Don't see eye to eye

[Aquarian]

extract from Today

In Abdullah, we trust

He should not be held accountable for all govt decisions, says DPM Najib Razak

Friday• June 9, 2006 KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia's ruling party and corporate chiefs have rallied behind Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (picture), rejecting a tirade against him by former leader Dr Mahathir Mohamad that has raised fears of a split in the government. The 80-year-old Dr Mahathir jolted cabinet ministers two days ago when he made his most stinging attack yet on Mr Abdullah, hinting that he regretted choosing the respected Islamic scholar and veteran politician to inherit his mantle when he retired three years ago. Mr Abdullah has not responded to Dr Mahathir's outburst, but Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak pledged his loyalty to Mr Abdullah and urged others — particularly members of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (Umno) party — to remain confident of their leader. Mr Najib, seen as the only potential challenger to Mr Abdullah for top office, appealed for support. "I am appealing to all leaders, party members and all the rakyat (people) to give full support to the PM," he said during a visit to India. The deputy prime minister said that Dr Mahathir, during his term as prime minister, had done what he felt was best for the country. Similarly, now, Mr Abdullah was doing what he felt was best for the nation, he added. "Therefore, all quarters should give their undivided support to Abdullah as the prime minister — more so, when he was accorded the huge mandate and trust by the people in the last general election." Mr Najib said all decisions concerning the country were made collectively and with the consensus of the Cabinet ministers in accordance with the prevailing situation and facts. "Therefore, the prime minister should not be held accountable for all decisions adopted by the government." Other ministers who came forward to defend Mr Abdullah include Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, Federal Territories Minister Zulhasnan Rafique, Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis and Former Backbenchers Club chairman Shahrir Samad. Dr Mahathir's comments brought into the open an anger that has been mounting for the past year at Mr Abdullah for a number of reasons. He accused the premier of back-stabbing and betraying him. His principal grouse is about the government's recent decision to scrap a plan — a Mahathir brainchild — to build a new bridge to Singapore. He also felt slighted over what he said were government charges that he wasted public money on mega infrastructure projects during his tenure, although Mr Abdullah's cabinet has made no such accusation in public. Dr Mahathir is among Umno's most powerful members, and many people fear he retains enough clout to cause a revolt against Mr Abdullah with accusations for which he has rarely provided proof. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said it was not true that Mr Abdullah, known popularly by his nickname "Pak Lah", had betrayed Dr Mahathir's trust. "He did not backstab Tun (Mahathir). Pak Lah has a lot of respect for Tun and is sensitive towards him," he said. "The government's strength lies in its ability to build on the foundation already laid out. Whatever it is, it's still the same government running the country." Meanwhile, Malaysia Airlines chairman Munir Majid — who is also the president of the Kuala Lumpur Business Club — warned that Dr Mahathir's remarks were "all very distressing for business" and may impact on political stability and investments. "It must be hoped it does not develop into a destabilised political environment," Mr Munir said in a statement. "When there are sharp interjections from a respected former prime minister, they could cause disunity, which is a serious threat to stability and certainty." — AGENCIES

[Aquarian]

Dr M, never learn from mistakes- keep on choosing the wrong successor? Still want to have his own way even though he is no longer in power, heart pain seeing his pet project being shelved?

What is your say in this?

[Regional]

Wait Dr M bcome KOK EYE.:p

[Aquarian]

i think he hopes to become the SM but got rejected :p

Wait Dr M bcome KOK EYE.:p

[vandagal2002]

i think he hopes to become the SM but got rejected :p


ah, he always want to say abt the bridge, water, sand and other things..............

Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Dr M: I have the right to speak up

The Star

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he has decided to voice his concern and views on the scrapping of the scenic bridge project, despite making a promise not to interfere with government matters, as “this is the limit.”

“I had promised not to interfere with politics and I have not said anything about the many wrong things which have been done. But this is the limit.

“When you sell your country and allow other people to direct you in your country, I think I have limits. To surrender your sovereignty to Singapore as if you are scared does not speak well of the self-respect you have for yourself.

