>> WMD SEARCH? WHERE?

SPEAKING FREELY
N Korea's nukes - planted right under the DMZ?
By Michael G Gallagher

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

SEOUL - The Beijing talks over North Korea's nuclear-weapons program ended inconclusively, and among the many issues those talks failed to resolve was one question that has probably bedeviled US and South Korean military strategists for years: Exactly where is the shadowy North Korean regime hiding its still tiny nuclear (one hopes) arsenal?

The answer might be lying quietly in a tunnel right underneath the feet of the American and South Korean soldiers guarding the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that separates the democratic South from the Stalinist North.

Digging under an enemy's position to outflank his defenses is an age-old military tactic. King Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria (circa 880 BC) used tunneling as a tactic to undermine an opponent's fortifications. Using iron tools, his soldiers would excavate a chamber under an enemy's walls, then brace its roof with timber supports. The wooden supports were then burned, causing the chamber and the structure above it to collapse. Both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar used mining in their many campaigns.

Readers may be familiar with a more recent example of military mining if they have seen the American Civil War drama Cold Mountain. In one of the movie's pivotal scenes, the Union forces during the siege of Petersburg try, and fail, to blow a hole through the Confederate trench line with a huge gunpowder mine.

Viet Minh planted tunnel bomb under Dien Bien Phu
Mining as an active military tactic was used as late as the mid-20th century. In 1954, during the final assault on the French positions at Dien Bien Phu, the Viet Minh attackers exploded a one-ton TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene) mine under the French stronghold, Elaine 2. While the mine failed to explode completely, the partial detonation was still a grave psychological blow to Dien Bien Phu's isolated defenders.

Planning to blow up the enemy's position from below went nuclear during the Cold War. Both the United States and the old Soviet Union had nuclear land mines. One type of atomic land mine fielded by the US military was SADM - special atomic demolition munition. Weighing 163 pounds, or 73 kilograms, SADM had an explosive yield of up to one kiloton. It was part of the US nuclear arsenal from 1966 until 1986.

So it is entirely plausible that the North Koreans have placed one or more nuclear land mines under the DMZ. This possibility is made even more likely by the fact that the North Koreans are among the world's champion diggers.

Between 1974 and 1990, four tunnels were discovered running underneath the DMZ. These tunnels had electric lights, railroad tracks and turnarounds for vehicles. One tunnel even had a small underground plaza in which troops could be marshaled in formation. The tunnels were large enough to allow the infiltration of up to 30,000 troops per hour, including tanks and artillery, into South Korean territory. Some South Korean analysts say there may be at least 20 more tunnels as yet undiscovered.

Kim Il-sung ordered underground hideaways
Burrowing deep underground was the brainchild of the founder of the North Korean state, the late dictator Kim Il-sung. At one point during his rule he apparently ordered that each Korean People's Army division stationed along the DMZ should dig at least two tunnels. Apart from the already mentioned tunnels boring under the DMZ, North Korea might have anywhere from 11,000-14,000 other underground hideaways.

Planting a nuclear bomb in a tunnel under the DMZ would be a cheap and effective delivery system for a poverty-stricken country such as North Korea. Buried bombs would also be an almost foolproof backup system for what may be a marginally successful missile-development program.

In 1998, North Korea flew a Taepongdo-1 long-range ballistic missile over Japan. While it sowed alarm in Seoul, Washington and Tokyo, the test itself was only a partial success, with the rocket's third stage failing to ignite properly. Another weapon, the shorter-range Nodong missile, had only one successful test launch during the 1990s. In 2003, the North Koreans conducted two additional missile tests, but these involved short-range, anti-shipping cruise missiles, weapons that posed no strategic threat to the United States and its Asian allies.

Controlling a tunnel bomb would be very simple. During the 1950s, the British government initiated the Blue Peacock project to build nuclear land mines. Products of the Cold War, Blue Peacock mines were to be buried along the projected wartime invasion routes for Russian tanks into what was then West Germany. The classified - its existence wasn't revealed until last July - Blue Peacock project was eventually canceled because of insurmountable environmental and political problems. Still, one aspect of Blue Peacock should alarm anybody who is worried about nuclear-armed moles lurking under the DMZ.

