I refer to the letter by Peter entitled Dr M's anti-US advice dangerous .

In either economics or politics, the writer has little clue - the US dollar is doomed and irreparable and the burst of the bubble is eminent. Malaysia's success was created due to Dr Mahathir Mohamad's economical and political understanding of how the world works.

Leaders like Mahathir are made of similar material as Deng Xiaoping of China or Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew. They refused to be judged by foreign mainstream media but by history only. They feel that they have the moral authority and legitimacy, without public debate, to position their countries for an independent future, where population development is sustainable.

This leads to a permanent balancing act between economic reform and political control that they are trying to keep going beyond their time. This authoritarian leadership style is harshly rejected by the Western press, who value individual right to criticise above all.

Kuala Lumpur as a city is almost three times the size of Singapore and has to support a rural population of over double the size - which under British rule was kept uneducated and 'rural'. The jump into the 21st century within a few decades is remarkable and incomparable to an urban community with a traditional well-educated population.

As an investor, I was attracted to Southeast Asia in the '60s to set up provincial employments but left in the '70s disappointed by political developments which were hard to understand. I returned in the '90s and found a different country - one that had lost its old world charm and one where the mentality of the people had been transformed.

This modern reality of Malaysia, created by Mahathir, shocked and surprised at the same time and raised the question for the underlying concepts.

Mahathir understood that wealth can only be created via resources and debt. The political unrest of 1969 taught all that the Malays controlled the arms and had the power while the Chinese controlled the economy. To blend such racial differences into one nation, they needed to remove dependencies and therefore focused on wealth creation amongst a non-ambiguous Malay population.

Today Malaysia has one-third the external debt of Singapore and a far more stable economy. The economic and financial data for Malaysia are very impressive and proves Mahathir right.

LKY learned from Mahathir's concept of prioritising groups over individuals only in later years. Mahathir's leadership role for the third world was based on this alternative concept and for that he deserves respect. He dared to implement (Frederik) List's concept against the American success story - a different economical concept that favored groups and was later implemented by many other states including China and Singapore.

Domestic politics is another aspect and Mahathir was indeed a rebel who fought communists in his early days and always sponsored the Malays a bit more. The international press took a clear stand against him on every possible occasion as he was not willing to bow to external threats.

His ambiguous deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim - with close contacts to radical Muslims and also to the International Monetary Fund - was put behind bars on sodomy charges.

Mahathir marked for most Malaysians a clear border for his kind of more liberal and Islamic leadership. His financial concepts prevented an IMF takeover in '90s but this triumph was not understood by his people for a long time.

Mahathir's acceptance by all races of the country became apparent when he was re-elected in the '90s with the help of the non-Malay population who voted for him rather than a Muslim fundamentalist opposition party that ruled the peninsular Malaysia east coast.

It was than that Mahathir realised that he was a father to all Malaysians and that he had an overwhelming support amongst the non-Muslim population. He is a highly respected charismatic leader who enjoys the respect for his achievements from all ethnic groups.

Mahathir was 78 when he decided to retire. He built-up his successor, a humble man with an honest face who promises a continuation of the policies initiated by Mahathir. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, son of a religious teacher, has a soft and genteel approach that helped him to win back Terengganu and almost Kelantan during the recent general election.

Pak Lah, as his friends call him, is a man with charisma and a very likable character. He worked for the last 20 years with Mahathir and had an excellent teacher and friend.

Abdullah will be the man to win the masses over and surpass Mahathir in national liking - but Mahathir was and is the man that developed intellectual economical concepts and implemented them against the world's attempts to control the Malaysian economy.

His statement about 'the world being ruled by proxy of the Jews' showed that he understood the international domination of the clan and while many of his countrymen agreed with him - they might not have all understood in their innocence what he was talking about - those concerned got the message that he knew all along.

Mahathir had the capacity to look beyond the brim of the soup bowl and develop his own concepts that secured Malaysia's position against the International Mafia Forces (IMF) and their local man, Anwar.

Mahathir swam against the tide and was not willing to subject his under-educated rural population to competition in their traditional fields that would have enslaved the entire country.

He realised that on the international platform, the matter looked quite different.

The difference between East and West is largest when it comes to economics. In the non- Anglophone world Adam Smith is merely one of several theorists who had important ideas about organising economies.

In most of East Asia and continental Europe, the study of economics is less theoretical than in England and America and more geared toward solving business problems. In Japan, economics has in effect been considered a branch of geopolitics - that is, as the key to the nation's strength or vulnerability in dealing with other powers.

From this practical-minded perspective, English-language theorists seem less useful than their challengers, such as List.

Mahathir created wealth by including List's teachings in his Asian concept: the rural population engaged in dealing with the country's rich variety of natural resources, while the more educated specialized and engaged in sophisticated manufacturing concepts.

This mix gives Malaysia a sound economy that affords them freedom from Western domination - and for which Mahathir was always admired for by developing nations. He knew why he could proudly speak up in his final speech against US/Zionist rule by proxy, which no other leader dared to speak in the open - but all know.

He was a true leader and did not allow the international elite to intimidate him (as Peter suggested).

Mahathir did not waste time relating his intellectual concepts as they might not fit into the percepts of locals and as such his local PR-team related him to his population differently.

But his clear vision and initiative enabled the country to progress to where it is today and show a impressive record for which he is highly appreciated for by the vast majority of all ethnic groups. He was in his time as beneficial to the country as a Mao was to his.