I, unlike the author of a recent column of a major English daily in Malaysia, do read the Economist . In fact, I've been reading the Economist since 1993 when my 'O' levels Economics teacher recommend that I subscribe to it.

This was probably around the same time when the aforementioned author was starting out his journalistic career towards gaining two 'datukships'. After having read the publication for the past 10 years, and also the recent country survey o­n Malaysia prior to all this hullabaloo, I am probably in a slightly better position to comment o­n the survey.

Indeed, it irks me to no end that some people can actually write o­n this issue without having read the survey and then having the temerity to admit that he has not read it! It is akin to critiquing certain parts of our Constitution without actually reading those relevant parts! o­ne would have expected more from a senior editor and journalist.

One the whole, the Economist' s survey paints Malaysia, the BN government and Dr Mahathir in a relatively good light. Long-time readers would know that the publication's articles o­n Malaysia and Singapore are traditionally far from complimentary.

Long-time readers would also know that Singapore is very quick in responding to any articles in the Economist by issuing clarifying statements in the letters section (which the Economist dutifully publishes, in full). Long-time readers would also note that Malaysia very seldom, if at all, issues such clarifying statements (presumably because, like the aforementioned columnist, most of those in government don't read this influential publication).

Indeed I was very surprised at the overall bullishness of the survey especially in light of the issues the Economist usually picks up o­n Malaysia (ISA, Anwar, crony-capitalism and bailouts). I would have thought that the authorities (the few who read it) would have been pleased rather than put off.

If o­ne actually bothers to read this survey, o­ne would find that if anyone should take offense, it would be PAS because of the negative light in which this party and some of its leaders are shown:

"The Barisan Alternatif may have helped to give it a veneer of respectability, but there is nothing moderate about the version of Islam that PAS espouses. Its political leader, Hadi Awang, declared a jihad , or holy war, against Umno as early as 1986, denouncing the party as un-Islamic. More recently, PAS leaders have declared jihad against America. During the campaign in Afghanistan, PAS supporters demonstrated outside the American embassy in Kuala Lumpur, wearing Osama bin Laden T-shirts. America is far and away Malaysia's largest trading partner, but that has not stopped PAS from calling for a boycott of American goods. Nik Aziz says he believes that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was carried out by Jews, not al-Qaeda. But perhaps most striking is the PAS leadership's enthusiasm for cutting off hands."

At this point, if I were a government official that is pro-Barisan, I would be jumping for joy. "Let the foreign media do our dirty work for o­nce. Let them show up the true colors of PAS!" would have been something that could have been uttered.

This episode clearly shows the shallowness of many of our leaders. Not o­nly do they respond to a survey four weeks after it was released (slow internet connection or lousy postal services?), it was done so just before Dr Mahathir returns from his two-month break. I suppose in my more cynical moments, I can attribute all this to a ' sandiwara '.

But when senior journalists who don't even take the effort to do some research (or reading in this case) and analysis, even cynicism seems out of place. I close with a demonstration of the Wednesday column by the same author:

"But anyone who has read The Economist would know that it represents conservative Anglo-Saxon views."

I would venture to ask this author what Anglo-Saxon views? Does he realise for example that the Economist 's advocates for the abolishment of the death penalty and calls for stricter gun control in the US in contrast with the popular support that these two issues have within large sections of the American public?

Does he also realise that the Economist also advocates the legalisation of cannabis in the UK which the UK government opposes? Such generalisations which are not well thought out and even smacks of gross ignorance o­nly shows how far we in Malaysia have to go before we reached a developed nation status in terms of our thinking.