No, there is one more difference that Rohana S has omitted to mention in The difference between SM Lee and Dr M (April 4) and that is the relative ease with which the latter can hold two opposing principles or ideas in contradiction in perfect reconciliation.

This has reference to Dr Mahathir's definition of terrorism as "attacks on civilians" which would include Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists along with Israeli forces when in the next breath he said that the acts of Palestinian suicide bombers were legitimate because "when people use terror against you, it is legitimate to use terror (in return)."

Where this attempt at justification strains logic in the first instance is that the Palestinian suicide bomber(s) did not target the "terrorist" Israelis forces or government leaders but ordinary innocent Jewish civilians (Palestinian "martyr", Wafa'a Idris, 28, a Palestinian medical assistant blew herself up in Jerusalem killing an Israeli pensioner and wounding more than 100 others last Sunday when she detonated a bomb she was carrying in one of Jerusalem's busiest streets).

In the second instance, if terror is a legitimate response to the other's terror, then it would be equally legitimate (following the PM's logic) for the Americans who were terrorised by Sept 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to unleash terror unto the Talibans harbouring the prime instigator (Osama bin Laden) and this would have been a good defence on the part of the Americans against the PM's condemnation of their Afghanistan bombing and sermonising that they should, instead of military response, explore and address the root causes of terrorism.

This line of thinking that terror justifies terror is perilously close to endorsing jihad in the militant sense that the PM criticised PAS for calling at the start of the American Afghanistan campaign.

Besides this kind of thinking may lead to an endless cycle of greater terror.

What happens if for example more Palestinian suicide bombers, feeling justified in what they perceive is an appropriate response to Israel's "state terrorism" now decide to carry further attacks against 'terrorist' Israel? This will only invite a broader swathe of devastation upon Palestinians by Israeli weapons of war in retaliation and self defence!

The prime minister has scored high political points in organising the foreign ministers of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Not only these ministers who called for oil and other sanctions against Israel hold him in high esteem for championing the Palestinian cause against Israel  but also Israel's chief sponsor and benefactor, the United States, for his tough stand against Islamist militancy and extremism. Praises heaped on him are now followed by an invitation from President Bush for a visit next month.

As he would urge Russia to play the role of balancing the power of the US, so he would now so consummately hold the balance between the different contending parties in the Palestinian-Israelis conflict and the wider contention between the Islamic world and the Western secular one.

Just like how nearer home he could reconcile his version of an Islamic state with secular elements  which the leader of the other component party described by the oxymoron of a "secular Islamic state"  and in the process upset PAS' apple-cart.

Inconsistency then appears to be the hallmark of the PM's positions. Yet, consistency is a product of a petty mind and his ability to juggle and reconcile apparently inconsistent positions is indeed his forte that distinguishes him from SM Lee, and which explains in part why, second only to Cuba's Fidel Castro, he could remain longer than SM Lee as one of the world's longest serving political leader.

While I am not prepared to disagree with Rohana S regarding the differences in legacies to be bequeathed by SM Lee compared with Dr Mahathir to their respective countries, her assessment of SM Lee being obviously wiser, smarter and more far-sighted between the two is contentious. Certainly SM Lee is less adept in holding together two opposing positions at the same time.

Do we want political stability from the PM's successor? My take on the current debate on what qualities the next prime minister should have is that he better have this ability to say with comfort different things to different people according to different circumstances!