lallang, his licence wasn't renewed. Operation Lallang was in October, his licence was due in November, he didn't get it until July. When it was made known they do not have anything to do with Aliran publication, it was renewed. That's one.

There was a time before the 1995 general election ... suddenly the printer who was doing the printing in Penang didn't want to print and we were taken aback. We came out with a statement saying the authorities had put pressure on the printer. It was carried and the next day the KDN (Home Ministry) people came to demand how we could accuse them of interfering. Well, we pointed out we never said KDN, we said authorities and he (official from KDN) wanted to know why they didn't want to print and we told him, "You tell us why they don't want to print. We are a good paymaster, we have no problems with them, we had no problem printing the thing."

Apparently, they went to see the printer and later they called us to say the printers said they couldn't cope with the work. Of course the printer won't contradict what was said. Then recently, over a period of two years, we had eight printers and it's very, very difficult for us to find a printer. We make use of the printing in KL because we couldn't find somebody in Penang. What we normally do is we do the layout here, make the films and then we take the films to the printers in KL.

Malaysians have been criticised for being a passive lot when it comes to social justice and the public good. Aliran, on the other hand, stuck to its guns in highlighting excesses in public office. Do you think you have made a measurable difference?
We are aware many Malaysians empathise with us and our views have some following in the country.

While to a certain extent, Malaysians tend to be passive and comfortable, perhaps the government wants to keep them that way, by keeping them ignorant. There is no other explanation for not carrying any of our comments, responses and statements. It is an attempt to convey the perception that we are no longer active, that we no longer matter, that we no longer exist. Many have asked us whether we are still around ... If you don't keep the people informed, how do they become conscious of issues and I think the government wants to keep them in that way so that they won't be taken to task, they won't be accountable.

We like to believe that we are an important and legitimate player in our society. We have ideas and views to contribute for the welfare of this nation and why should our news not matter? The government has set up parliamentary select committee on certain issues, to obtain views from the public. On two occasions, we appeared before that committee. The first occasion was to comment and recommend our views on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. The chairman was impressed with our views on what constituted terrorism and commented that they would take up our suggestion, but not a word was reported. But the political parties that came for the same session on the same day was photographed and roundly reported. Not that we want to be treated like them but surely the public have a right to hear various views.

On the second, we appeared before the select committee on national unity. National unity is a very important topic. Without unity, there can be no harmony and peace and in our search for this elusive unity, the government rightly set up this committee to travel around the country, to get views and recommendations, to achieve this objective. Again, the committee was impressed with what we had to say and informed us that they would be calling us for a second round of discussion.

After our session, some reporters met us for clarification and to obtain a copy of our recommendations. But not a word was carried, why? Even views on a non-controversial issue like national unity was barred from reaching the public. It is a ridiculous situation. Shouldn't various views be published for a healthy debate and discussion in the interest of this country? This is what is happening. So if people are apathetic, it is also consciously done to keep them that way.

Well, we don't know what difference we have made. But the fact that we don't get quoted or reported in the media would suggest that what we say and write must be reasonable and sensible. Otherwise, there is no reason to black us out in the media. Sometimes trash gets reported very prominently.

What has Aliran Monthly's experience been with the corporate media?
I mentioned just now, we are just blacked out. Particularly during general election, if you notice, we are totally blacked out. We have a lot to say about elections, about the unfairness, the way elections are controlled, the short campaigning period, about the Election Commission, and yet, these things are kept away from the public. There is abuse and corruption during this period.

We say we are averse to corruption but where is the revulsion? It is not shown. Corruption during that time, during election time is acceptable but during party time, Umno party, is not acceptable. So the corporate media has not been very fair. It is not free, and it has just become a tool.

What is the magazine's current circulation, and when was it highest?
Circulation is around 5,000 to 6,000; it fluctuates. We have got more than 2,000 subscribers. We had good sales during Operation Lallang as we were the only guys around to report what was happening. We were doing about 20,000 copies then. During the "reformasi" period, it was also a high point.

