The Malaysian government is ecstatic that the United States at last heeds its advice that only third-degree methods under the most odious and unconstitutional of laws could fight terror. This is what we are told to explain Malaysia's closeness to the US in recent months, especially since Sept 11.

President George W Bush and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad are now the best of pals, so Malaysia's mainstream newspapers tell us, with a common agenda to fight terror.

In practice, this means:"I shall deal with my terrorists as I please, and you yours; and don't you dare question my tactics!" After the Apec summit in Shanghai this week, this is with Washington's blessings.

The Shanghai meeting saved Mahathir's skin. He had wanted to meet Bush over tea and scones at the White House. He could not. Nor, at first, at Shanghai. Then comes, Sept 11, and he get his appointment. But at what cost?

President Bush could not flinch and refuse to come, as previous presidents have, since he needs their 'support' in this 'war against terror'.

Mahathir has neutralised the opposition in Malaysia yet again, this time making them run in circles, with the likelihood, should the need arise, of detention under the Internal Security Act, but this time with the gloves off.

Kuala Lumpur can all but ignore State Department concerns about all this, as it once could not.

The Apec meeting became an open sesame for leaders in the Asia Pacific, including the US, to be as autocratic as they can get away with.

The 'Sept 11 attacks' is a convenient shorthand to restrict public debate, threaten opponents, stay on in power in the name of a national emergency.

In Singapore, that is the stated reason to ban lunch time rallies in the city centre during the campaign for its general elections.

Terror hysteria

The US, as leader, finds it must adopt some of the harsher laws of its fellow members to prove it is on top of this made-for-the-US-drama called 'The War Against Terror'.

For all the support the US mustered against the bombing of Afghanistan, curiously only Britain and its colonial staff-sergeant, Australia, committed troops.

The terror hysteria Washington drummed up has reached the four corners of the world. Instead of trade, which is what Apec was set up for, it discussed terror; not how to overcome it, but how to spread it around amongst its citizens and those each determines are enemies of the state.

Since Washington exhorts the world to follow how it treats its citizens in areas it thinks others are deficient, like free elections, these countries can now look to the US to justify torture and other disagreeable methods to extract confessions and rein in an otherwise determined political and other opponents.

The FBI now wants to apply third-degree methods on those arrested after Sept 11. That would be music in many a leader's ears in the region and elsewhere. If the US can beat a suspect to submission, then why not Ougadougou?

In global policies, the US, as the sole super power, has a one-track mind. Globalisation is desirable, and any who challenges it is, to use the current phraseology, 'evil'. But the downside of any good proposal is ignored.

The virus that attack computers is the dark side of that development; it is deigned to be bad and evil, and heavy punishments exist, even in Malaysia, who spread viruses. When there is a sole super power, deciding what it should do, usually in its interest, there is a challenger to slow it down.

It does not matter who it is. But there would be some one to challenge it. Globally, it was once the Soviet Union. In 2001, it is terrorism, especially, or so we are led to believe, Islamic terrorism. For the catchword now is just that.

This is not a war against Muslims or Islam; yet Canada would not allow Malaysians to enter if he has a 'bin' or a 'Mohamed' to his name.

Mahathir would have understood what this meant if he was still a medical doctor in private practice in Alor Star and were planning a visit to Toronto.

Hong Kong immigration hauls up any with a 'bin' to his name, and demands to know why. Any Muslim travelling in Europe face hassles. One world renowned economist, not a Caucasian, was made to look like a criminal when leaving New York for his residence in England, and it appeared to him they were trying to trip him up so that he could be detained under the new terrorism laws in the US.

Dangerous precedent

The Apec precedent is dangerous. But precedents were not what Apec leaders sought in Shanghai. They created one. It is equally important, they decided, that with globalised trade must come globalised terror. It is one every member of Apec is comfortable with.

If we must listen to Washington when it calls for democracy, then surely we must also listen to Washington when it calls for unconstitutional and brutal third degree methods to winkle out 'terrorists'.

It matters not that your terrorist is my freedom fighter, and vice versa. It only matters that what he fights for upsets your equanimity. That is enough to finish him. That is the rule of democracy and goodwill we are now asked to follow, and accept.

It is not a good sign. For when recourse to the courts is not allowed, and guardians of the law unquestionable, excesses must occur. Ask anyone who was locked up in the course of investigations for a crime.

One need go no further than what happened in 1998 to the just-detained former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim. That the former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor, got off so light, after he lied about it and admitted only when a royal commission gave him no choice, is what happens when no checks and balances exist when terror is the preferred mode of interrogation.

The Apec meeting, more than the hype we are fed about what it achieved, restricts democracy and the interests of citizens in ways that few regional pacts dispensed. With the United States agreeing to it, it gives terror a respectability when it is governments which dispense it.