I refer to the report So prosecute me, Mahathir says over gift to Mugabe .

I beg to differ with my fellow Malaysian Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad when he said there was nothing wrong with giving sawn timber to Mugabe.

The issues at hand involve procedural, legal, moral and political dimensions and must be explored fully to clear any doubts in the mind of the public.

Judging by the initial response by government leaders, the manner in which the sawn timber was supplied to Mugabe seems dubious to say the least.

When Mugabe's claim first made headlines in the media, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had said the government was not aware of the claim and would check on it.

Other government representatives in parliament also adopted an official tone similar to that of Najib. They were probably just as shocked as ordinary Malaysians who had no access to the workings of the government.

It may very well be the case that Mahathir supplied the sawn timber to Mugabe while he was the country's fourth prime minister, without the knowledge of his peers in the government, even those in the cabinet.

The gift to Mugabe would have been more acceptable if Mahathir had paid for the timber himself and did not invoke Malaysia's name in the process. However, the timber supply was, as Mahathir suggested, part of the country's practice of promoting its timber.

Several questions pertaining to the procedures and rationale of the timber supply therefore need to be answered:

1) What was the source and quantity of the sawn timber and how was it paid for? (Mahathir only mentioned that the sawn timber was valued at about RM100,000).

2) Is there any policy and guideline spelling out or providing for Malaysia's practice of giving timber products and other commodities to other countries?

3) Who were the other recipients of Malaysia's timber of 'goodwill' over the years apart from Mugabe?

4) What was the justification and benefit of giving timber to Mugabe (improvement in bilateral trade perhaps) considering that Zimbabwe is not a major buyer of Malaysia's timber products?

5) Did the timber given to Mugabe meet with international industry standards? (According to United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation, in 2001 nearly 40 percent of the timber used by the Malaysian timber industry could have been illegally imported or illegally logged inside Malaysia).

6) Did Mugabe receive only timber from Malaysia or did he receive funds and assistance in other forms as well? (Mugabe did say that his mansion project was 'partially funded' by the Malaysian government).

7) What did Mahathir receive from Mugabe in return as he did mention that exchange of gifts was common among heads of governments?

Even if we put aside legal and procedural considerations, Mahathir's act of giving timber to Mugabe is still deplorable from a political and moral perspective.

Mahathir had said he could not have foreseen that foreign leaders who received gifts from Malaysia would later be considered dictators, corrupt or evil persons.

This line of defence is questionable as Mugabe's was never exactly known for being a democratic leader.

Mugabe's Zimbabwe is one of the most notorious dictatorial regimes in the world today. He has redistributed land and caused an exodus of white farmers, which led to an economic collapse and severe shortages of basic commodities.

Zimbabwe's membership in the Commonwealth has been suspended as a result of the country's flawed general election and suppression of oppositionists in 2002.

Yet, Mahathir continued to forge close relationship with Mugabe while he was still Malaysian prime minister. Mugabe is known to have visited Malaysia several times on official as well as private trips.

Last year, Malaysia under Mahathir was said to have offered Mugabe a place to retire in exile under a power-sharing deal between Zimbabwe's ruling and opposition parties, a charge that Malaysia has denied.

The arguments that Mahathir has retired and that we should let bygones be bygones does not apply in this timber case. I hope the issue does not fade away with just a simple explanation from Mahathir.

There has to be a proper closure and a satisfactory answer. Above all, all of us, including the government, need to learn a lesson from this episode.

One thing that Malaysians should ponder upon is the political system which made Mahathir's gift of timber to Mugabe possible in the first place and how different is it from the system that we live under now.