Vengeance from beyond the grave
Blue Peacock mines would have had two methods of detonation: one method was detonation by wire from as far as five kilometers away; the other technique for exploding a Blue Peacock mine was to use a timer, which could have been set for up to eight days before firing. The idea of vengeance from beyond the grave would fit very well with the ultra-tough image the North Koreans often like to project.

Even the idea of a North Korean tunnel bomb, which could be shunted among an unknown number of locations, might be enough to wring some very expensive concessions from the US and its allies during any future talks with Pyongyang.

A North Korean tunnel bomb, if it exists, would also weaken the case of the US administration for the construction a national missile defense system. The threat of North Korea's ballistic-missile program is one of the White House's main rationales for building such a system. The revelation that Kim Jong-il had outfoxed the American neo-cons by mounting a bomb on a rickety, Soviet-era flatbed truck and driving it under the DMZ would cause loud cries of laughter among the opponents of a US missile defense system, not only in Washington, but also in other world capitals.

Michael G Gallagher, PhD, works at Namseoul University, South Korea.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

>> HUGGING PERVEZ 2...


Powell pleased, India perplexed
By Sultan Shahin

NEW DELHI - US Secretary of State Colin Powell couldn't help but be impressed during his just-concluded South Asia visit with the positive result of his efforts in the past two years to further peace between two nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan. There is an extraordinary atmosphere of goodwill in the subcontinent with the resumption of official-level dialogue and confidence-building measures such as the resumption of travel, transport and, above all, cricketing ties.

But when the time came for the United States to distribute rewards for good behavior, India received a bit of a shock. Before Powell's visit, speculation in Delhi was about what rewards India - the peacemaker and responsible nuclear power - would be granted and what punishment Pakistan would receive for its mischief after the revelation that it had been proliferating weapons technology to so-called rogue nation Libya and the remaining members of the US-designated "axis of evil" - Iran and North Korea.

This isn't the way things panned out. It was the bad boy on the block who was rewarded, perhaps understandably so from the US point of view. After all, it is harder for the bad boys to reform. Pakistan has taken measures to stop infiltration of terrorists from its side of the Line of Control (LOC) that separates the Indian and Pakistani state of Jammu and Kashmir, promised to stop the nuclear-proliferation activities of its scientists. and is fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants within its borders.

But though Powell is mumbling a lot of sweet nothings, India is deeply disappointed. Instead of receiving a sharp rap on the knuckles, and a very well-deserved one too, the Pakistan military has been designated a major non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) military ally of the United States for the purpose of future military-to-military relations, facilitating its acquisition of military hardware and other goodies that were not available to Pakistan before. It will enhance military cooperation between the two countries dramatically. The tangible military benefits will include priority delivery of the US military's "excess defense articles".

Powell has assured India, however, that no decision had yet been made on selling F-16 aircraft to Pakistan. He has also said that the US is considering a similar relationship with India too.

Of course, India is rattled. Pakistan, though always a major non-NATO ally of the US, has now formally become part of a privileged group of countries that includes Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Egypt and Argentina.

The timing of the move is very bad from the point of view of India's ruling party. One of the main planks in its re-election bid is the success it claims to have achieved in building close strategic ties with the United States. The special relationship with the sole superpower was an important part of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's "feel good" electoral package. The opposition will inevitably use this slight by the US to highlight the hollowness of the Indian government's claims.

To be fair, the United States is willing to reward India in a variety of ways as well. Washington has expressed a desire for India to participate in its controversial Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and is beginning official-level discussions on how the Indian navy and air force can contribute to the US-led non-proliferation coalition established to stop "suspect" shipping on the high seas. The US is also trying to encourage Pakistan to bring about a permanent end to "cross-border violence" in Kashmir.

But the United States is also asking India to open up its markets further and outsource some of its services to the US, if it wants to continue to benefit from the outsourcing of US jobs to India. India's hopes that US President George W Bush's "Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership with India" would lead to easier access to US high technology have also been dashed. A senior US official stated recently that India would receive no substantial technology unless the US was satisfied that India had tightened export controls. The US had placed severe restrictions on the transfer of dual-use technologies, which have both civilian and military applications, to India after its 1974 nuclear tests.

