I refer to [#1]An epic in the making?[/#] (Feb 10) by Dr Farish A Noor and would like to comment on certain points.

Comparing Malaysia with Middle Eastern and African countries is not appropriate. More appropriate is comparison with Indonesia (neighbour, Malay) and Singapore (neighbour, similar colonial history/racial mix). Islam was not, and is not, a critical national issue in Indonesia, Malaysia or Singapore despite attempts to make it seem so. Perhaps Islam is not the critical issue even in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, etc., but the oppression of the poor and weak by the rich and powerful.

In comments on state Islamisation programme, Farish says "While other Muslim leaders had consciously tried to control the activities of Islamic centres, Dr Mahathir did the opposite: He helped to launch even more Islamic universities, think tanks and research institutes."

The statement is misleading, I think. Mahathir's regime might have indeed launched these things but it also controlled their activities through a repressive set of laws curtailing freedom of expression and association (even within university campuses, which previous prime ministers had at least tolerated) and, equally importantly, through the closely-held powers to hire and fire at these institutions.

The writer reminds readers that the Memali incident occurred while Mahathir was overseas. However, could it be that the government's decision to "arrest" Ibrahim Libya was a considered move and not in reaction to an unforeseen crisis that required immediate action, and presumably the decision was made before Mahathir left for overseas? Was he not the Home Minister then? Why was the operation timed for when he was overseas? Were Musa Hitam and Anwar Ibrahim players in this incident, or was the former the scapegoat and the latter a tool?

Like many others, the writer talks about the "clumsy, ill-organised and ill-conceived leadership challenge that took place during the Umno general assembly of 1998". I am keen to be enlightened further. According to newspapers, apart from the usual adulation of the chief, there were two notable out of the ordinary happenings. One was a call, by a few, for an end to corruption, cronyism and nepotism. This was unusual simply because Umno general assemblies are generally sessions for adulation of the chief disguised as criticism or simply pure adulation. The other notable departure from procedure was that the Umno secretariat apparently organised the free distribution among delegates of an obscene book on Anwar. Where was the leadership challenge?

The writer's remark that the "plan to redefine the meaning of Islam in the light of present-day realities" was Mahathir's and that Anwar's role was to provide Mahathir "the Islamist voice" reflects a common theme of the article with no evidence to show for it. Even the Sultan of Brunei and the King of Saudi Arabia would have advisers. In a country elections have to be held periodically, surely a cabinet comprising politicians including Anwar would have contributed to the "plan" for Islam?

The background to "the 1993 campaign to oust the then-Deputy Prime Minister Ghafar Baba", as Farish puts it, is almost as interesting as that of the Memali incident. As a politician, Anwar would no doubt have manoeuvred, but in what way was his ethics questionable? Umno supreme council members were falling over each other to declare their support for him. Recall the news conference where almost every Mentri Besar was in Kuala Lumpur, apart from other Umno supreme council members, to show enthusiastic support for Anwar. They turned against him five years later, and sacked him because they could not trust the party's highest decision-making body to do the job for them. Who are the puppet masters?