Aliran Monthy was given a licence to produce a Bahasa Malaysia edition, despite a long-held belief that the government did not want its critical views to reach the Malay majority. Why was the magazine discontinued?
Aliran planned to publish a fortnightly magazine in the national language and applied for a permit since 1982. Each time, our application was rejected without just cause or reason. Finally we took the government to court. The High Court on Sept 2, 1987 quashed the Home Minister's decision to refuse a permit to Aliran. An application to publish a newspaper should be granted as a matter of course.

What was stated in the court was very interesting. In his oral judgment, Justice Harun Hashim said, "The attitude should be... publish and be damned. If you have the permit, publish and if you do it wrongly, you can be punished. There is also the Sedition Act, the Penal Code, the Law of Defamation. There are enough laws to protect the public, the government and everybody else".

But what happened was a shameful thing. The government could not accept this in good grace. The Home Ministry decided to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court decision. In announcing the ministry's decision, deputy minister Datuk Megat Junid a week later stated, "our decision should have been accepted as final". To ensure the minister's decision would be final, the government moved amendments to the Printing and Publications Act to remove ministerial decisions away from the courts. Even before the case was heard, the issue was lost. The Barisan's majority in parliament made sure of that.

Therefore, it was not surprising when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the government on Jan 4, 1990 and awarded costs as well, which surprised many. Nothing happened until November 1997. Like a thunderbolt, it hit us when the AG's Chambers demanded RM80,000 as Bill of Taxation. It seemed that if they could not kill Aliran legally, it should be attempted financially.

To cut a long story short, suffice to state that after strenuous negotiations, it was finally decided that Aliran pay RM20,000 towards costs. We commented then that it was a sad commentary on the state of affairs of our country. While they castigate the Bar Council for not doing enough to promote Bahasa Malaysia, while they deny the teachers their dues because they lack qualification in Bahasa Malaysia, while they take an uncompromising stance on the usage of Bahasa Malaysia at all levels, yet they could do everything possible to prevent Aliran from printing in Bahasa Malaysia. What happened to all the champions of Bahasa Malaysia when we wanted them?

Inexplicably, they were struck dumb. In late 1990, we were given the licence. We printed for three years, but we couldn't continue. There was no readership and we had to close down. It is not only Aliran which suffered the same fate, there were many individuals who also tried to come up with similar magazines. They also folded up. Malaysians were more into magazines like Gila Gila and the likes to pay attention to a serious magazine like Aliran.

The magazine's analytical style makes it inaccessible to the masses. Why have you chosen this approach?
To begin with, our standard of English has deteriorated so badly that even simple English is a problem. Even new graduates are unable to write or speak grammatically. What more when it comes to ordinary citizens?

We are aware that the standard of language used in some of our articles can pose some problems. But sometimes certain words have to be used to be precise in what is being expressed. We can't help that. But we do try and simplify articles whenever possible. In fairness, not all our articles are that difficult to grasp. For example, our Thinking Allowed column has a very wide following.

Not all our articles are serious, there are also lighter pieces - people have a hilarious time reading it. From various writers, we have a different style and it is not very difficult to follow our style. It is meant more for the middle class. These are the people who matter, who can bring about change and these are the people we need to reach out to and these are the people who need to be made aware. I think that is the target but there are many people like teachers, clerks who are also readers.

Aliran was trying to raise funds recently to meet its operating costs. What does it need to continue with its mission?
Obviously we need to be strong financially. We have limited our sources of income by declining outside help and by refusing to carry any advertisements. Outside funding can be considerable if we opt for it - but by choice, we are not inclined to seek this funding and be branded as foreign stooges or mouth-pieces for outside forces. We have decided not to carry any advertisements so that we need not be beholden to the corporate world. It gives us a certain amount of freedom to state our piece without fear or favour.

We are a home-grown NGO and by right we should be funded locally. We don't get a sen from the government. We depend on the sale of the magazine but with rising costs it isn't very much. This alone cannot sustain us. There are some kind and caring individuals who sometimes donate - not very much but it helps. Then members also chip in occasionally to help us out.

We just about make it. Even now we are not financially strong or stable. There is always this worrying thing lah, about how to sustain ourselves.