Powell and the peace process
The first hiccup on the hitherto smooth peace process between India and Pakistan took place just a couple of days before Powell's visit. Vajpayee, who is seeking re-election nine months before it was due, was hoping to cash in on the peace process, which is immensely popular in the country - particularly among its 150 million Muslim population. The ruling Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is for the first time appealing for Muslim votes on the same ground.

But Pakistani President General General Pervez Musharraf once again emphasized the importance of Kashmir while addressing Indian strategic intellectuals through satellite. In his prepared speech last Saturday for an international conference organized by India Today magazine in New Delhi, Musharraf was more than explicit in restating his country's traditional position on Kashmir. In fact, the Pakistani president referred to Kashmir as the central issue of Indo-Pakistani relations a half-dozen times.

Musharraf also indicated that confidence-building measures would be held hostage depending on the progress of Kashmir, as recently happened in the case of official-level talks on resuming transport links between the Indian state of Rajasthan and the Pakistani state of Sindh. He made a thinly veiled call for the United States to broker a Kashmir solution if it really wants to dampen the fires of Islamic militancy. He even indirectly raised the United Nations plebiscite bogy, though he had himself discounted the possibility only a few months ago on the eve of the summit meeting of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation held in Islamabad.

This is certainly not the first time Musharraf has changed his tune. Some observers have, however, blamed "provocative questioning" on the part of Indian strategic thinkers for his "combative demeanor". He is known to behave more like the trained commando that he essentially is than like a diplomat when under pressure. Indians wanted him to clarify his stand on Kashmir. He felt that Indians were implying that he was unnecessarily raising the Kashmir issue and, if so, they were divorced from the reality on the ground. Even if he himself wanted to, he said, he could not change the fact that Kashmir was the main dispute between India and Pakistan.

Musharraf may have wanted to pass a message to the United States as well. He may have wanted both India and the US not to be beguiled by the largely successful progress of peace talks and the general atmosphere of extraordinary bonhomie on the subcontinent with growing people-to-people contacts. The gentlemanly cricketing behavior of spectators of both the Karachi and Peshawar one-day matches has indeed earned a large measure of goodwill for Pakistan in India. Indian cricketers too appear to have won the hearts of Pakistani cricket fans, as per the advice of the Indian prime minister, who had specifically asked them to win not only matches but also Pakistani hearts. But Musharraf apparently doesn't want anyone to become too mesmerized by the goodwill generated by recent events and forget about Kashmir.

Not that anyone in India is enthralled by the peace atmospherics or Musharraf's promises. Indian forces are on alert as melting snow on the LOC eases the possibility of militant infiltration. Security officials in Jammu and Kashmir have constantly remained doubtful about Pakistan's commitment to completely end infiltration.

A senior army intelligence official told Asia Times Online that the real test of the promise of peace begins now that melting snow has opened up new routes for terrorist groups to replenish and reinforce their cadre in the state. Only two terrorists infiltrated in the month of February, but the figure was the same last year too, he said.

He was also hopeful, however, because infiltration would have begun picking up from the beginning of March in the absence of any peace initiative as had happened last year. The army did detect two simultaneous infiltration attempts on the night of March 3. Three of four terrorists who had come across from the Poonch district were killed, while one escaped. The forces recovered two AK rifles, currency and three cameras. The second attempt took place in Rajouri district near Thana Mandi. The security forces killed both terrorists belonging to the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Two AK rifles, currency, medicines and a radio set were recovered.

Only three groups were detected while attempting to enter the state from Pakistan until Monday, and eight militants belonging to them were killed. Two militants of a group trying to leave Kashmir and return to Pakistan were also intercepted and killed while trying to cross the border. Only if infiltration does indeed remain down in the coming weeks compared with previous years, one may be able to conclude that the Pakistani government is keeping its word. So far the prognostication is not bad.

From the remarks made by Powell, it is clear that the US too is watching the situation very carefully. Powell said in Delhi he would speak to Musharraf about taking action against terrorist camps. The dismantling of terrorist infrastructure from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is a long-standing Indian demand. On whether Pakistan had taken steps to dismantle terrorist training camps, he said one of the "essential elements" of the recent agreement between India and Pakistan was an end to cross-border violence. Saying he was "pleased" that activity across the LOC had come down significantly, Powell added that he hoped it would stay that way. "We, of course, will be watching as the spring season approaches," he said, aware of Indian concerns about renewed infiltration once the snows melt.