“I will continue to write letters if necessary – if I feel the country’s sovereignty is surrendered to other people. Even as a citizen, I have the right,” he said, when met at KLIA upon his arrival from London yesterday.

Asked to comment on Backbenchers Club chairman Datuk Shahrir Samad’s statement calling for him to stop commenting on government projects and be happy that his Vision 2020 was being upheld by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration, Dr Mahathir said he did not “care what other people said against him.”

The former prime minister said that his questioning the decision to scrap the bridge project had nothing to do with causing disunity within Umno.

“I am talking about Malaysia’s self respect and sovereignty. This is our country and we are building a bridge in our territory but have to ask the permission of another country.

“Where is the sovereignty?” he asked.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[vandagal2002]

BE IT BETTER, LESSER OF 2 EVILS??

Abdullah Badawi
A gentler, kinder Malaysia?
Change seems inevitable as diplomatic Abdullah takes over; an immediate one cessation of talk about "skinning the cat". TODAY newspaper. By Seah Chiang Nee
Nov 3, 2003

SOME 10 years ago, a Singaporean executive asked me: "Between Anwar Ibrahim and Mahathir Mohamad, who is better for us?" Anwar was then expected to take over as Prime Minister.

It was a tough question then and I gave a mixed reply.

Dr Mahathir's good point, I replied, was his multi-racial, moderate, pro-business vision for Malaysia and his courage to fight for it.

As a Singaporean, I found his fearless crackdown on religious and racial extremism and royal excesses admirable - even if they had meant losing votes each time.

That put him miles ahead of Anwar, whose attitude towards race, language and religion was less clear-cut, the emphasis depending on whether election was coming or not.

But that part of Dr Mahathir that was bad for Singapore was his negative feeling towards the republic, something Anwar did not seem to have.

On balance, however, I felt that Dr Mahathir - and the moderate Malaysia he stood for - was a better choice.

When I first started reporting on Malaysia 30 years ago, I had thought that Umno leaders were all the same - men who shared the same ideological objectives. While this was true to an extent, I found that some had very different strategic ideas that had impacts on Singapore.

Take Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who challenged Dr Mahathir in 1987 and narrowly lost.

In the subsequent years, as the two titans clashed, I had first told myself: "What's the big deal? They are absolutely of the same Umno capitalist mould, so what difference does it make for Singapore whoever wins?"

But I quickly found out that they were different.

Dr Mahathir wanted an industrial leap for Malaysia while Tengku Razaleigh, the Kelantan prince, wanted to give priority to agriculture and natural resources.

This has taught me that while all Umno leaders are supposed to be ideologically the same, they're not - and the differences could have an impact on neighbours like Singapore.

Now the spotlight is on Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the new Prime Minister. So, what mould will he be in? How will he change Malaysia and its ties with Singapore?

I am of the view that after 22 years of strong Mahathir rule, changes - domestic and foreign - are unlikely to happen in Malaysia quickly.

Even a running start is unlikely until Mr Abdullah has gained a mandate through general elections that may take place around March next year.

The first six months or so will be a consolidation period. If Mr Abdullah wins a strong mandate, his hand will be strengthened and he will move faster and more firmly. I think he will get this mandate.

One immediate change will be in Malaysia's diplomatic language to the outside world. Foreign policy has been an area so single-handedly dominated by Dr Mahathir for so long that change is inevitable.

The man was the architect of its foreign policy, including pursuing and managing conflicts with Singapore.

Unpredictable, frequently anti-West, Dr Mahathir also alternates between logic and irrational moods, sometimes moving from sweet reason to seemingly irrational diplomacy.

Often, Dr Mahathir fails to separate foreign from domestic politics. Arguably, some Malaysian observers say this cannot be avoided given Malaysia's ethnic and religious diversities.

"At times, you need to say certain things regarding the Americans to win Malay votes; at others, you have to move closer to China to win Chinese hearts," one long-time journalist said.