Do you think Malaysians are more concerned about income generation than upholding justice and fair play?
In difficult times, it is not easy to be concerned with issues of justice and fair play. People are busy trying to put their lives together. They just don't have the time - they have to eke out a living. In good times, people are too comfortable to be bothered about justice and fair play.

But there are Malaysians, they may not be large in numbers, but nevertheless there are Malaysians who care for this issue, like during the Reformasi.

Unfortunately, people become very conscious when their pockets are hit. Otherwise, they are quite comfortable. We must also look at our education system. Our education system doesn't develop the thinking people. You are not taught to ask questions, you are not taught to raise doubts, you just take whatever that is said. That is one reason, but in spite of that, we have got some very discerning people who are good but we wish the majority would be like that. By large, you are quite right to say not many are motivated by issues like justice, truth, that kind of thing.

You take the case of (Tan Sri) Isa Samad. He was found guilty of corruption, money politics. How is it he cannot be a member of Umno and yet he can be a federal minister? Terrible contradiction. Is there a halal corruption and non-halal corruption? Yet people don't say anything about it. The move to privatise water... the minister said he would set up a select committee in parliament.

Outside parliament he says, "No need, we know everything." There is no outcry. There is a move to privatise healthcare and it is going to hit the poor people and somehow people don't come out and discuss. Eventually they will be hit, but they don't look far ahead.

What has Aliran Monthly's experience been with the authorities over its publishing licence, critical reports and so on?
In 1980, Aliran displeased those in power by criticising the new allowances for top civil servants that was approved. The new allowances were totally unjustified in comparison to the poverty and squalor of many in this country.

This statement criticising the increased allowances for top civil servants made on Oct 8, 1980, was published in The Star on Oct 9. The very next day, the Registrar of Societies asked Aliran to show cause why its registration should not be cancelled.

The Registrar contended that the statement published in The Star may confuse the public. In the circumstances, the Registrar was satisfied that the society was likely to be used for purposes prejudicial to, or incompatible with, peace in the Federation.

At that time, the only person who was confused was the Registrar of Societies! We did not have thousands of people walking about in utter confusion scratching their heads and wondering what Aliran had actually said.

The real reason, however, was that they couldn't tolerate the fact that they could be challenged and taken to task and held accountable for their action. This was an intolerable intrusion into their absolute domain. Then this issue was debated in Parliament and the Senate. All sorts of insinuations and accusations were hurled at us. You may want to read the Aliran Monthly Vol. 23 No. 4 for a detailed account of this shameful episode.

We have a problem in getting our licences in time. The rules stipulate that 3 months before expiry of the current licence we got to make an application, and we never received it on time. Normally, it is well past the deadline. In 2001, I had to make 22 calls to Putrajaya to get the licence. You know everytime you ring them up, the officer is not there or the thing is waiting for a signature or the guy is at a meeting. These are terrible delays. There was another occasion when the thing didn't come and when we called them, they said we never made the application. Luckily we had an AR card, we sent a photocopy of that and suddenly they found the file.

Has the advent of new media like blogs and webzines changed the media landscape?
It had changed quite a bit. Now the right to publish is no longer exclusively that of the corporate media. The government is also finding it difficult. At times they say something foolish, it is exposed, then there is a rebuttal and there is a chorus of people with their comments and it makes it very interesting. It is something that is not to the advantage of the government but it is a wonderful thing that is happening.

Malaysiakini has been breaking stories. They have also applied for a (permit to publish a) weekly. The government has not conceded to that. I think they are not going to give (the permit). But I think even without the weekly, Malaysiakini is doing well and this is a wonderful thing. A lot of things that you are not aware, behind the scenes, the corruption, the mansions they live in, all those you cannot hide any longer.

Do you see a greater openness under the current administration? Is this enough to curb abberrations in the execution of policies or is political will still too weak?
Abdullah Badawi comes across as a very decent and well-meaning person, I have no doubt about it. But he shouldn't be seen as just a quotable prime minister. He comes out with very beautiful quotes, but things don't seem to be moving. Probably not fast enough, and probably even in the supreme council he doesn't have the majority support. Even the three ministers who lost in the supreme council elections are unheard of but it happened and these three people seem to be aligned to him. He may have the personal will, but whether he'll have the political opportunity to bring about this is in question.