Addressing a joint press conference with Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, Powell said he would also speak to Musharraf about "any involvement" of past Pakistani governments in nuclear proliferation, or anything "contemporary" in nature relating to what Washington refers to as the "A Q Khan network". Asked whether his comment that no decision had been made on selling F-16s to Pakistan reflected a shift in the Bush administration's position, Powell said: "My comment over here was that we have to take into consideration any requests that are made of us; but no decisions have been made with respect to any particular military package, especially F-16s." He said last year's US$3 billion economic aid package for Pakistan did not include F-16s.

Another area of major concern for India was what the US was doing to ensure that Pakistan was not able to continue its nuclear-proliferation activities. About the "role" of the Pakistani government in nuclear proliferation, Powell said: "We certainly know the role played by Dr [Abdul Qadeer] Khan for some time now ... We are pleased that Dr Khan has acknowledged what he has done and we are pleased that we are getting a great deal of information from Pakistani authorities as a result of their interrogation of Dr Khan and his associates." He said the "Khan network" was "being broken up", making it clear that more had to be done. "I think we have had a real breakthrough with what Dr Khan has acknowledged and our ability to roll up different parts of the network. We cannot be satisfied till the entire network is gone - branch and root."

Powell said he was confident that if Musharraf was determined to get to the heart of this network, then the residual elements could be dealt with. "With respect to who else was involved ... in past Pakistani governments or anything ... contemporary in nature, I will speak to President Musharraf about this," he said. "There is much more work to be done."

Meanwhile, Powell said he had had a "good discussion" with Sinha on Indian participation in the PSI. Stating that the US wanted India to participate in the security initiative, Powell said officials of the two countries would now discuss the issue. Meanwhile, according to Sinha, there was no discussion on India signing the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional Protocol to curb nuclear proliferation. It was originally feared that the US would pressure India to sign.

Despite disappointment in India across the board, particularly on account of Pakistan being officially designated a major non-NATO ally of the US, some Indian observers are willing to take a more charitable view. The major newspaper Indian Express, for instance, commented in an editorial written before the announcement about Pakistan's new status: "What we need to remember is that the core interests of India and the US converge across a whole range of issues. But it would be unrealistic to believe that there will be no differences. There is a need, therefore, to ensure that divergences of perceptions, interests and policies between the two countries are also managed in a mature fashion as much as the convergences are taken forward from strength to strength. For example, unsolicited 'advice' from the US State Department on missile testing by India, when actually it was Pakistan that had tested missiles imported clandestinely, is not very helpful. Nor for that matter would equating outsourcing with the omnibus mantra of opening up the economy. In this context, Powell's reassurances to India on outsourcing are most welcome."

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

-----------------------------------------------
Pakistan as a 'key non-NATO ally'
By Ehsan M Ahrari

US Secretary of State Colin Powell brought good news to Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf on Thursday. The United States will elevate its military relationship with Pakistan as a major ally outside of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That is the ultimate reward for Musharraf's willingness not only to do a lot of heavy lifting to capture or kill the top al-Qaeda leadership, but also for risking the very stability of his country by getting so close to Washington. But risks for Pakistan might not be as heady as they appear at a glance. For India and China, the elevation of Pakistan by the Bush administration poses new questions.

From the vantage point of domestic politics in Pakistan, Musharraf's "never say no" attitude toward the United States' demands regarding its global "war on terrorism" is not likely to win him many friends. However, that is not to say that anti-Americanism is on the rise in Pakistan. The March 17 findings of the Pew Research Center underscore that America's image in Pakistan, Turkey and Russia has improved from its last survey of May 2003. As a general principle, a majority of Pakistanis are showing their revulsion against what al-Qaeda and its cohorts inside their own country represent. However, Musharraf still has to worry about the Islamists of his country and their commitment to Osama bin Laden's world view and to his primacy of jihad. Those Islamists have enough clout to cause ample trouble in certain sections of Pakistan. In addition, they will continue their anti-government and terrorist activities, including carrying out further assassination plots.

