The Economist has ruled out any likelihood that it would issue an apology as demanded by Acting Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in respect of its recent survey o­n Malaysia.

Now what next?

The Home Ministry can, acting within powers under our Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA), ban its circulation. If that is too drastic, the government can restrict or cap its circulation based o­n the premise that the lifeblood of a news publication is advertisements so that if circulation is restricted, the publication's source of revenue may be affected. Another measure is to demand a right of response to be published unedited in the Economist .

However under the PPPA, the home minister (also Badawi) can o­nly prohibit a publication he deems prejudicial to public order, morality, the relationship with any foreign country or government, or prejudicial to public or national interest.

There arises several problematic issues to weigh o­n before taking action.

The first is to determine whether criticisms, qualification or even disparagement of our country's leaders constitute something that is prejudicial to public order, morality, the relationship with any foreign country or government, or prejudicial to public or national interest. It is argued that it is not necessarily so.

Secondly, as what the Economist' s writer Christopher Lockwood said , "although several leaders had censured the survey articles, none had pointed out any particular part which they felt was problematic." o­ne simply cannot prove a case without first stating the charge, and, remember, when o­ne states it, o­ne is better prepared to have it debated in the international arena.

Thirdly, the prime minister himself, whose legacy allegedly disparaged by his lieutenants as a "qualified success", has not as yet personally mentioned anything about the brouhaha. In fact, the PM himself had gone o­n record in his resignation speech to say otherwise - that his administration was beset by certain failures.

What happens if he were to subsequently say that his legacy is to be judged by record and history, and not the Economist , and that it would be a diminution of his international stature as statesman and aspirant of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conferences) secretary-general's chair to overreact to criticisms by the international media?

It all comes with the territory. International profile depends o­n international media's coverage with praise and criticisms mixed, and is not to be compared to the domestic and obsequious mainstream media. The standards are simply different. We cannot show confidence in managing the international stage if we evince pettiness in being unable to rise above criticisms of its media.

Fourthly, how many international publications do we want to take action against, after setting the precedent of acting against the Economist ? Most international publications have, o­ne time or other, published something derisive or critical of the Malaysian leader along lines covered by Lockwood.

We even have readers like Kim Quek who thought that the Economist had overrated his legacy.

There are yet many who take the view that the Economist has indirectly done the country a favour by running the series which raises the country's international profile by 'balanced' reporting judged by standards of international media instead of the fawning domestic o­nes.

To those who wish to curry the PM's favour by attacking the Economist ( Political tensions behind Economist berating? Umno insiders speculate ), they should remember that their actions are more likely undermining of the aspirations of the prime minister to raise his and the country's international stature than boosting of it. He may not even be happy with the commotion kicked up if the overriding subterranean motives of those fanning the issue are political jostling of their respective positions

Badawi's detractors would of course have liked to put him between the horns of dilemma of having to choose between defending Mahathir's record o­n o­ne hand and running into problems with the international media o­n the other, either of which he cannot win, and it is a trap to be avoided. Even action is now taken, he will be questioned as to why the Home Ministry had allowed the Economist to run the series for a full 20 days ( Ban o­n Economist - whole Publication and Control Division to be sacked? ).

Worse still, if the country is seen commemorating World Press Freedom Day 2003 by taking controversial action against an established publication like the Economist, this can o­nly make the PM look petty, undermining his aspirations at the international stage.

In his series 'The Changing of Guards' Lockwood compared Badawi to Mahathir as 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".

Badawi should take the stand that if he were not personally upset with such superficial comparisons of Lockwood, there is no reason why our great leader (Mahathir) should be o­n this and other observations. If the Economist 's criticisms were unfounded, they will be evident for all who read them. It is more consistent with magnanimous statesmanship not to dignify these criticisms by such negative reaction that they don't deserve.

Pak Lah should extricate from the trap of dilemma set by political rivals by showing the difference between him and the rest of the flock.