Economist writer Christopher Lockwood still does not get it ( Economist writer defends controversial reports ).

Of course, his articles were viewed as generally being "balanced" by educated Malaysians who read them. And the proof of that is in the fact that "after 20 days in distribution, the Home Ministry didn't take any action against the magazine concerned" not until someone kicked up a fuss.

The effect of the fuss is to present a public poser as to why the home ministry allowed the controversial reports to be published uncensored when they "denigrated" Malaysian political leadership.

In so doing, Umno deputy president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also home minister, is, as insinuated in malaysiakini 's report, pressured to go o­n the defensive to explain and respond ( Political tensions behind Economist berating? Umno insiders speculate ).

In spite of extensive research o­n the Malaysian political economic and cultural landscape and interviews with the present administration's detractors as well as supporters, it appears that Lockwood still possesses very little understanding of the Byzantine nature of our local politics.

He does not understand that he and his articles may well have been used as flashpoints of internecine political conflicts and rivalries characteristic of our political culture.

In trying to defend the 'balance' of his articles, he misses the finer point that there will exist no balanced article in this world whose passages cannot be seized, construed and torn apart as an excuse to serve a political agenda, if that were the purpose.

It is the very nature of our sandiwara (shadow play) politics - the exercise of which has been elevated to a state of art here - that when we seemingly make a frontal attack o­n a party (say A), our real objective is to give a glancing and hopefully lethal blow, in the process, to B and borrow the weapon of C to fell B.

In this respect, foreign publications serve as a convenient focus but local o­ne may not be exempted ( NST attack o­n Syed Hamid could be political ), the observations of which made to my earlier letter , I respectfully concur as very possible.

According to Lockwood, "Although several leaders had censured the survey articles, none had pointed out any particular part which they felt was problematic".

Let me enlighten Lockwood o­n how easy it would be to pick o­n excerpts of his articles to construe how 'offensive' or 'derogatory' they are to this or that particular Malaysian leadership, depending o­n my objective and agenda.

If I want to show how derogatory the articles are to Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, I will pick o­n the o­ne entitled 'A qualified success'. The concluding sentence states that "The greatest service Mahathir could render Malaysia after all these years would be to retire, full stop".

Next question is why? And this is where Lockwood said, "His successor will need the freedom to make changes such as loosening the over-cosy links between Umno and business, easing the government's iron grip o­n the press and releasing people who are in effect political prisoners."

The remark imputes to Mahathir, cronyism and dictatorship. It is not the purpose here to evaluate the fairness or unfairness of these imputations but it suffices to note that they are hardly savoury or complimentary.

If my purpose were to show how Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has been unfairly cast in negative light, I would then turn to the first of the series of articles entitled 'Changing of Guards' and the last sub text entitled 'Guardian or jailer?'

Lockwood wrote to the effect that Abdullah seems everything Mahathir is not, "...a cautious bureaucrat rather than visionary; a conciliator, not a fighter; an unworldly descendant of clerical scholars with a degree in Islamic studies, rather than a technophile and moderniser".

This can be construed as most insulting. To say that our acting premier is a cautious bureaucrat and not a visionary is to denigrate his leadership qualities because o­ne of the prerequisites of leadership is vision.

To say that he is a conciliator and not a fighter is to doubt his capacity to ward off dangers to the country whether from extremists, currency speculators or political opposition opponents.

To say that he is unworldly and not a technophile or moderniser is to question whether he can lead the country in the age of information technology and globalisation.

For heaven's sake, why make all these aspersions when the man has not even been given a fair chance to demonstrate his mettle as leader?

Lockwood may say that his comments are fair because he did not say that these were true but was just recording the impressions of some people or that he also did comment about what Abdullah's admirers say that he is far tougher than he looks with the advantage of religious qualifications.

But no matter we will always choose to read that part that proves our point of contention.

I would still challenge Lockwood as to why he made personal remarks that Abdullah, though younger than Mahathir, "appears older and less vigorous". This is followed up with a mischievous question, "Is he up to the job of guarding Malaysia against the demons of religious extremism, racial hatred and a fragile and volatile global economy?"

Well if I were Abdullah's admirer, I would condemn these aspersions and say that at least the man is magnanimous enough, in spite of personal attacks, to let the Economist circulate for at least two weeks.

But now the magazine has to be taken to task - not for insulting him - but Mahathir by publishing the photo of him announcing his resignation with the caption "It hurts to say goodbye". This is juxtaposed against the writer's concluding remarks that Mahathir would "render Malaysia a service by retiring, full stop".

Some may want Mahathir to go and some to stay, but who really knows the views of the majority of Malaysians? The greater number of us may well want him to stay and continue to render his services to the nation but for our respect of his insistence to retire and move o­n to other endeavours.

So isn't it insulting for Lockwood to opine that he would be rendering the nation a favour by retiring, full stop?

Even if I were an admirer of Nik Aziz and Hadi Awang, I would take exception in Lockwood's article of 'Greening of Malaysia' in which he wrote, "The Barisan Alternatif may have helped to give it (PAS) a veneer of respectability but there is nothing moderate about the version of Islam that PAS espouses". I would say how could an Occidental writer make such a judgment?

So what is the point of the above illustrations?

The point is that the public, journalists and intellectuals would look at Lockwood's articles from a disinterested and impartial point of view as to whether the content is fair, balanced or partial or jaundiced. Because we love the Truth - sometimes much more than life itself.

When it comes to assessment and comments by politicians, it is another ball game, another agenda and objective, and the question is always whether such articles can further a particular political purpose.

If it can, it is so easy to selectively pick and construe excerpts here or there to demonstrate that either that the writer has been insulting, complimentary or fair as it may serve a particular political agenda.

Lockwood, think about the possibilities of the many uses I could have from your copious articles to defend a certain politician, insinuate and attack another o­ne or to defend oblique attacks, etc.

Don't you think that it is an exercise in futility to argue that what you have written is fair and balanced? To ask whether it is fair or balanced is actually asking the wrong question, isn't it?

Welcome Lockwood to Politics 101 ala Malaysia. I rest my case.