If you take the release of the AP recipients, you may say they are open, but I'm not sure it was something done voluntarily, because there was a lot of pressure put on Abdullah Badawi and he had to come out with it. Whether it was done voluntarily, we don't know. I think it will take a while before we can assess him.

You remember the former ACA chief in open court said the guy from EPU was caught with an unaccountable sum of money, money that couldn't be accounted for in the government. I think Badawi should set up a commission of inquiry on this. It is only when you go after "big fish" that people will take you seriously. Otherwise, you just take ex-ministers and people who don't matter much, it is not going to make any impact. If he sets up this inquiry to check on the allegations by the ACA, that would bring in a lot of confidence.

Has the emphasis on wealth creation encouraged a lax attitude towards conflict of interest situations?
It certainly has. It has made those with access to power very greedy and has turned us into an acquisitive society. Conflict of interest situations are not something that prick their conscience. Many with connections and in power have been benefiting from this situation.

Are young Malaysians making themselves heard about the country's ethical development, or are most of them interested in having a good time?
There are some young conscious people who care very deeply about this country. They write and speak about this country, they are very unhappy. These are those in their late 20s and 30s. If only our press and media were free, then all this can be spotted. But what the media and TV do is go down to streets and they pick people who agree with the government and who will say "yes" to that kind of thing. We don't identify these people, we don't encourage these people, we don't promote these kind of people.

What single policy change would you push for to advance holistic social development?
I think the OSA (Official Secrets Act), ISA (Internal Security Act), Printing Presses Act. If all these were to go, there will be meaningful debate and discussion. People will get involved and you can get various views and from these views you can come to a decision that will benefit the nation. Now, this kind of critical thinking is suppresed.

We must create a strong civil society rooted in the rule of law. When the rule of law prevails, then things can be sorted out. There will be fairness, justice will have meaning, the deserving will receive their due, open healthy discussions and debate will contribute to the progress of the nation. Parliament will be a place for serious and intellectual debates and discussions.

Is the next crop of Aliran supporters ready to take over the leadership of the organisation?
The Aliran leadership is there for grabs. I'm a reluctant president who is of the view that it is time to go. But our members are working people who find it difficult to come forward. Besides this, our members are scattered all over the country and our base is in Penang. Those outside Penang may find this a problem. We have open elections. There is no need to campaign, no need to throw parties, no need to indulge in money politics, no need for bonus points for being nominated. I think we should have no problem in sorting out this.

This is a voluntary organisation. People come, we don't cling on to posts. I've been there for a long time simply because nobody wants to take over. People are not interested in issues like this. You join Aliran, you don't get your awards, you don't get your contracts. So we have to wait and see for more people to come forward.

In membership, over 60% are older people, younger people are coming in now but their percentage is small. There are people, but they are with jobs and working. I am a retired guy so I can spend my time here. But there are people who are very enthusiastic and who are committed and who can do a very fine job, but just because of the situation, they are not able to come forward at this point of time.

We are frequently reminded that Malaysia is a functioning democracy with an elected parliament. What aspects of the rule of law and system of checks and balances are of particular concern to Aliran?
We have a functioning democracy - not a participatory democracy. Once the government is elected, they seem to think that the electorate has given them a blank mandate to do whatever they like. We are often told that they have been elected overwhelmingly and therefore there is no need to listen to critical and dissenting views. This is a wrong notion of democracy.

For a functioning democracy, we need a free media. A free media can provide formidable checks and balances. Abuses and misuse of funds can be highlighted and exposed for the right action to right a wrong. We need a strong civil society to act as checks and balances. A free civil society and a free media can demand accountability from the people in power. This will prevent excesses and arbitrariness and make those wielding power conduct themselves responsibly.

We have got all the symbols of a democracy, we have the parliament, we have the MPs, we have elections. But does that constitute democracy? Like if you hold the elections, do you give enough time for people to canvass to reach out to people? (With just) nine days from nomination to elections, how does the opposition reach out to the electorate?