In other words, he said that Dr Mahathir's diplomatic rants are often an extension of domestic politics. But I think it's more than that. It also reflects his powerful character. Dr Mahathir easily takes offence by outsiders who he feels have slighted him or offended his beloved country.

Some countries seem to peeve him more than others and, to Dr Mahathir, should be taught a lesson to show that Malaysia can't be taken for granted. It's the same way Dr Mahathir has treated his foes and rivals in Malaysia - he moves vigorously to knock them off.

The new Prime Minister is a different character. He's mild, diplomatic and hates confrontation. Mr Abdullah is likely to use a less combative voice to the West or Singapore - even if he agrees with Dr Mahathir about them.

In fact, most of Malaysia's foreign policies - including on America, the Muslim world, Asean and globalisation - are likely to remain the same, only the undiplomatic language will change. This is not a bad thing.

These are the immediate changes that I foresee:

o Singapore - it may take some time to develop warmer ties. But there'll be no more talk of "skinning" Singapore. Neither will there be any more reference to the option of war when discussing bilateral conflicts.

o A strong bout of quiet diplomacy to court Western investors, with emphasis to attain their skills and technology for a higher-value-added Malaysia. The economy needs it. Mr Abdullah realises he can't depend just on cheap pricing to defeat competitors like Singapore.

o He will come under pressure from local investors to revive the Malaysian stock market with confidence-building measures to bring back the institutional investors who have fled in droves since capital controls were introduced in 1998.

Domestically, there is a host of problems confronting Mr Abdullah - corruption, crime, the threat of PAS - but education ranks highest.

I've been told that the new man plans to set up a high-level panel to rid education of its current flaws of poor English, Maths and Science and the hated ethnic policies of admission.

It may be led by former Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam, Mr Abdullah's close friend, one unconfirmed source said.

Mr Abdullah has, in fact, been inserting his own teams of qualified young technocrats into senior civil service posts during the past few months. He doesn't waste time.

(This article was published in TODAY newspaper on Nov 3, 2003 under the headline "Gentler and kinder Malaysia?"

[vandagal2002]

Friday, April 21, 2006
Bridge dispute tests Malaysia PM's firmness

(Reuters) - Malaysia's soft-spoken prime minister could be forced to take off the gloves soon to tackle bitter opposition from predecessor Mahathir Mohamad as he dismantles key parts of the feisty former leader's legacy.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, an Islamic scholar dubbed "Mr Nice", has drawn withering criticism from Mahathir after scrapping plans for a bridge to neighbouring Singapore that ran into opposition from the wealthy city state and stirred unease at home.

The bridge was first envisioned by Mahathir, who picked Abdullah to replace him before retiring in 2003 after 22 years in power -- a choice confirmed by a landslide national election win.

Known for a consensual approach to politics that dramatically contrasts with Mahathir's decisive style, Abdullah stunned the nation last week when he axed plans for a bridge to replace a causeway linking Malaysia with Singapore.

The row appears to pose little long-term threat to the governing coalition, or to investors' confidence, but could still smudge Abdullah's image.

"Whether Abdullah has the mettle to withstand the criticism is hard to say at this juncture," said Bridget Welsh, a Southeast Asia specialist at John Hopkins University.

"Abdullah's leadership lacks the gloss of the first few years in office," she told Reuters. "The office of the prime minister is strong, but Abdullah personally has been tarnished by attacks, creating the perception of weak and indecisive leadership."

The bridge project ranked among Mahathir's favourites, along with Malaysia's national car Proton, and the country's sprawling new administrative capital of Putrajaya.

Malaysia should not have bowed to pressure to halt the bridge, a visibly upset Mahathir said after the news. "If I didn't leave, it would have started 2-½ years ago," he added.

Abdullah, 66, said this week his decision would stand, though people were free to say what they liked about it. He did not mention Mahathir by name in remarks that won praise for their restraint.

Opposition parties had few kind words for Mahathir.

"If he's angry, so what?" quipped opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who Mahathir sacked from his post as deputy prime minister in 1998. Anwar was later arrested and jailed before his release in 2004.

