In Malaysia, one can surely be forgiven for leading a delusive life, thanks largely to the so-called mainstream media.

For example, when Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi led an entourage on his first visit as head of government to China two months ago, the whole nation seemed to go barmy and indulge in a mood of carnival. The Chinese dailies, especially, were engaged in a competition to get ahead of one another in terms of coverage, pictures and specials on the visit. For that particular week, history was being reconstructed, while new tone was being set to make it seem that the Sino-Malaysia relationship was at its zenith.

But a search on some China's major news websites, such as the Xinhua net , would tell a completely different story as far as the Chinese were concerned.

For there was only a very brief mention of Abdullah's visit in Beijing, nearly to the point of neglect. Just when the Malaysian press was heaping praises on the diplomatic clout of a small nation otherwise known as Malaysia, the media in China devoted much greater space to reporting and analysing the significance of a state visit by Lula, the Brazilan president, the day before. After all, with a population of 200 million and being the biggest economy in Latin America, what gives Malaysian journalists reasons to believe that the visit by Abdullah should have counted much more than that of Lula for China?

Little wonder that some cool-headed analysts remarked with sarcasm that Chinese Malaysians 'have stuck their faces on a cold bottom', as their much hyped-up enthusiasm over China had failed to be reciprocated. Well, judging by the minimal media coverage on the Malaysian delegation in the Chinese media, this can only be a reasonable conclusion.

News overlooked

But our pressmen do not seem to have learnt the lesson. Last weekend, Abdullah again set forth for his first ever trip to the United States since becoming prime minister. It was said to be a landmark visit, and the meeting of the prime minister with President George W Bush a bridging exercise between the US and the Muslim world, as Malaysia is now the chair of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The New Straits Times even ran an embarrassingly self-congratulatory editorial, entitled ' Abdullah charms Washington '.

Not to be easily fooled, my cynical streak prompted me to have a check on major US websites, and I found that nearly all of them, including the influential New York Times , overlooked the news about Abdullah's presence in the White House, let alone follow-up comments and analyses. The only exception was the Washington Post , which came up with an interview with the prime minister. More interestingly, on the very day Abdullah was in Washington, the Washington Post in its 'Today's Calendar' wrote the following:

'Bush meets with President Ricardo Lagos of Chile and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of Malaysia. Then comes the big event: Bush holds a photo op with Indianapolis 500 champion Buddy Rice, complete with props.'

How sad, that Abdullah's visit was hardly a big event in the eyes of the American journalists.

Such indifferent coverage on our prime minister is, no doubt, anti-climax and even an affront to Abdullah's cheerleaders at home. But that is life, isn't it? One man's holy book is just another man's fish wrapper. No complaint.

As always, the Chinese dailies couldn't wait to make use of the opportunity to polish the prime minister's shoes. The Oriental Daily News devoted, rather generously but unnecessarily, a full page of photos to celebrating the 'new landscape' in the Malaysia-US relations, while Sin Chew Daily praised Abdullah for his 'fruitful trip' to the White House. All politically correct rhetoric, yes, but the dull language of Sin Chew only reflects the dearth of critical minds as well as the will to think out of the box among its editors. And, believe you me, this is not the worst.

Given the suffocating political milieu of Malaysia, a newspaper's editor can be pardoned for parroting the words of the high and mighty in Putrajaya; what is inexcusable is the conflicting arguments of a 'respectable' press.

Three days before the scheduled handover of power to the Iraqi people, Sin Chew ran an editorial blaming the US for all the mess in the occupied territory, calling the whole situation 'a quagmire of war scarier than Vietnam'.

One month's difference

The editor also held the US responsible for making its allies, such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Japan and South Korea, pay a high price for the folly of the Bush administration. Sin Chew 's position was clear, that it was tragic for others to be dragged into the war, and catastrophic for the world to witness the horrible consequences.

What a difference one month can make. On 21 July, Sin Chew 's leading article clearly disapproved of the troop withdrawal by President Gloria Arroyo of the Philippines in order to secure the release of the Filipino worker captured by a group of rebels in Iraq.

For Sin Chew , Arroyo's decision could bring about a domino effect and severely undermine the global war against terrorism.

The same article also compared the 'weak-kneed' decision of the Philippine government to the firm refusal of President Roh Moo-hyun to bow to a similar demand of troop withdrawal earlier, and commended that Roh had 'strengthened the international image of the country and enhanced the ties between the US and South Korea'.

Confused? I certainly am. Is Sin Chew against the stationing of troops by other nations in Iraq, or is it happy to see more foreign soldiers dispatched there? One month before, it sounded aghast and indignant at the US-created disarray in Iraq; now, it is shocked by and disdainful of Manila's decision to leave.

In the run-up to the war in March last year, the New York Times came out in support of toppling the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein. A year later, it shifted its pro-war position and promptly apologised to its readers for not having subjected the American and allied intelligence to a severe test before it came to Bush's defence.

Here, one sees the courage of a world-renowned press to own up to its mistakes. But in the case of Sin Chew , it appears that the largest Chinese daily in Malaysia is still dithering over the aftermath of the Iraq war, unable to formulate a coherent argument and provide the reader with a clear position on the issue, which of course mercilessly reveals the levels of judgement and wisdom of its editorial team.