Pakistan's elevation as a key non-NATO ally by the administration of US President George W Bush is a diplomatic coup de theatre for the Musharraf government. From the perspectives of regional politics, Pakistan is likely to get special access to conventional weapons of all sophistication from the United States. For now, one can speculate that Pakistan will get the same treatment as Israel, Egypt, or Jordan. But in reality, Pakistan would do well if it could be treated on par with Egypt. No key ally of the US will be treated with the kind of generosity in the realms of economic and military assistance as Israel has been receiving from Washington since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Even in agreeing to go along with President Bush's recommendations for the transfer of weapons to Pakistan in the coming months, the US Congress will insist on heightened transparency from Islamabad regarding its nuclear-proliferation activities, and complete information on the nuclear-proliferation-related activities of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. That is an issue that will not go away for Musharraf.

India, China watch carefully
By elevating Pakistan as a key ally, the US will be forced to conduct a constant balancing act vis-a-vis its strategic partnership with India. That partnership has grown considerably and is not about to be unraveled, barring unforeseen mishaps. There is little doubt that New Delhi will apply its own behind-the-scenes pressure on Washington to elevate its own special strategic status further under the new circumstances. How far the US is willing to go in terms of accommodating India's strategic predilections will be determined by who is occupying the White House in January 2005. The global "war on terrorism" under John Kerry is not likely to take up as much of his energy as it has Bush's, barring no further terrorist incident in the United States. Thus, under a Kerry administration, India might enjoy a slight edge over Pakistan. More substantially, Washington's job of balancing the interests of India and Pakistan will be considerably easy if both South Asian nations succeed in keeping their mutual ties steady and free of tensions leading to a potential war.

China is certainly scratching its head over the implications of Pakistan's newly elevated strategic status for its own ties with that country. In the short run, Sino-Pakistani ties are not likely to be affected. However, in the long run - especially if Islamabad were to get even more economic and military benefits from Washington - the traditional Sino-Indian strategic rivalry might be revisited by Beijing and Delhi. There is little doubt that if Pakistan were to accrue the kind of military and economic payoffs that it expects to get from Washington, the strategic balance in South Asia will undergo a noteworthy mutation. Such a transformation would not be welcomed by New Delhi or Beijing, for different reasons.

India will not be appreciative of any changes in Pakistan's status in conventional arms. That is an area where India has assiduously built up its own superiority for the past 40 years. Beijing, for its part, does not want to lose Pakistan as a key partner in keeping India off balance in the Sino-Indian rivalry. Unbeknownst to Washington, by elevating Pakistan's status as a key ally, it has started a new era of strategic realignment, or at least a major reassessment toward a potential realignment. All in all, such a reassessment is not at all unwelcome, especially since it guarantees the role of the United States as a long-term balancer in South Asia.

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
-----------------------------------------------------
>> FORGET SCOMI?

Malaysia's rulers poised for election victory
By Anil Netto

PENANG, Malaysia - Just a day left before polling day on March 21 and all indications are that Malaysia's ruling Barisan Nasional (BN, or National Front) coalition is poised for a comfortable victory. Political analysts predict that the coalition will have no problem retaining its commanding majority in parliament.

By all accounts, it has been a quiet and uneventful election campaign so far. Missing is the fever that election ceramahs (small public political gatherings) used to generate. The BN has exploited its control of the media to the hilt. It has also overrun the country with a public relations offensive that bears the mark of an intensive advertising campaign.

From billboards and television to radio and newspapers, the themes are the same. The tag line on the numerous ads resembles that of a cigarette ad: "Barisan Nasional: Excellence, Glory, Distinction."

The PR boys for the BN have been busy. The ads have consistently hammered home the message: Only the BN can bring peace and stability; vote BN for development and so on. There are slight variations, but that is the underlying theme.

Faced with this advertising onslaught, along with the lopsided pro-BN media coverage, the average Malaysian could be forgiven for thinking this is an election without any major issues. And that is exactly what the BN and the mainstream media under their spell want the voters to believe.

The mainstream media have contributed to the BN campaign by telling voters that the only real choice they face is a country under BN rule or "extremism". This plays into the fears largely prevalent among the non-Malay segments of the population - that the only real choice is between the "liberal" BN and the conservative brand of Islam espoused by Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS).