"This country is owned by Malaysians and not by one man," Anwar added. "This is the problem of authoritarianism."

Many Malaysians still regard Mahathir as the father of modern Malaysia because his rule saw the country rise from an agricultural backwater to a manufacturing hub.

But as Malaysia struggles to reshape its economy in the face of competition from low-cost producers such as China, many of Mahathir's projects have begun to seem expensive or outmoded.

"This was a legacy problem that Abdullah inherited from the previous administration," the Sun newspaper said. "(Mahathir's) mistake has proved to be very expensive to us."

Mahathir, 80, has queried other decisions of Abdullah's government, including the scrapping of a railway project and Proton's sale of its ailing Italian motorcycle unit, MV Agusta.

"Dr Mahathir now realises that his legacy may be coming apart," said K.S. Nathan, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. "He therefore feels the need to defend his policies."

U.S. analyst Welsh cautioned against reading too much into the clash of personalities. "The pattern in Malaysia has been for retired prime ministers to check governing leaders," she said.

As a youthful leader, Mahathir himself had faced criticism from Malaysia's founding prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, so Abdullah's is not entirely a new experience.

posted 6:30 PM

37 Comments:
harimau said...
Pak Lah, you are right in your decision this time. the vast majority of the rakyat are with you. Stand firm.
Even Singapore allowed the crooked bridge to be joined to the other half of the causeway, what an ugly bridge it would have produced. It is like matching a prety girl to an ugly old man!
WE SUPPORT YOU PAK LAH!!!

Friday, April 21, 2006 6:53:29 PM
Ra-AP-Dah said...
Syabas! Pak Lah! I and all the rakyat in Bolehland will ardently support you 100% from behind!

Yes! Pak Lah! Go for the kill!

"Whenever the government runs things it always costs twice as much as should be." -- Gerald Pearse


"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell

Anwar's wife questioned by police

the richest EX PM of Malaysia

Friday, April 21, 2006 6:58:41 PM
senyumsayang said...
It is premature to say at this time that there is going to be all out war. The next few weeks will be revealing. Stay tuned.

Friday, April 21, 2006 7:32:46 PM
osamabeenlaid said...
A legacy built on corruption, greed and ego will not stand the test of time. That it took so long for Pak Lah to act on them do not reflect well on him. Nonetheless, better late than never.
Another legacy left behind by the Mahacorrupt are the inept useless ministers and deputy ministers, foremost of whom is NAJIS. An epic challenge looms in the coming UMNO AGM unless these snakes are "dismantled" or neutered.
My best wishes goes to Pak Lah. I hope he continues to show courage anf fortitude in the face of attacks from the devils. The rakyat are with him as long as he remains sincere.

Friday, April 21, 2006 8:01:02 PM

[Theo9902]

u mean Pak Lah is the wrong choice? or Anwar is a better choice.

in fact, Musa Hitam would be a better choice.

Dr M, never learn from mistakes- keep on choosing the wrong successor? Still want to have his own way even though he is no longer in power, heart pain seeing his pet project being shelved?

What is your say in this?

[Theo9902]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpqxAGVL.jpg

Malaysia's Mahathir attacked with pepper spray

KUALA LUMPUR : Malaysia's former premier Mahathir Mohamad, who is locked in a bitter dispute with the new government, was attacked with pepper spray Friday, his spokesman said.

Mahathir was assaulted by an unknown assailant as he was about to address a crowd of some 1,500 people shortly after arriving in eastern Kelantan state where he was on a political tour.

"He had just arrived and was about to give a speech to a crowd of 1,500 of his supporters, who had gathered at the airport," said Rano Othman from the Kelantan Police Operations unit.

"He had just begun to speak when he smelled something gassy, he then started to cough and could not go on with his speech," he told AFP. "He climbed into a car waiting for him and went back to the hotel."

Rano said that police were investigating who was behind the attack, but that it was suspected the culprit ran off after unleashing the gas.

"The suspect must have been nearby Tun Mahathir because only he was coughing, but there were so many people trying to get close to him," he said.

