That doesn't suit PAS.

In 2007, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat who is described as "the spiritual leader" of PAS, spoke out against the already discernible trend in women's clothing. He said "We always [hear about] the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye, but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen." Because of "sexy" clothing "Our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed." The party has, according to Chinese party The MCA in a statement issued in June this year issued a ban on the use of lipstick and high heels by Muslim women - according to PAS, such things encourage rape. PAS has also decided, in states where it has power, to demand a quasi-Islamic dress code for all women taking part in sports, regardless of race or religion, says the MCA.

There are those that seek to portray these issues as fundamentally damaging to the country.

But immersed in Malaysian society and culture, the picture is different.

PM Abdullah Badawi, who succeeded Mahathir before a whispering campaign undermined his position, is a man of considerable personal and national integrity. He provided balance in the questions of race and religion: his wife (who died whilst he was prime minister) was rarely to be seen in a tudong and was a great champion of the kabaya. She maintained that position despite the changes in the country at large and may be credited with demonstrating that one can still be Islamic without being Islamist. Badawi's success in reducing corruption, and kicking many people off the gravy train, has been said to be the primary cause of the campaign against him. He announced a review of the pro-Malay policies, saying that they had run their course. That did not endear him to their beneficiaries.

Badawi promoted the concept of being Malaysian first rather than a Malay, Chinese or Indian first and a Malaysian second: that upset all the political and religious parties. Mahathir left UMNO in a bluster.

Badawi effected a policy of non-interference in the press : Mahathir wrote an article which would not have been published had it been about him when he was PM saying that Badawi had not delivered on press freedoms.

When Badawi's party lost seats in an election, he was blamed for failing to campaign effectively: what he had actually done was allow (almost) free speech by opposition parties, allow rallies and allow their manifestos to appear in news media and even to allow arch-rival Anwar Ibrahim extensive airtime. In short, he had delivered the medium of democracy - yet was criticised for it.

He brought to a conclusion several infrastructure projects that had all-but-died, amongst rumour that the money to complete them had been illegally diverted: city centre traffic in Kuala Lumpur has been greatly relieved by the completion of one major road project and two more have made considerable progress and are expected to be completed soon. Again, Badawi's hand in this has gone un-noticed.

Badawi was replaced with Najib, who was closely associated with Mahathir. Fears that he would be Mahathir's puppet were enhanced when Mahathir announced he was to rejoin UMNO and would be available to advise Najib. Najib, however, has so far proved not just to be his own man, but strong enough to carry forward Abdullah's policies. So far, Mahathir's advice has been confined to shouting from the sidelines through is blog. His turning up at Najib's photo-ops petered out quickly after watchers openly suggested his frequent presence indicated he was pulling Najib's strings.

Najib has taken in as advisers those who have successfully built and run state-owned enterprises such as Datuk Idris Jala, until last week CEO of Malaysia Airline Systems or MAS - almost the only major airline in the world to have made a profit in the past few month and Tan Sri Amirsham A. Aziz, until recently CEO of Malaysia's biggest bank, Maybank.

He has politely turned down - or postponed indefinitely - suggestions that he go back to certain "mega projects" proposed or even begun by Mahathir and stopped by Badawi as providing no benefit to the country at large.

Last week, a little noticed announcement said that application forms for government jobs would no longer ask for the applicant's race. OK, so the name's a dead giveaway but it's a start.

In the past six months, Najib has unravelled the requirement for companies in more than two dozen sectors to have Malay shareholders. He has also unravelled the protectionism on purchase of property by foreigners. He has announced that political rallies will be allowed - but in stadia not street demonstrations. He has, as noted, intervened (at least orally) in the case of the woman sentenced to be caned for drinking beer.

He has announced a "1 Malaysia" campaign - the objectives being not dissimilar to the "Malaysian Malaysia" campaign of 40 years ago.

He has gone against Mahathir's policy of centralising all major cabinet power in the PM: now there are separate finance and home ministers.

Najib has said that Malaysia must not stifle new media: he publicly denounced a plan reportedly hatched by the department responsible for communications to put in place a state-sponsored internet censorship scheme, a plan hastily denied by the department concerned saying that it intended only to "monitor." It is understood that the plan has quietly died.

In 2007, Najib said that he does not believe in separation of church and state: that government policy should be guided by the principles of Islam. And he has not gone from that position. However, his position is that of a moderate, not a radical and he is outspoken against those who demand a repressive regime.

Najib is subject to demands to bring back some of those that Badawi sidelined, their supporters saying that their restoration to the political centre will bring back support for UMNO which has been lost, particularly amongst the Indian minority.

Najib has yet to have a serious run-in with the Indian minority which plagued Abdullah. A group called HINDRAF alleges that Indians have suffered greatly and that they are disproportionately poor.

And yet, Indians make up a large proportion of the legal and media population, and run many security companies. They also dominate both the legal car-park industry and the illegal car jockey industry.