They can't present their views, getting halls to hold their ceramah is a problem and you don't get any time on TV. The government doesn't act like a caretaker government during that period. If they act like a caretaker government, then it's a functioning democracy. If a constituency elects an opposition MP, why are they punishing the constituency? Why do we have election?

So you can say that we are a functioning democracy. It is just a facade. I think the opposition should also play a major role. Like (in) other countries the opposition is always consulted before anything is introduced. Here they are just sidelined. Perhaps here we should have the deputy speaker coming from the opposition, and the public accounts committee probably should be headed by an opposition member.

What steps should be taken to increase the autonomy of the judiciary?
The judiciary has a sacred duty to be independent and autonomous. The judges must be pro-active and not be too technical in their decisions. After all justice is all about fairness. The judiciary is an autonomous body.

Of course, when appointments and promotions are dependent on the Prime Minister, ambitious judges may not want to rock the boat.

There is also a great need to purge the judiciary from all the negative aspects of its image. This really calls for an independent commission of inquiry.

Aliran's Charter 2000 is a bold attempt to reform the media. Have you made any progress so far?
There are organisations which have endorsed this Charter. In a country like Malaysia, you can't achieve everything within a short period of time. There is some progress, very slow progress. I suppose we'll persist.

What is the nation's record on the protection of minority rights and the protection of disadvantaged groups? What has Aliran Monthly's role been in this area?
It is dismal, shameful, degrading. Unfortunately, there is no free space for minorities and repressed groups to express themselves. These groups include women, workers and rural farmers, ethnic minorities, the lower classes, detainees, opposition parties, university/college students.

We work closely with the NGOs, unions and other organizations who work with them.

Are we becoming more united as a nation or are new fault lines emerging?
Instead of becoming a united nation, we are fragmenting. Attitudes and policies fail to bring the people together. Government policies must bear certain amount of responsibility for this sad situation.

After 48 years, it is still a question whether we are emerging as a united nation. The government seems to be very concerned about it. It is an issue that we have discussed and raised in the 80s. There is no integration, there is no intermingling and certain government policies have also contributed to this. There's always this fear that you may become controversial or you may hurt (the feelings of other communities), so you don't speak the truth.

That is what is happening. There are guys in this country who take on the racial agenda in order to get elected. Unfortunately the newspapers give them a lot of space. So everytime you come out as an ethnic champion of your community, you are seen as a hero. You are not seen as a selfish fella.

Unless the government puts a stop to this it will be very difficult. Probably we should move from communal parties to a mixed party, perhaps this is something we have to do.

What is the biggest threat we face as a society?
Corruption is the big threat because benefits are not reaching out to the people who deserve them. The kind of corruption involving money is mind-boggling, it's millions of ringgit. I think corruption is something that is going to destroy us as a nation, unless we really do something to destroy it or to curb it.

On the government's part, they should do something. Abdullah Badawi should for instance drop (Tan Sri) Isa Samad from the ministry. All those guys who have been taking contracts in spite of poor delivery should be brought to court. Political parties have no business to be involved in business. It is not known if anywhere else in the world political parties are involved in business the same way some BN component parties are.

The greed to have limitless funds for electoral competition and acquisition of power inevitably leads to money politics. This in turn breeds corruption and cronyism. Politics should be about creating the good society - just, peaceful, united - but is polluted by greed and avarice.

In Malaysia, the caretaker government has never behaved as one. On the spot allocation of grants, announcements of new development projects, granting of TOLs, unbridled use of radio/TV and the print media, are some of the gross abuses.

Withholding funds for opposition-held constituencies, providing cash for minor development projects to BN MPs and denying the same for opposition MPs is to indulge in money politics. We must launch a moral crusade to uphold values and ethics in public life and declare war on corruption. We must make the ACA an independent institution answerable only to parliament.

Aliran submitted a proposal to the government in 1986. One, asking for a regulation requiring all parties involved in elections to declare their sources of funding to the electorate. Two, a regulation requiring all candidates for both state and federal elections, to declare their financial assets to the electorate. The financial assets of their immediate families should also be made public.