Mahathir's spokesman Sufi Yusoff said the feisty 81-year-old political veteran was not hurt or injured in the attack.

"No he's fine," he told AFP. "We don't know who did it, we're leaving it to the cops to investigate," he said.

[Aquatic Planet]

did the attacker got caught?:D

[Aquarian]

might not be caught la, if u know what i mean ;)

did the attacker got caught?:D

[Aquatic Planet]

might not be caught la, if u know what i mean ;)
but i wonder how he did it? blow the pepper powder?:D

[Theo9902]

yes, he was caught! Heard he was a Datuk :D

did the attacker got caught?:D

[Theo9902]

Reappraising Mahathir's Legacy
Norman Fernandez
Aug 8, 06 4:42pm

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took office as the fourth prime minister of Malaysia on July 16, 1981. For 22 years until he stepped down in October 2003, Mahathir was not only the longest serving prime minister of Malaysia but has also been credited for engineering Malaysia's rapid modernisation earning him the soubriquet of 'Bapa Kemodenan Malaysia' (Father of Modernisation).

Malaysia's physical transformation is obvious. After all, Mahathir presided over a period of phenomenal growth and at the end of his tenure, Malaysia bristled with concrete symbols from a gleaming airport to an impressive skyline.

Mahathir left office in a blaze of endearment and glowing tributes. Three years later, the period for veneration is over and the shenanigans of Mahathir's rule are slowly being untangled and the warts of his administration are beginning to show.

A reappraisal of his legacy will show that the transformation of Malaysia has come with a price.

The Malaysian judiciary before Mahathir though conservative, was, however, fairly independent and the envy of the region. Today it is a mere shadow of its former glory. In fact, there has been cases of chief justices who left office in a shadow of controversy.

Judicial independence from the executive was so severely compromised that it was reduced to becoming a chimera during Mahathir's period. The judiciary not only became subservient, but also became the tool of the executive.

For the Malaysian judiciary, the watershed event was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as the Lord President and the suspension of five Supreme Court judges and the eventual sacking of two of them. In the aftermath of the crisis in 1988, even the Supreme Court was renamed as the Federal Court while the Lord President's position was renamed to Chief Justice.

[Theo9902]

There are various interpretation of these events but the main outcome has been that the judiciary becoming politically compliant, strengthening of the hands of the executive.

Then there was the Anwar Ibrahim saga in 1997 when Mahathir used homosexual allegations as the reason to sack Anwar, then deputy prime minister and finance minister from the cabinet and Umno.

The government then brought sodomy and abuse of power charges against Anwar. He was found guilty and sentenced to six years imprisonment for corruption and nine years imprisonment for sodomy.

Mahathir perceived Anwar's moves as an attempt by Anwar and his supporters to grab power. This earned Mahathir's wrath and he responded with vigour and without scruples.

Economic nationalism

Recognising that the Malaysia's education system was losing its competitive advantage and particularly the standard of English was deteriorating, in a complete reversal of policy, Mahathir attempted to remedy the situation by ordering the teaching of mathematics and science in English. However, having allowed and watched the rot set in, the reversal came a little too late.

Thus it did not come at a surprise when the human resource minister recently revealed that there are almost 60,000 unemployed graduates and most of them were not proficient in English.

Under Mahathir, not only was there a gradual decline in the Malaysian education system but the education system itself became polarised. Teachers, instead of teaching were often more concerned with form and dressing. Instead of building on the heritage of the mission schools, school administrators worked hard to 'Malay-nise' these schools.

[Theo9902]

In the past, children of all races mixed freely and studied together thereby building common bonds of friendship and understanding. Today, many parents, particularly the Chinese, have begun sending their children to vernacular schools seeing national schools are on a slide.

Schools could have been the best place to initiate and cultivate national unity but that opportunity has long gone. Malaysians have regressed and have become polarised from the school-going age.

