I was not a fan of Dr Mahathir Mohamad when he was PM.

But I have lived a major part of my working life under his premiership. I was resentful of Mahathir when I saw many of things he did were in favour of big time business people. He has his favourite blue-eyed boys who had often turned out disastrous. He had also embarked on projects which did not turn out well. But hindsight is always perfect. Everything is relative.

When we assess the performance of a government or the leadership within it, rarely do we do so based on a single factor. More often than not, it is a combination of failures from which a tipping point is reached.

When Mahathir criticised the ‘China deal’ and the East Coast Railway project, it is just one of the many issues confronting Malaysia today. How the people look at the government is not solely determined by this single criticism alone.

Hence, even if Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan has successfully rebutted Mahathir’s criticism, the view of the people may not have altered much. There are still numerous other unanswered issues which have remained protracted and controversial.

But even within the confines of the China deal and the East Coast Railway Line project, there are numerous other questions that we could have asked.

First, when Minister Abdul Rahman claimed that China’s “soft” loan is favourable and beneficial to Malaysia, he must have assumed that China is a simpleton we could take advantage of. But is this so, friendship, cooperation and affection notwithstanding? It is nice to eat something soft, but be careful of the bones embedded. It is almost a cliché when I say there is no free lunch in this world.

Second, the minister claimed that the soft loan is denominated in ringgit and so it poses no foreign exchange risks. But what about repatriation of interest charges and profits by the Chinese companies? The loan may be denominated in ringgit, but repatriation of profits and interests may drain on our reserve since the rail project has no forex earning capacity.

Third, why the urgency to embark on the East Coast Railway Line project when the government’s finances are less than conducive? When we borrow, more so from external sources, to do an infrastructure project, the justification must be respectable. Does the east coast region suffer from transportation capacity problems right now? Even the existing highways are half empty there.

Fourth, the minister claimed “transfer of technology” when the East Coast Railway Line project is implemented. I think here lies our problem - when we are incapable of doing anything worthwhile, what we need is to go on talking about it. Seriously, if Malaysia needs transfer of technology to lay the rail track, we know that this term has been overused and abused.

As an ‘economics minister’, we expect more comprehensive and professional answers from him. Many can become politicians, but only very few can be economics ministers.