Admittedly, there is now a rather popular feeling that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is slightly different from his predecessor, Dr Mahathir Mohamad. However, in all honesty, I should point out that the positive feeling is also being 'sexed up' by the official media which is controlled by the government or owned by Umno, MCA and MIC, etc.

That the media is still being monopolised and manipulated by the government suggests that Abdullah continues to exploit a playing field that is still not level.

How can Abdullah establish his moral and political legitimacy in the eyes of the world, even though he and his party 'win an overwhelming support' in the coming general election? If Abdullah continues to play in a field that is not level as Mahathir did in the last 22 years, what then is the real difference between Abdullah and Mahathir?

If we look back at history, surely we will find that Mahathir also began his premiership quite impressively. In the early 1980s, Mahathir promised to fight corruption, government red tape and abuse of power, and introduced the concept of a 'clean, efficient and trustworthy' government, reined in the bureaucracy, streamlined the administration and even amend the constitution to curb the powers of the rulers.

So, there is nothing new about Abdullah's 'reforms' that are being trumpeted now by the media. It is only a replay of the 'new' Mahathir administration in the early 1980s. At that time, everyone (including myself who was young, naive and socially inexperienced) sincerely and honestly cheered on Mahathir and his 'new' administration.

The opposition lost badly in the 1982 general election and the government enjoyed almost absolute power. The Parliament and state assemblies could no longer serve as an effective check against abuse of power.

Later in 1986-1987, the independence of the judiciary was attacked, mass arrests of dissidents under ISA took place (even Christian preachers and environmentalists were detained without trial) and the media was cowed.

Corruption in high places, red tape, inefficiency, psychological terrorism against ethnic minorities, cronyism, nepotism and xenophobia returned with even greater force than before in the absence of a strong and effective opposition. It testifies to the everlasting and timeless truth of what a great British historian, Lord Acton, said: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Abdullah may or may not be a 'sincere' and 'good' man. What we must really be concerned about is to preserve the institutional checks and balances in the form of a stronger opposition in Parliament and state assemblies.

We must not let the history of Mahathir's 22-year reign be repeated for the next five, 10 or 20 years. Abdullah, however impressive he is now, must not be allowed to degenerate into another Mahathir in the absence of a strong opposition.

We must always bear in mind that only a strong opposition can serve to check and balance the powers of the government. We need to elect more opposition MPs and state assembly representatives to keep the pressure on the government so that the new prime minister will perform even better and to prevent them from doing bad and silly things (after all, Abdullah and his ministers are human beings too).

In short, we must not lose our healthy dose of skepticism as well as critical and independent thinking as we approach another turning point in Malaysia's history.