Industrialisation and privatisation have been the centerpieces of Mahathir's era. Mahathir wanted to transform Malaysia from an agricultural-based economy to become a regional industrialisation hub. To achieve this, Dr Mahathir had his initiatives and plans and launched his favoured projects with flourishes of economic nationalism.

In the end, many of the projects entailed huge losses, flaws and abuses and even needed government bailouts at the expense of public funds.

An example is Perwaja Steel which was Mahathir's showpiece steel plant to spearhead the country's industrialisation match. Today it is a spectacular failure, having lost billions by mid- 1990. Proton another of Mahathir's pet project is now floundering with plummeting car sales and is still looking for a suitor.

Together with industrialisation, privatisation was to have been the centerpiece of Mahathir's efforts to leapfrog to a First World status from a Third World one. It was also meant to be an effective tool for redistribution of wealth. A noble vision. Unfortunately, Malaysia's privatisation, first launched in 1983, got off on the wrong footing because many projects were awarded to political favorites without competitive bidding.

[Theo9902]

The government's public assets were privatised at discounts but the government used public funds to re-nationalised assets at prices far exceeding market levels. The government-linked businessmen were doubly blessed by firstly benefiting from the privatisation and secondly, when crisis struck, to be able to walk away unscathed from the debts and liabilities.

Soon government-linked businessmen were comforted to know that it was alright to fail as the government would ultimately bail them out using public funds.

Flawed polices

It was this blurring of the relationship and boundaries between business, politics and state which inevitably gave rise to patronage, bailouts and corruption, the consequence of this being billions of public funds wasted or squandered.

The proof can be seen in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis. In the 1997 economic crisis, the top 10 borrowers in Malaysia had a staggering total of US$36 billion in non-performing loans. These borrowers were, of course, the fortunate few who had Mahathir's imprimatur.

Much is said about Mahathir's defiance of the International Monetary Fund following the 1997 crisis which was widely blamed on East Asian corruption, cronyism and nepotism. To be fair, Mahathir's capital controls seemed eminently sensible in September 1998 when there seemed no end to the Asian crisis.

Dr Mahathir blamed the 1997 crisis on currency speculators, particularly George Soros. He conveniently forgot that his own government was also responsible for very expensive speculative failures when Bank Negara suffered multi-billion ringgit losses from its massive purchases of the sterling before the sterling's collapse in September 1992.

For Mahathir, it was the currency speculators, the West and the Jews which caused the 97 crisis but never his mismanagement.

[Theo9902]

Mahathir has been praised for saving Malaysia but lost amidst the laudatory praises is the question as to how did Malaysia end up in the 1997 mess in the first place? Was Malaysia's economy so pernicious that it took, only one man, Soros, to cripple Malaysia's economy?

Looking back, Dr Mahathir Mohamed should bear responsibility for the 1997 crisis for it was his own flawed policies, major failures in implementation and abuse in high places that created the mess. It took the 1997 crisis to lay bare his economic mismanagement.

Reevaluating Mahathir's legacy will show that although he had the hardware, in using the wrong software the drive has developed a major fault.

[Aquarian]

the joke is

Speculate On Ringgit Or Stock
Make Anwar Homosexual And Then Highlight It Repeatedly

forgot what ANWAR stands for liow :p

[Theo9902]

Digging a hole to cover a hole
Raja Petra Kamarudin

A Chinese friend of mine once told me that the Chinese have a saying. I don't know whether this is true but this is what my Chinese friend told me and the Chinese do have a lot of sayings -- such as 'two heads are better than one, especially if they are on the same coin'. Anyway, this is what my Chinese friend told me. When you dig a hole to take the earth to cover another hole that you would like to hide, you just create a bigger hole than the first one.

I suppose this holds true in most situations. When you create a story to cover another story that is full of holes, the new story exposes even more holes. Eventually, a lie to cover a lie just leaves more lies in its wake. Coming clean would be the better option.