One full-page ad in The Star, the country's top-selling newspaper, carries the message: "No other party can keep Malaysia peaceful, united and secure. Especially against threats of terrorism. Let's continue to enjoy security, peace and unity."

The advertising blitz is not just from the BN. Even government-linked firms such as Malaysia Airlines and Tenaga Nasional Bhd, the electricity utility company, have jumped into the fray, carrying thinly disguised messages that coincide with the BN advertising themes.

Tenaga Nasional has a new corny commercial about a boy going to sleep at night as the lights go out. The ad was slipped in a few times during popular programs such as Late Show with David Letterman. As the boy falls asleep, the narrator comes on with these pearls of wisdom: "Goodnight, son ... Hmm, looks like another night in quiet ol' Malaysia - and thank goodness for that. Because we are a country with peace and special harmony that lets us sleep soundly at night. Now isn't that worth celebrating?"

The other main parties contesting the polls - PAS, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Keadilan - have been struggling to get their message across with hardly any meaningful access to the media. The only avenues left for them are the ceramahs and the Internet. Because of the limited reach of these avenues, few Malaysians are aware of the larger issues confronting their country.

The opposition is handicapped because the issues they - especially the DAP and Keadilan - are advocating are intangible issues such as the lack of independence of the judiciary, the unlevel electoral playing field and the curbs on democracy.

And that suits the BN fine. It projects itself as the only party capable of bringing about "development". Voters buy into this argument without realizing that the only reason the BN can bring about development is that it has access to the country's resources and government machinery. The BN has successfully ingrained into the population that the BN = government and the "opposition" parties are only good at making noise.

The BN's main selling point is new Premier Abdullah Badawi, whose picture appears on posters across the country. On a single bus stop, it is not uncommon to find half a dozen large portraits of Abdullah dangling around. The sheer amount of resources spent on the BN poster, billboard and glossy-pamphlet campaign ensures that the opposition campaign is dwarfed. For some reason, many of the BN campaign materials were printed and produced in China and shipped back to Malaysia.

To be sure, Abdullah's softer image is a marked contrast to former premier Mahathir Mohamad's often caustic style. And Abdullah's anti-corruption drive has also caught the imagination of many Malaysians, probably due to the hype in the mainstream media.

But many Malaysians fail to realize that all the anti-corruption drive has to show so far are the arrests of a prominent has-been tycoon and a virtually unknown cabinet minister. They do not see that Abdullah's "Mr Nice" image has been tarnished by the fact that as home minister, he is responsible for the arrests under the harsh Internal Security Act, which permits detention without trial. More than 90 people are still in detention, a group of whom are on hunger strike, including two who have been hospitalized.

PAS has also accused BN's dominant United Malays National Organization of offering bribes to persuade PAS candidates to withdraw from the general election, a charge UMNO denies. The party reportedly claimed that two men offered RM100,000 (US$26,300) to PAS's Pasir Raja candidate, Sanip Ithnin, to withdraw his candidacy.

In the face of a hopeless situation for the other parties, it is understandable that there should be a distinct lack of campaign excitement. The most the other parties can hope for is to hold on to the gains achieved during the reformasi-charged polls of 1999. Apart from this, the opposition parties are also hoping to score upset wins in specific constituencies against high-ranking BN officials including those in the cabinet, while PAS is hoping to add to the two states it controls.

Among the constituencies that Malaysians are closely watching are the contest in Pekan in the central state of Pahang where Najib Razak, the caretaker deputy premier, is facing a PAS contender, and the Sungai Siput seat, where the caretaker works minister, Samy Vellu, is up against Keadilan's Jeyakumar Devaraj, a respiratory physician turned political activist.

All eyes will also be on how PAS performs - whether it will make any further inroads or be thwarted. Keadilan also faces a do-or-die battle to make sure it can hang on to the five seats it captured in the last election.

All said, and given the unlevel playing field, the outcome is predictable, with the only uncertainty being to what extent, if any, the opposition can make further inroads. In 1999, the BN won 56 percent of the popular vote yet maintained its two-thirds majority in parliament due to Malaysia's first-past-the-post (simple majority) electoral system. This time around, the BN's share of the popular vote is likely to reach 60 percent or more, though it is unlikely to reach as high as the 65 percent it achieved in 1995.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)