Phew! It is finally over. I mean, the hyped up media coverage on the 30th Anniversary of the establishment of Sino-Malaysia diplomatic ties. At first, I thought the event was meant to be just a propaganda exercise to please the Chinese community in Malaysia, but when a flurry of reports and specials began to appear also in the English press, I was compelled to have a second thought, and have come to the conclusion that I indeed misread the message behind.

Southeast Asia has changed beyond recognition since the eventful 1960s and 70s. Mention the now defunct Seato (Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation) to a young Malaysia, he or she will probably take it to mean Saito, a common Japanese surname. Talk about Vietnam, and a market researcher may tell you how hardworking and competitive the workers there are, instead of the boatloads of refugees fleeing the Communist regime.

And China? I watch with incredulity the development that Asean, founded first and foremost with a view of guarding against the advance of communism represented by Red China, is now actively courting the biggest market in the world. And to the dismay of many, it was China, rather than Japan or South Korea, which became the first regional power to begin talks on a free trade zone with Asean in 2001.

As Kalimullah Hassan, the group editor of New Straits Times, has rightly pointed out, China is changing. But hasn't India been rapidly transforming into a regional economic power also, gradually shaking off its Nehruan-socialist past? Why does not one see the intensity of diplomatic exchanges between Kuala Lumpur and New Delhi as is the case with Beijing?

Strategic realigning

Apparently, some strategic realigning is afoot. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, by initiating this no-holds-barred venture into China, is sending a not-too-hidden message: in response to a greater US presence in Southeast Asia, Malaysia is upgrading its alliance with other regional powers strategically. It would be less productive, if not futile, to develop relations of such nature with Japan, for the obvious reason that Tokyo, as many a Japanese scholar would argue, has no independent foreign policy especially in the Asia Pacific region, and China does come in handy in this respect.

Therefore, the Chinese conversion to market economy and the fluid geopolitics pave the way for a new Sino-Malaysia partnership that harks back to the cordial exchanges between the Malaccan Sultanate and the Ming Dynasty. Of course, it would be most unwise for the Malaysian and the Chinese leaders to spell out in no uncertain terms what they mean by 'strategic', but a smart US diplomat will heed the message nonetheless.

Wouldn't the Malay community be alarmed by an overture to China of this scale? I suspect the scepticism of the Malays is real, otherwise Abdullah would not have called on Beijing to play a greater role in the Middle East. Such rhetoric in fact serves two purposes quite nicely: to remind the US of the importance of China in addition to the current Quartet (US, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia), and to assure the Muslim constituency at home that the trip to China would not benefit only Chinese Malaysians. And no one has articulated this view clearer than Karim Raslam.

But for me and hundreds of thousands of Maxis customers, the only tangible benefit is no doubt the flat rate of 50 sen per minute charged by the mobile operator to call friends and business partners in China, as a token to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Sino-Malaysia diplomatic relations. Beyond that, life goes on pretty much as usual.

By the way, Kalimullah, in his Sunday article also tries to present Malaysia as a model of the 'free' world by arguing that greater freedoms would come. It would be an irreversible process. There would be a day, not too far in the future, when China would have the freedoms that Malaysians have taken for granted.

I suppose Kalimullah must have been so carried away by the amazing transformation of Chinese society, that he could not conceal his joy at seeing, what? Young couples hug, kiss and walk hand-in-hand in public!

These, I would protest, are the freedoms denied to us Malaysians. Has Kalimullah forgotten the cases of young couples being served summonses to appear in court for merely holding hands in parks, facing the charges of 'indecency'? I bet there must be hundreds of thousands of Malaysians longing to hug, kiss and walk hand-in-hand with their lovers in public, freedoms that mainland Chinese take for granted.

Tiananmen massacre

While the Malaysian and the Chinese officialdoms immerse in the euphoria over closer Sino-Malaysia relations, today marks the 15th Anniversary of the ruthless crackdown on the student movement in 1989, the Tiananmen massacre that is. Incidentally, all those articles justifying Malaysia's about-turn on China are in fact quite unnecessary. After all, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, once deeply suspicious of Chinese communists, was the first foreign head of government to visit Beijing after the crackdown that shocked the entire world. By braving the worldwide condemnation and shaking hands with the butchers in Beijing, Mahathir was telling the world that national interests, not ideology or moral high ground, must prevail.

Sin Chew Daily, long perceived as being pro-Beijing by some over the years, ran a number of news reports on the 15th Anniversary of the massacre, perhaps in the hope of toning down its Beijing-friendly image. Nanyang Siang Pau, on the other hand, published an article by a Chinese Malaysian in defence of the brutal act of the Chinese government. Dull as ditchwater, the writer accuses foreigners of plotting to undermine China, and chastises Chinese pro-democracy activists for their ignorance.

Nanyang, which literally means South Ocean, is a term coined by mainland Chinese to refer to the Southeast Asian region. In view of its increasingly pro-Beijing stance, it would be appropriate now to regard Nanyang Siang Pau as a Southeast Asian edition of the People's Daily - the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party.

Abdullah Badawi's public relations skills are not only displayed in his proactive engagement with China, but in domestic affairs as well. Immediately after the issue of the 128 top scorers, who had failed to secure the university courses that they wanted, came to light, the prime minister, when asked to comment by journalists in Beijing, said that he would bring the issue up with the cabinet and find a solution. His sympathetic and understanding response has indeed gone down very well with many back home.

But this is not the case with his deputy Najib Abdul Razak, who resorted to the standard BN reply by reminding the public and politicians not to politicise or racialise the issue. Within minutes, his unfriendly remarks sparked off heated exchanges on an e-group that I subscribe to: 'What? Not to politicise and racialise? Who does he thinks he is?', 'I am Chinese, so for a Chinese to raise any issue would be racial, right?' and so on. I particularly like this one: 'The DPM better quit politics; every single word that comes out of his mouth is political anyway.'

I am not trying to drive a wedge between the Prime Minister and his deputy, but in a classic British journalistic fashion: Abdullah Badawi, 1, Najib Abdul Razak, 0. Kudos perhaps to Khairy Jamaluddin and his team of young talents.