And this is what separates ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from current Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Most of Mahathir's stories somehow sound credible because he backs them with details. Whether you agree with his arguments or not is another matter altogether but he does have a story to tell -- and a long one at that too. Abdullah's stories, however, sound weak because he does not explain himself but just denies, denies and denies. And, later, his denials are ripped to pieces when the facts prove the opposite of what he says. (Take the Scomi issue as one such denial now proven wrong).

[Theo9902]

Of course, you can fault Mahathir for much in his 22 years at the helm of this country. Mahathir can be blamed for many errors, weaknesses and lapses of judgment. However, when you have ruled Malaysia for 22 years, there are bound to be much bad amongst the good. This holds true for any world leader who has been in office for two decades. There are no exceptions. Finally, one would have to seek a balance between the bad and the good and try to analyse whether there is an excess of good compared to the bad, or the opposite. And this is what most people would consider when evaluating Mahathir's performance as prime minister, in particular the Umno grassroots and Malay voters -- those who matter most to Umno and who would eventually decide who runs Umno.

Abdullah has barely been three years at the helm. But in less than three years he has demonstrated more weaknesses than strengths. Adding the pluses and minuses together gives you a deficit bottom-line.

This is where Abdullah loses out to Mahathir.

Malaysians have resigned themselves to the fact that there can never be the perfect situation. You also cannot find the perfect person. One has to instead settle for the best alternative of the two. In situations where both are less than ideal, then one settles for the lesser of the two evils.

And the Malays, though acknowledging that Mahathir is no angel, have accepted one fact: compared to Abdullah, he is still the better alternative.

Humans are basically resistant to change. But humans are able to adapt to changing situations when there is really no choice in the matter. We may be perfectionists. We may seek the ideal situation. But in the absence of an ideal situation we can live with the better of the two alternatives, which may not be the best but certainly a better alternative than the other.

[Theo9902]

This is called pragmatism.

Many rejoiced at the end of Mahathir's reign. Many sang 'Happy Days Are Here Again'. Many gave a sigh of relief that we are finally seeing the exit of the scourge named Mahathir. But two years down the road and many of these same people began to change their tune and thought that probably they celebrated a little too early in the day. One must never count one's chickens before they hatch. A big package in a beautiful wrapping does not mean that the present inside is awesome. It could just be toilet paper. On the other hand, a small package wrapped in plain brown paper could be hiding a one-carat diamond ring; by far a better gift.

Intan atau permata? Diamond or glass? Both look the same. Both are the same size. Both radiate and sparkle. But one is an object of value and the other but a cheap imitation. One is a woman's best friend and the other a plaything for a child. Which is Mahathir and which is Abdullah? Of late, this is what is going through the minds of most Malaysians, in particular the Umno grassroots and Malay voters.

We are presently watching the clash of Titans. But what kind of clash is it? Is it a clash of personalities or a clash of ideologies? Is it a conflict about personal interests or differences involving the interest of the country? The jury is still out on this one and Malaysians are holding their breath in arriving at their conclusion. They are yet to fully comprehend the issue and pass judgement as to whether Mahathir is right or Abdullah is instead. And this, rather than the clash, is what is unsettling most Malaysians.

[Theo9902]

The fundamental issue, as far as Mahathir is concerned, relates to commitment. Mahathir is committed and Abdullah is not. In religion, fundamentals would affect one's akidah and the absence of it would render one's entire faith as demolished. That is how crucial akidah or faith in the fundamentals is to the entire thing. If your fundamentals are absent then you would exist in a void, a state of nothingness. And if you are not committed to the fundamental of the whole issue, then you cannot be said to be holding the fundamentals dear.

Abdullah is of the view that he is the prime minister and he does what he so pleases and no man, Mahathir included, will tell him what to do and when to do it. But what has slipped Abdullah's mind is that he is prime minister only because Mahathir made him so. And he is prime minister because he agreed to commit himself to the fundamentals of how this country should be run, the direction it should head for, the aims and objectives of all its policies, and the importance of continuing with its policies and direction set out 25 years ago when Mahathir first took over as prime minister.

