Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, known for his quick and acerbic tongue, was never really expected to remain quietly after he retired last October.

Since the release in September of his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim, a one-time protege turned nemesis, Mahathir's remarks have increased in intensity. Some have obviously questioned the propriety of a former prime minister making such comments both locally and abroad.

The Westminster model of government has no rule on the scope and scale of a former prime minister`s involvement in public affairs, essentially because this does not infringe on the effectiveness and accountability of the government.

Thus, while Mahathir, to many, appears to be the proverbial loose cannon, it is clear that there is nothing in the Westminster political culture, nor for that matter, Malaysian political customs, to stop him from speaking his mind.

Indeed, the propensity of former prime ministers to speak freely has less to do with freedom of speech, than with the fact that the Westminster government is simply one that is performance-based, a model favored by many governments for at least 100 years.

Westminster system

At the apex of British colonial power in the late 19th century, for instance, US President Woodrow Wilson observed that Westminster parliamentary government had become "the world`s fashion".

Even the Netherlands, which competed with Britain as a naval power in the 17th and 18th century, eventually adopted the system. Since 1945, more than 70 out of 195 countries have claimed this model since 1945.

With varying degree of success and innovation, the Westminster parliamentary government has been adopted to buttress the gains of peace, as well as to start anew in governance.

These countries have not necessarily belonged to the Commonwealth. Israel, Japan and Thailand are some of the countries that have retained features of Westminster parliamentary government, with the appropriate division of executive, judicial and legislative power.

The Westminster system is nonetheless concerned, first and foremost, with administrative accountability and effectiveness; not as the Americans preferred it, with a 'balance of power' between different branches of government; or for that matter, to safeguard the bills of rights to prevent the government from lording it over the citizens.

As Professor Pippa Noris, a comparative political scientist at Harvard University, wrote: "If individual members of Parliament (MPs) misbehave in any regard - if they prove lackadaisical, miscreants, sinners or fools - then, the theory goes, voters can kick them out."

Based on this theory, the Westminster system does not place any term limits on MPs or for that matter, on incumbent prime ministers. They can run for office as long as they find themselves fit to hold it.

The recent remarks of Singapore's Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew aptly capture this quality. When asked if he would resign as MP one day, he snapped: "No one needs to tell me. I know my (physical) condition. If I can`t perform, I will be the first to step down."

The Westminster system traditionally holds a cabinet meeting every Wednesday - a practice that has been in place in Malaysia since 1957.

It has also produced another strong customary rule on dissent: disagreement on executive policy can only be expressed in confidence in the cabinet, never openly expressed; not unless the minister(s) first resigns from office.

When Robin Cook, as British foreign secretary in Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government, could not bring himself to agree to the invasion of Iraq in May last year, he resigned; as did other ministers. They were then free to register their dissent and dissatisfaction openly.

Malaysian situation

In the Malaysian case, former deputy prime minister Musa Hitam did not agree with Mahathir's policy direction in the mid-1980s. His resignation, albeit couched in the form of 'retirement', became the practice.

When Anwar clashed with Mahathir ( photo ) over economic policy during the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the standard practice would have been for him to either hold his tongue or resign immediately.

Since he would do neither, he was dismissed, and charges of corruption and sodomy were brought against him to reduce his post-Westminster stature.

To be sure, rules accrued from the Westminster system are not written. Much of what is held to be true is mere custom, albeit a strong one, verging almost on a law-like practice.

In fact, the Victorian values attendant in the Anglo-Saxon culture, with calls for confidence, gentlemanly behavior and refined etiquette, shape and pervade the Westminster style of governance.

As long as MPs or prime ministers are agreeable to these elite 'British' values, the Westminster government can function quite well and without the acrimony, bad faith and poison pen campaigns that permeate other parts of the Commonwealth.

What the Westminster customary rule seems to have ignored or failed to develop, is the precise nature of the role of former prime ministers.

In the case of Malaysia, only one of the four prime ministers (i.e. Abdul Razak Hussein) died while in office. The rest have had wide latitude in relation to party matters and national issues.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, once the secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, retained an active role in articulating his opinion on how the country should be evolving. His column 'As I Saw It' in The Star was popular until it was banned after Operasi Lalang in 1987.

Hussein Onn, although relatively quiet, became a senior honorary member of Institute of Strategic and International Studies, the think-tank formed to advise the government.

As such, there is actually nothing in the book to hold Mahathir to certain standards during retirement. To the extent that his remarks make perfect policy sense, these ought to be taken seriously as coming from a citizen with vast experience in governmental affairs.

There is no reason for anyone to get upset that he has refused to remain quiet. This is because the Westminster system is about effective performance and representation. Strong oratory and rhetorical flourish inside and outside Parliament - another British tradition - to register opinions.