Dr Mahathir had a point last Thursday when, regarding the famous Economist special survey o­n Malaysia, he said, "Malaysians are very intelligent". Indeed, many Malaysians will be capable enough to judge the credibility and quality of the Economist without being told that it is "pure dirt".

But intelligent people would have appreciated a more substantial refutation of the Economist 's position. They would like to be told why Dr Mahathir considers the magazine pure dirt. His claim o­n the Economist as a "stupid magazine" does not make us any brighter.

I find it difficult to label the Economist as stupid. Do stupid magazines produce 16 pages of critical surveys, and then feel secure enough to publish protesting letters?

Yes, a letter by National Economic Action Council executive director Datuk Mustapha Mohamed was published. The vacuum of substantive criticism from our leaders certainly fueled public curiosity in this letter, which has become a de facto government representation.

What a disaster.

The letter's fatal flaw was not its slim content. This cannot be avoided; letters to the print media must be brief, and a few paragraphs can never say very much. But a few paragraphs can deliver a few punches. At best, the letter by Mustapha swats flies, hitting the small stuff and swinging about frantically.

He raised a few factual objections - petty quibbles compared to the scale of protest that roared among our leaders. The letter pokes at a few errors that have little to do with the alleged provocative contents of the article. All this while, the Economist was charged with denigrating a successful nation and its leader. The letter does not defend the nation, nor the leader.

Where Mustapha does address the issue of unfair, 'baseless' criticism - in the skimpy final paragraph - his argument falls flat. The sentences employ a quirky, self-defeating logic. He objects to the title, "a qualified success" - that rather innocuous phrase which is now treated like a caustic insult.

Now, if o­ne objects to the title, argument would basically follow o­ne out of two possible directions. First, that the title is misplaced because Malaysia is an unqualified success. Thus, the article's conclusion is wrong. Second, that the title does not fit the argument because Malaysia is a qualified success, but the article does not make it clear. Thus, the article's explanation is misguided.

Which is it? Is Malaysia an unqualified success - in other words, an absolute unquestionable success in every single way? Was the Economist' s conclusion erroneous? Or is Malaysia a qualified success in ways not explained by the Economist ? o­n these questions, we are encounter the familiar vacuum.

Mustapha skirts the real issues. He chooses instead to dare the Economist to name which country "in the world over the last 1,000 years is an unqualified, complete and utter success?" Based o­n the thrust and tone of the taunt, I suppose he imagines the Economist 's answer to be, "I don't know". How sweet the taste of cornering that foul magazine into speechlessness!

Yet we lose the debate, because we agree with the opponent. For if no country "in the world over the last 1,000 years is an unqualified, complete and utter success", then all countries, including Malaysia, are qualified successes. Therefore, the Economist is justified in calling Malaysia a qualified success. Think about it.

Mustapha follows up with another affront: "tell us how many developing countries have done better than Malaysia [under Mahathir]"? This second rhetorical question, of course, wants to lead thoughts again to the chorus that Malaysia has done very well, better than most. But how does this make the title misguiding or offensive?

The letter's rhetorical questioning swings in loops revealing illogic and incoherence, while being unable to argue that Malaysia is an unqualified, complete and utter success. At least Mustapha does not venture into the absurdity of telling the world we are perfect. However, in zealous pursuit of proving another wrong, the letter ended up showing that there is agreement: Malaysia is a qualified success.

And what is so offensive about being termed a qualified success? Isn't it a more discerning and informed compliment to call a nation's development and its leader's achievement a qualified success, rather than a perfect show or an absolutely unquestionable and flawless tenure?

Why this apparent craving for flattery? Worse still, why do we so recklessly highlight our superior wealth over other nations to score points? These are unhealthy habits, stemming from wanton pride. It will be wise to try some humility to avoid embarrassing ourselves again. Humility will guide us to prudence in facing criticism and to acknowledge that much of our development has come o­n the heels of providence. Why don't we just admit that few countries have been as fortunate as us?

We have reaped abundance by being in the right place at propitious times. Few countries have prospered from oil and gas reserves, tin ore, fertile land and year-long rain, rubber and oil palm plantations, controlled population growth, and willing investments from neighbours Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

The key issue is, in what ways is Malaysia a qualified success? This is a constructively critical question. Let's not take too much credit for ourselves. And let us acknowledge everyone has biases.

The ideologically-injected Economist is biased in favour of market policies and against anti-democratic leaders. But they wear their badge o­n their sleeve. It's there for us to read, review, rebut.

Malaysia's nationalistically-charged leaders are biased, toward defending what they perceive or contrive as external threats. Still, they clench their prejudices within their fists. They do not debate the real problems, happy to bang the table and smack poorer developing countries. Enough of this, please.