Many argue that Abdullah is his own man and he is the prime minister so it is up to him to decide what to do and how he would like to run this country. Sure, if Mahathir had announced his resignation in mid-2002 and allowed Umno to choose its own president through a party election that would hold true. If Mahathir had announced that he is retiring and he is leaving the position of party president vacant and the party is free to nominate any number of candidates it so wishes and let all these candidates compete for the post and may the best man win, then this would hold true. But it did not happen this way.

[Theo9902]

Mahathir did not throw Abdullah to the wolves because an open contest, with Najib Tun Razak and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah throwing in their gauntlets as well, would only mean either Razaleigh or Najib would win the presidency while Abdullah would come in third.

Whether Abdullah likes it or not, he owes his position to Mahathir. There are other candidates stronger than Abdullah and if an open contest was allowed he would be pulverised. He would not have won even the deputy president's post, let alone the presidency. Mahathir made him. Abdullah is prime minister only at the grace of Mahathir, no less and no more. In fact, he was also deputy prime minister before this at the grace of Mahathir. And this is something Abdullah cannot comprehend or come to terms with. Abdullah wants to believe he is his own man and nobody's lackey. But he is not and there are no two ways about it.

An even more overriding factor is the commitment Abdullah made to Mahathir. Sure, Mahathir served Abdullah the job of prime minister on a silver platter. Abdullah did not have to fight for the job because, if he did, he would not have got the job. But it was not an unconditional job offer. It was an offer tied to certain terms and conditions. Abdullah accepted the offer. And he agreed to the terms and conditions attached to the offer. Let the sceptics say that Abdullah made a pact with the devil. Nevertheless, he did make a pact so he is now tied to upholding the terms of the pact.

And this is what Abdullah did not do. He accepted the offer. He accepted the terms that came with the offer. But once he got the job and walked through the corridors of power, he reneged on the terms. Malaysia Today has already spoken at length on what these terms are.

[Theo9902]

Mahathir himself has spoken at length about these terms. So it is not necessary to walk over old ground. Suffice to say, one cannot make a deal and renege on the deal and not expect any repercussions or backlash. And this is what Abdullah is suffering; the backlash of not honouring his word.

Was Mahathir wrong in tying Abdullah's hands and attaching terms and conditions to the offer he made Abdullah? Was Abdullah wrong in agreeing to the terms and conditions in the first place? Did Abdullah later try to right this wrong by committing another wrong in reneging on the terms and conditions after having agreeing to them in the beginning? That is all academic now. It is a done deal. Wrong or right is too late in the day to discuss. You said 'yes' so now you will open yourself to risk by saying 'no'. And if you want to take this risk no one can stop you from doing so. But you must accept what comes with this risk that you chose to take. It was your choice. You made it. So you must now live with it.

Mahathir made it clear to Abdullah what the game plan is. Mahathir stressed that the interest of the nation is prime and the many moves he made are for the nation's interest. Is this understood? Is this acceptable? Are any further discussions and debates necessary? Does Abdullah subscribe to this or does he dispute this? Abdullah saw the logic. He shared the sentiments. He too upholds the tenets of the nation's interest as first priority. And the deal was struck. And Mahathir delivered his side of the bargain and made Abdullah prime minister. But Abdullah turned round barely two weeks later and reneged on his side of the bargain.

[Theo9902]

What we are seeing today is a deal gone sour. What we are seeing today is one man delivering his side of the bargain and the other reneging. What we are seeing today is one man saying, "I have honoured my promise, now you honour yours." What we are seeing today is the renegade turning round and saying, "Go to hell, I am the prime minister, not you!"

That, in a nutshell, is what it is all about. Is the crooked bridge a good idea? Is it a bad idea? Should it go on? Should it be aborted? Is Proton viable? Should it be supported? Is it not viable? Should it be allowed to die? Many debates we can engage in. The ayes and the nays can balance off each other. We can argue till the cows come home. At the end of the day, no consensus will ever be reached. But one thing that cannot be ignored, a deal was made and the deal was not honoured. No amount of debate can resolve this. It is that and only that. And Abdullah cannot run away from this fact.