I refer to your report Dr M's ex-aide tells Syed Hamid to quit.
"Is this fair? Syed Hamid cannot be compared to Mahathir. Don't put the two pictures like that. Who made him a foreign minister? Mahathir."
Matthias Chang, Dr Mahathir Mohamad's former political secretary for Chinese affairs, in calling for Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar to resign for being a 'big Napoleon' has forgotten who the biggest Napoleon is. A bridge or no bridge, Singapore has no motivation whatsoever in engaging with this insipidity of Napoleons, big or small.
Goh Chok Tong's letter to Mahathir in 2002 resonates the lack of interest Singapore has towards engagement with Malaysia. It was plain saying, 'Look, do whatever you want on your side, as long as we get to do whatever we want on ours'.
Quite. But Malaysia, or should I say Mahathir, basked in glory at getting Singapore's 'approval' on building the half-bridge. Where was Matthias Chang back then? He claims he has all the documentation for the go ahead for the bridge, but I seriously am having my doubts about the relevance of the existence of such material.
Instead of blaming Syed Hamid for whatever mess Malaysia is in today, Mahathir should be asking himself what, or rather, who appointed that foreign minister in the first place? Was Mahathir's own political agenda more important than the interest of Malaysia in the making Syed Hamid the foreign minister?
It cannot get any better, can it? This, ultimately, sums up what sort of a democracy we have in Malaysia. Mahathir can comment all he want on this failed project of Malaysia's (again, Mahathir's?), but if Johor Bahru MP Shahrir Samad isn't in the position to debate this matter because of a purported lack of knowledge on this issue, who is?
It has always been in the interest of the ruling elite that the interest of Malaysia is theirs and no one else's, hence depreciating the need for transparency or mature debate.
Hail 'Napoleon', all ye people of Malaysia. He thinks, therefore he is.