I read Santik's piece o­n the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference) entitled Mahathir's ambitions a waste of time with dismay, not least at his thinly veiled (due more to a lack of craft than effort) attack at the prime minister but rather because it is symptomatic of the tendency to dismiss the OIC and Malaysia's role within it with little thought.

Santik notes that "we should learn not to side with anyone merely based o­n shared religious beliefs". I agree with him in principle, but not in practice.

Being a member of the OIC is no more taking the 'side' of Muslim nations, as being a member of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) would mean that you take the side of nations with market economies.

However, being actively engaged in o­ne multilateral forum does not mean acting against others nor does it preclude wider engagement. International relations must never be reduced to principles of playground politics.

The letter further argues the irrelevancy of the OIC due to the inability of member states to agree o­n numerous issues.

Firstly, it is these differences that warrant the existence of the OIC. It may not always be an effective platform for resolution, but it may be a conduit for engagement.

Secondly, the OIC does not make itself out to be a quasi-judicial body, unlike the World Court, where territorial disputes should be heard.

The willingness to resolve sensitive issues at the right forum shows not o­nly focus o­n the part of the member states but also a readiness to engage and not merely take 'sides'.

Santik's sentiments about the OIC are less worrying than his criticism of Malaysia's foreign policy with the Middle East. He does not 'see much future in Malaysia trying to do business with the Arab countries'.

Our trade relations with the Middle East are neither an effort nor an aspiration. The benefits of trade with the Arab nations are here and now. Trade between Malaysia and the Middle East was almost at RM13.75 billion, with the balance distinctively in our favour.

This commercial benefit is the very reason that Santik is wrong when he urges Malaysia to spend less public money o­n international politics and more o­n the domestic economy.

The Malaysian domestic economy is domestic o­nly in name. We have an open economy, with all its benefits and drawbacks, and we have been firmly committed to such an economy for as long as we have been independent.

Our trade links with the rest of the world is an economic lifeline and catalyst for growth. To ignore international politics and all its economic ramifications is to betray the local economy.

Santik is right to dismiss the notion of being 'master' of international relations, but wrong to implicitly advocate being a slave to it.

Whilst I readily admit it is difficult to argue a case for the OIC o­n the basis of past achievements, I find it more difficult to contend its future irrelevancy in these increasingly troubled times.

The OIC has not lived up to its potential and its failure to make people see its strategic relevance must be addressed.

If Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) can see to remedying these defects, then his efforts, whatever his motives, must be applauded.

Quite frankly, the tenacity of character and willingness to speak that is Dr Mahathir is probably just the prescription for the OIC.