For people like myself, The Economist has been a sort of intellectually refreshing and not always politically friendly journal.

However, the fact remains that for most people interested in current world and intellectual affairs, it is a must read.

Most of us have been probably trying to understand the potential impact of the fairly lengthy coverage that was given to our politics and society not only on interested parties here, but also in other parts of the world given The Economist 's international readership.

Yet, how does our official side respond to this transient journalistic indulgence?

Delayed reaction

There was a most telling subterfuge in the reactions of individual Umno camps, followed closely by a somewhat knee-jerk response, although curiously delayed.

To get a proper handle on this curious episode, it has to be understood that not many countries, except the Asian giants that matter, have ever merited so much print space in that traditionally skeptical and cynical British weekly.

It has its own peculiar set of core values regarding developing countries that are not always consistent or well founded.

I am not going to elevate them to the status of so-called liberal thinking Western media, as there have been enough crass misinterpretations and biased commentaries about the modernising Asian states in the past that little people like Singapore have swiftly and convincingly rebutted.

It surprised me somewhat when a learned man like James Wong Wing On embraced The Economist 's modus operandi as being based on a Western (or Anglo-American as he put it) "liberal" approach. I beg to differ on that.

Nevertheless, it is indeed remarkable that among all the minor players in this region The Economist should choose to devote so much attention to the implications of the impending leadership change in our country.

Thus, in a regional context, which the author was at pains to explain whenever he made judgmental commentaries on Malaysia, we actually came out with flying colours despite all the negative factors that he highlighted.

True, he was not always spot on with his facts or his interpretations of the local scene, and his choice of respondents may be questioned.

But, on the whole, the picture he painted was mostly supportive of both the Mahathir legacy and the nation's future.

None of my friends in major capitals around the world thought that it was a hatchet job and in fact e-mailed me to say they that they gave the country a high rating after having read the survey. We must have done something right at least.

Thoughtful commentary

As someone said the other day, for all the vast sums that the government has squandered on the Formula One fiasco as a strategy to project ourselves on the world map, The Economist did us a big favour for gratis.

I don't honestly think that even the Petronas Twin Towers will keep us going for very long as an international icon.

But the undeniably international readership at highly sophisticated levels that this magazine undoubtedly enjoys - notwithstanding the facetious denials to ever having read it by a so-called senior editor of a major newspaper here - ensures that such a thoughtful commentary carries much weight in our favour.

In contrast, the drivel that our wannabes dished out through the "mainstream media" of Malaysia only served to vindicate most of what the writer of the survey had sometimes only alluded to.

Which brings me to the manner in which the so-called response had been cleverly stage-managed by the Umno power brokers.

Apart from the local media nonsense, by far the most significant reaction was the specially convened press conference of the chief wannabe, whose apparently unquestionable right to be Numero Duo has been the subject of much discussion.

Isn't it interesting that it was he and his apparatchiks who decided to exploit The Economist issue by launching a self-chosen unilateral tirade against foreign meddling with its zenophobic overtones, while deliberately embarrassing then Acting Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also the home minister?

One would have expected, if the matter was of sufficient national concern, that the government's view could have been more ably managed with at least the relevant agencies being roped in to organise the appropriate course of action.

Input provided?

One has to partly understand this calculated move by Umno vice-president Najib Tun Razak's boys by looking again at the way in which The Economist survey, especially as it was concerned with leadership change, chose to present its story.

The norm with the foreign media has always been to include some interview or even a supercilious statement from Najib's think-tank people and then go on to project the great man himself as an unquestionable contender for the highest office.

Imagine then their utter chagrin when not a word is said about this redoubtable power centre or even any reference made to his high-flyers with their international connections in what they, in particular, would view as a major image-making event.

Given half a chance, Najib's team would have jumped at the prospect of gaining the high ground on a broad external front if The Economist opportunity had been presented to it.

I would be very much interested to know if the correspondent did, in fact, meet with Najib's people and, if he did, whether The Economist did not think their input was relevant to the overall story.

For his part, Najib must have been aware of the The Economist' s Malaysia survey and his media people would have been deployed to do the usual Malaysian socialising.

Well, the fact remains that their encounter with the British correspondent did not brook much coverage in the final version of the survey. As it turned out, the entire thing was a small coup d'etat for old Pak Lah, and good for him too.

Therein lies the possible story behind the shenanigans over The Economist episode.

NON-ECONOMIST is a pseudonym of a Malaysian academic.