Committed to reform

Aliran founder president DR CHANDRA MUZAFFAR gives an insight into the Aliran Monthly's challenging early years. R.B. BHATTACHARJEE records the genial encounter at a resort mid-way up Genting Highlands.

theSun: For the benefit of our young readers who did not experience the political environment of the 1970s, could you recap the conditions at the time of Aliran Monthly's (AM) inception and how these impacted on the publication?
Chandra: For the record, I should state that AM was preceded by the Aliran Quarterly in 1982, and we published this for two years before coming out with the monthly in 1984.

(Muses) The atmosphere in the 70s and 80s was different in some respects. Reforms, democracy, human rights are always difficult issues to engage with, but those were challenging times indeed.

To give an idea of how challenging it was, there was an attempt to form a human rights society - the Pertubuhan Hak Asasi - in the mid-70s. This was thwarted. My dear friend, the late Azmi Khalid, who was an exco member of Aliran and a member of the law faculty of Universiti Malaya was behind this organisation. But the government at that time was suspicious of anything that had to do with human rights.

After the registration of Aliran, in 1977 we organised the first seminar. It was on democracy in Malaysia and it was opened by the first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. We had a number of speakers who articulated the concerns that we had about the state of democratic practices in the country. There was some media coverage, but the public largely ignored the event. (Smiles) It did not register on the radar screen of the authorities.

Then in October 1980, there was a move by the Home Ministry to de-register Aliran because we had called for better salaries for government employees, especially those in the lower rungs. The government saw the statement as something prejudicial to public order. As a result, Aliran shot to fame.

This was followed by the move to amend the Societies Act at the beginning of 1981 to make it more restrictive for organisations like Aliran and others who were striving to achieve social reform. It resulted in a mass mobilisation of NGOs and the public ... 118 societies got together to protest against the move. Out of that was born a co-ordinating committee for the NGOs.

Anniversaries are a time for stock-taking, more so when you reach a milestone like the silver jubilee of an event. So, what were the effects of AM's early years on public discourse?
When the magazine was launched, we were apprehensive of its viability, in terms of our ability to sustain the effort to produce it, that is. Journals which have a critical thrust, as you know, have not lasted very long in this country. Newspapers, of course, are a different kettle of fish. This is largely because we don't have a reading public, one that is committed to reflection. We don't have that ethos of critical thinking and self-reflection that is necessary to sustain such a dialogue. But we persevered, and AM has developed a constituency of its own.

I would argue that there are three factors why this happened:

Firstly, the magazine is an independent voice and non-partisan. It is critical, evaluative and not linked to any political party.

Secondly, it arrived at a time when the Malaysian middle class had begun to expand. There were people who were fluent in English; some had sufficient exposure to issues, and they could empathise with the messages put out by Aliran.

Thirdly, the government created issues that allowed us to comment and to evaluate its performance and policies. In the 80s, there was the (amendments to the) Societies Act, and in 1986, there was the Official Secrets Act, and in 1987, Operasi Lallang. In May 1988, we had the Umno crisis and the sacking of (the Lord President) Tun Salleh Abas. And then there were the scandals, starting with the BMF in 1983.

AM was seen as a magazine that spoke without fear or favour. It was a magazine that could articulate positions that did not surface in the mainstream media. The mainstream media was not able to analyse and probe into many of these issues.

Public crusades are often mirrored in personal journeys. Where did you draw your inspiration from for the work you did through Aliran?
Soon after launching Aliran, I produced a document called "Aliran Basic Beliefs", which was later re-written as "Aliran Basic Principles" because I had felt the need for a group outside electoral politics that would address social reform. We sought to locate human rights within a larger tapestry hoping that we would be able to move the masses on a number of fronts that we needed to make progress on. These involved issues like ethnic relations, integrity in public life, issues relating to governance in its proper sense, reform, human rights issues.

But why are these important? I was concerned with social justice even in school. In secondary school, I wrote essays on social justice and I was the editor of the school magazine in Form 5 and again in Form 6, writing about a variety of issues.