In 2007, a campaign was launched to sue the British government for bringing Indians to Malaysia and leaving them behind. A rally was organised in Kuala Lumpur city centre demanding the right to present a petition to the UK's Queen via the British High Commission. The organisers made political capital out of a false claim that they were denied the right to present the petition: in fact, it was authorised that a small representative delegation could attend the High Comm and hand over their petition. But the Ambassador would not meet them and the mass of the demonstration would not be allowed to block a major artery out of the city en route to the High Commission. Falsely, the organisers claimed that they had been denied the right to present the petition. The principle organiser then said he would take the petition to London and present it. He went but reports in the Indian media in Kuala Lumpur last month said that it has never been presented - and that the representative, who held the bank account for the movement, has failed to provide any accounts relating to income and expenditure.

But Najib is not immune to religious and racial disharmony: within the last week, as Najib was launching his Merdeka (Independence) Day celebrations, a row broke out over the siting of a Hindu temple. It has to be moved for some reasons related to infrastructure development and the Indians are not complaining so long as their temple is restored. The original site, in an industrial estate was ultimately considered unsuitable as security would have been an issue. And so it was decided to place it in a district called 23. That district is, mainly, Muslim. Some have protested, saying that to put an Indian temple in their district is offensive. Most, however, have not expressed any concern.

Someone, it is said that they are Muslim, decided that an effective protest would be to take a cow's head and dump at at the site.Cows are sacred to Hindus. Najib has said that the police must find out who is responsible and proceedings brought against them.

The conclusion: Malaysia is not turning into a radical Islamic, western-hating society. Some small groups are using new-found press freedoms to make it appear as if the country is in a serious mess. It isn't. And the fact that they can make that noise and cause that disruption is a positive thing.

That's because what Malaysia is doing, and has been doing since Badawi took over as PM in 2003, is turning into fully fledged democracy.

That means there are winners and losers.

Winning more than 50% of the votes in a national election is not a loss: but Badawi's opponents in his own party spun it as such. There will be more lost seats as PAS promotes, particularly in the rural areas, that the incumbent governments are "not Muslim enough." And as the flood of rural Malays into the cities and suburbs increases, those attitudes will cause unexpected results at the ballot box.

That's what democracy does: it feels its way, makes mistakes and rectifies them over time.

Malaysia is only 52 years old. The media that criticises it, forgets this and assumes that it is a mature democracy that is falling apart. But there are many items of furniture in Malaysia that are older than the USA. Instead of damning or ridiculing Malaysia, its critics should give it support.

After all, the USA gained independence (by, one might consider by today's standards, acts of civil uprising and terrorism) in 1788, just 221 years ago. And it's still a work in progress. It was not formed all at once: Vermont signed up to the constitution in 1791: it was the first of 35 states to join between then and 1912. Alaska and Hawaii didn't sign up until 1959.

And during all that time, things did not go well.

In 1830, less than 60 years after the USA was formed, the Indian Removal Act forcibly moved all American Indians west of the Mississipi river - to the lands that had been ceded by Britain in 1788 and prefaced the beginning of Independence.

After another 27 years, Kansas ratified the Anti Slavery Constitution.

In 1955, almost 180 years after Independence, the USA began forcibly taking black children to school in white areas in a policy called "bussing."

In 1978, two hundred years after Independence, a group of radical Christians formed "The Moral Majority" - and pressed for interference in everything from government to education. Similar groups now press to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum.

The USA's history of racial intolerance, particularly to its native Indians is shameful: in 1899 - when the USA was already 120 years old, The Ghost Dance, a tribal ritual, was banned due to claims that it was a way of organising the Indians and maybe even a war dance; a year later saw the Massacre at Wounded Knee when dancers performed the dance -Chief Sitting Bull and eight warriors were killed. Later, more than 300 Indians were reported killed.

Therefore, it is concluded that the various issues that the international media report with a mix of fun and criticism are actually the growing pains of a new democracy.

That point is most powerfully made with reference, again, to the USA and the battle its people have had to secure the right to vote.

In 1831, the US Supreme court issued an order that had the effect of preventing Indians voting unless they renounced their tribal nation. White men were the only persons allowed to vote until 1870: but there was wealth qualification often as much as fifty pounds. Black men were given the vote in that year - but various states put in place measures to defeat that constitutional amendment. Women gained the right to vote only in 1920.

In 1924 legislation was passed giving Indians full voting rights.

In 1882, US congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act: it prevented Chinese and other oriental immigrants from becoming naturalised - thus barring them from voting. That remained in place until 1943. But it was not until 1952 that those of Chinese ancestry became eligible for citizenship.

The civil rights movement was founded in the 1960s.

The national voting age was first fixed at 18 years old in 1971.

That's 183 years after independence during which time political racial and religious intolerance has led to uprisings, killings and widespread sufferings and injustice.That, one suspects, puts where Malaysia is today into some kind of realistic perspective.

[End].

The author has lived in or worked in Malaysia for more than 10 years.