I strongly disagree with Wan Sou Hai (Introspection for 'blame-happy' Malaysians) for absolving the present leadership from the serious mis-rule perpetrated on this country.

When a country has retrogressed due to bad policy under a corrupt leadership, the blame must be put squarely on the latter. This is so, even in a developed country with exemplary democracy where the people are well-educated and well-informed and the electoral contest is carried out on a level-playing field.

In the case of a young underdeveloped country where the ruling party has transformed democracy to totalitarian rule and has illegally manipulated every election to its favour, can anyone in his right mind put the blame not on the ruling party, but on the people and the opposition, when the country goes down the drain?

Is it not true that Malaysia is a democracy in name only, with a host of draconian laws, all of which have been freely abused to crush legitimate opposition and to protect the ruling elite from due punishment for corruption and abuse of power?

Is it not true that the ruling elite has been unashamedly resorting to inciting racial flames whenever they feel the need to do so to enhance their political hegemony?

Is it not true that pervasive racism has been practised in conflict with the letters and spirit of the constitution, that corruption and cronyism is rampant, that the integrity of our democratic institutions has been corroded, that law and order is precarious?

Education and public service are mired in mediocrity, while resources are diverted to build mega-project after mega-project of dubious economic justification.

Who is to be blamed for all these?

In Wan Sou Hai's analysis, the people are to be blamed, for they have supported these policies as evidenced by the consistent two-third majority won by the ruling party in every election. The opposition is also to be blamed, for its leaders are equally bad, thus giving the people with no choice but to return the ruling party.

Let me put this question to Wan: What does he make of Saddam Hussein's habitual electoral success of over 90 percent in his two-decade rule, as compared to Mahathir's two-third majority? Does it mean Saddam's policy received much more popular support in Iraq than Mahathir's policy has in Malaysia?

If Iraq is ruined by Saddam's policy, should higher blame be apportioned to the people of Iraq for having given greater support to the regime? Or should the people be accorded with sympathy for having suffered under the totalitarian mis-rule?

How much significance can we attach to an electoral victory in a totalitarian state where civil liberties are suppressed, mass media is used as propaganda machine, and election is manipulated?

I think the answers are obvious. In a totalitarian regime ruled by a corrupt megalomaniac, the people are the victim, not the culprit.

Let us be honest. If our media is free, our law and its implementation is democratic, and our election on a level-playing field like other democracies, can Mahathir's leadership survive an election in the present circumstances? I bet the regime would be so rocked by scandals of one kind or another that the unsinkable battleship would have a hard time plugging its holes.

In fact, if these scandals were to have occurred in a democracy like UK or any western European country, the government would have collapsed in shame long ago under the pressure of public opinion without even given the chance to defend itself in an election.

As for Wan's argument that the opposition is equally bad, or will become equally bad upon assumption of power, this is an unacceptable excuse normally put up by people who wish to rationalise their unjustifiable decision to support a corrupted regime for reasons of self interests. If at all the people are to be blamed for the perpetuation of a corrupt regime, these are the ones to be counted.

The truth is that opposition politicians have made so much self-sacrifice and willingly suffered so much for the sake of upholding justice and good governance that no one with a right conscience should accuse them of being self-seekers lusting after status and wealth, and brand them on the same category as the corrupt rulers.

Political leadership plays a vital role in the development of any country. It is so in a developed democracy, and more so in a young developing country where democratic government has yet to reach maturity. In an authoritarian state, the role of the autocrat assumes supreme importance, as he can act without public consultation; and if the country plunges into chaos or difficulties as a result of his wrongful action, he is solely responsible for such failures.

To illustrate the importance of leadership in a budding country or a country undergoing transformation, let us look at some examples.

Take the case of Singapore, which has the same historical background as Malaysia. If Lim Yew Hock and his Labour Front were to continue to govern Singapore since its early electoral success in the 50s, instead of Lee Kuan Yew and PAP, can you imagine what Singapore would be like today?

Singapore might not have become an independent state or survived as a nation under the corrupt and incompetent Labour Front. It is only through the impeccably clean and dynamic leadership of Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues that Singapore has leap-frogged from third world to a first world country.

Let us look at China the sleeping lion. For three decades China was in continuous revolutionary turmoil under communist rule, with its economy in tatters. Then Deng Xiaoping broke from Mao's dogmatic communism and boldly introduced market economy in the late 70s. By sheer force of his personality and absolute honesty and patriotism, he pushed through the transformation of China to what it is today. If he had been a lesser leader succumbing to greed and self-interest, China could not have succeeded the way it did.

Continuing such shining leadership, present leader Hu Jintao is a man of unassailable integrity and calibre and as such, is well poised to lead China to greater heights. For a country of China's size and complexity, any perception of lack of uprightness in the top leader will have devastating consequences on the control and direction of China's future destiny.

How about Malaysia? Has any one given thought to the idea of what Malaysia would have been if we had a leader who is not only strong and capable but also absolutely honest and rational? Wouldn't Malaysia have been a better place to live in? Shouldn't we be aspiring to aim for such leadership now?