Much of this had to do with reading. I read a great deal as a child and teenager. In fact, it consumed my whole life. I would read books that a 10- or 11-year-old would not touch with a barge pole. (laughs)

My father also played a role in developing my consciousness and awareness about social concerns. He was a community leader in his own right, speaking up for the poor and downtrodden. He was chairman of the local council in Bedong, Kedah. He helped establish the local English school, managed the local hospital and ran a welfare home. All these had an impact on us in the family.

The third reason is perhaps lodged somewhere in the sub-conscious. I was stricken by polio at age four, and this made me sensitive to human suffering. It strengthened one's compassion for the underdog, and I became concerned for doing something for society.

Even before the establishment of Aliran, I was involved in civil society organisations, such as the Penang Youth Council, and I took up public positions on various issues as a lectuer in Universiti Sains Malaysia.

When the Aliran magazine wanted to convert from being a quarterly to a monthly publication, we knew that it would be a monumental job. After considering the situation, I took the decision to quit USM in August 1983 after 13 years, when I was at the peak of my career. The primary breadwinner for the next nine years, until 1992, was my wife. Our income dropped by two-thirds. It was one of the most momentous decisions in my life - giving up a career for a cause, and only now am I able to fathom its impact.

(Reflects)

I was the person who conceptualised the journal's direction and content. Of course, we worked together with a number of able and sincere friends who built up the monthly, and some of them are still around (in Aliran).

It was an inspiration to work on the publication. We were all volunteers, Aliran has no paid workers. We didn't get a cent. It was a labour of love. So commitment is very important. If you look at journals all over the world, especially those working for change, one of the most important factors is the ability of those behind the publications to commit themselves to act selflessly.

What about the authorities? Were they hostile or indifferent then?
In the initial stages, from 1977 to 1981, they just ignored us. But after the Societies Act saga, they began to take notice, but the attitude was to keep us at arm's length. They did not want to accomodate our positions, and did not want to dialogue. But Aliran and other cause-oriented groups, including the women's groups, environment groups and human rights groups, have persevered, and that's why things have changed today.

So the government had to take notice and change. In 1989, the government invited social activists to sit in the National Economic Consultative Council (Mapen), in which we participated actively.

Since then, NGO positions on environmental issues, women's issues and development issues have been given a bigger hearing. And since 1992, through JUST, we have dialogued with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on foreign policy issues. So NGOs and civil society groups have arrived, progressing from the 70s, to 80s, to the 90s and onwards to the 21st century.

From being allergic to human rights in the 80s, as I said in the beginning, now we have the National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), which should be taken more seriously. But the fact is that it is there. Suhakam is a major step forward, which we could not have imagined before it happened.

When you left Aliran to focus on global issues, some understood, but many criticised your shift in focus, seeing it as a neglect of the local struggle. Do you think your critics understand your decision better now in the light of today's global conflict?
In 1992, my friends and I established JUST (the International Movement for a Just World). A lot of Malaysians couldn't appreciate then the importance of focusing on global issues. But the writing on the wall was very clear. In 1989, the Cold War ended, in 1991, the USSR collapsed and in the same year, Washington won the Kuwait war. These were all events related to a unipolar world and its effects on humankind.

The dangers of this concentration of power in a single entity are enormous and now, many are aware of its many ramifications. The unilateralism in foreign policy, and exceptionalism in international relations have shocked people everywhere.

Some people have come forward in the past few years to say, "I was one of those who misunderstood." (smiles)

In almost every sphere of life, we see the impact of global forces. Take the increase in the price of oil. It is a very good example of how global events are impacting on us all due to a variety of factors.

Some say China's role in the global economy is the cause. Others say energy consumption in affluent societies has contributed to the price increase, because it has increased the demand for oil. Another view is that the war in Iraq is to blame because a major source of oil is not available to others. Yet another view says that Hurricane Katrina is a factor. Then, there is the opinion that manipulation by speculators is behind it all.

This goes for everything else. The level of investment that a country can attract, unemployment, the strength of a currency, everything is influenced by global forces. Also, a very important aspect of national affairs, the control of domestic security, is no longer in the hands of sovereign nations.

Then, you have culture, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the films we watch, sports we enjoy are shaped by forces from beyond our shores.

So this decision to focus public attention on these global forces was based on analysis of trends that were already very clear at that time.

AM has undoubtedly enriched the fabric of civil society, but do you feel that the average Malaysian would rally around to save it, if for some reason it folded up?
The fact that AM has been around for more than two decades is in itself a stupendous achievement. I must commend my friends who have kept AM going. Very few groups in the country have been able to sustain their work so consistently. Even in the early period of the country's history, reform-oriented magazines in the 20s and 30s had been able to exist only for brief periods.

But to answer your question, I don't think that if tomorrow AM folds up, we won't see tens of thousands pledging their last ringgit to save it. This is because, firstly, the middle class in Malaysia is not one that has a tradition of struggle, when you compare it with the Philippines, for example, and some other countries.

Secondly, there is an air of apathy, which is related to affluence. Certainly, we must acknowledge that the middle class has seen mobility and known prosperity, so it tends to be oblivious to its social responsibility. It tends to put aside values and principles, and concerns of that sort.

Thirdly our middle class is not autonomous. A significant segment of the middle class, including the business community, professionals and academics are linked directly or indirectly to the state. the state dominates every sector of society even entertainment and sports. it is not a healthy situation when state and politics determine everything.

But we're slowly changing.We have to evolve, if the state creates more space, if it recognises civil society groups and the legitimacy of dissent, if reflection becomes the culture, then there's hope.

Would you say AM has been preaching to the converted? In hindsight, how would you broaden AM's appeal?
You could say that a significant segment of AM's readership are converted, and they read the magazine as a way of confirming their views of issues that are occurring. To go beyond this constituency, perhaps AM should attempt to approach issues in a little more balanced manner. It should be critical, analytical definitely, but it can show appreciation for some of the positive things about the country. After all is said and done, there are some positive things that we cannot deny. We are one of the few countries, and we must include both the North and South in the count, that has managed to minimise political violence. We have conducted our national life with a minimum of violence. We should recognise and write about this.

Also, for all our shortcomings in the management of inter-ethnic relations, we have succeeded in maintaining relative ethnic harmony and contained communal polarisation in the country. I say this although I had produced a pamphlet in 1980 on ethnic polarisation, so we must recognise that it is a challenge. But compared with other societies, where polarisation is both latent and manifest, Malaysia has done relatively well.

Likewise, the political succession, by and large, has been smooth compared with many other countries.

One issue we must draw attention to is income disparities in Malaysia, which is serious, but not often talked about. It is among the worst in the Asia Pacific region, and it is a problem we have to overcome.

But we have reduced absolute poverty quite substantially. The way we have provided for the basic needs of a huge segment of the people is certainly creditworthy. AM has to acknowledge these characteristics, while continuing to play its role in the critique of public affairs. If it can do this, more people will listen and more people will be persuaded by AM.

What is needed to make more Malaysians become involved in taking responsibility for good governance, participatory democracy and all the values that AM stands for?
AM can talk more frequently about the shortcomings of our people, instead of focusing primarily on the warts and pimples of the government. AM should address why we don't have a sense of civic consciousness, a maintenance culture when it comes to public facilities, why we litter our roads, why our public toilets are dirty, and why we behave like maniacs on the road. (chuckles) This can be discussed in AM or other publications.

Obviously not all these problems are because of the government. It would not be meaningful if we just focus on the state and don't engage society, the citizenry, and try to explain how to deal with these issues.

I have just come back from Nagoya, and every time I visit Japan, I am very impressed by the high level of social responsibility that I see. It is very pronounced. We should reflect upon these things and try to emulate such examples.

I have always stressed that rights must be balanced with responsibilities. Merely to insist on rights is not enough. There must be a concommitant emphasis upon responsibilities at the level of the individual, the family and the community.

AM could also perhaps encourage Malaysians to go beyond the ethnic perspective when espousing issues relating to human rights and social justice because very often these issues are coloured by ethnic considerations. We would develop a more holistic perspective if we dwell on how the "other" feels in a given situation. AM in this area can contribute towards national unity.