Mohd Fauzi, in his letter [#1] Dr M isn't all that bad [/#] (March 23), commented that Kevin Gan had unfairly denigrated Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad without an objective and balanced account ([#2] Interesting to probe workings of PM's mind [/#], March 22). So, what is the other side of the picture?

I am not a member of any political party and have few political convictions but the following thoughts occurred to me as a politically neutral bystander.

When I was abroad, I found with disconcerting surprise that foreigners were more generous with their praises of the PM than Malaysians. The PM's 'xenophobic outbursts' against the 'rich and powerful' in defence of the Third World have endeared him to many underdogs of Maori, Aborigines, African and Asian descent who lauded him as their champion!

It is also ironical that but for the PM having so far kept his promise not to censor the Internet, the writer (Kevin Gan) would not even have malaysiakini as a forum to criticise him and his policies.

Under his administration, the country achieved a high growth rate of around eight percent for 10 years preceding the Asian currency crisis, which was second in Asia only to China that started from a lower economic base. In that span of years, the country leap-frogged from a largely agriculture- and resource-based economy to an industrialised one of steel and cars, in the centre of the global electronics industry. A substantial middle class was created, and there were stability and order.

He is the country's most entrepreneurial prime minister and is indefatigable in opening up business opportunities everywhere in the world for the country. He has come a long way to be CEO of Malaysia Incorporated from the days when as a young schoolboy, he sold balloons for pocket money and, later, during World War II, started a little business peddling snacks from a hawker's stall.

The PM has always endeavored to have Malaysia punch beyond her weight class as in the grandiose projects of the Petronas Twin Towers, KLIA, the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), the Light Rail Transit (LRT), Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, Langkawi and Labuan. Whatever the criticisms of these costly projects, I have found it expedient traveling on the LRT and enjoyed visiting the other places mentioned. Who knows - today we find them a waste of taxpayers' money, but many years from now, they may be viewed a benchmark of development.

His shoot-from-the-hip remarks may outrage, but they do get the necessary attention, and put Malaysia on the international map whilst at the same time instilling confidence in the people as evinced by the national mantra ' Malaysia Boleh! '. (Never mind that we try all kinds of things from jumping off a plane above the South Pole to scaling Mount Everest!)

He challenges Pax Americana and yet is pragmatic to make the United States our biggest trading partner without our country being at the same time one of her many client-states.

Whilst he promotes religion, he eschews fanatical and militant fundamentalism and pursues a moderate secular course of administration as suitable for a pluralistic and multiracial country.

Under his administration, he has tried to bridge the gender gap by recently appointing capable women into positions of influence and power as in the case of appointments of a Women and Family Development Minister, Bank Negara Governor and the Attorney-General.

When the currency was attacked by currency traders and speculators, he criticised George Soros, rebuffed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and, contrary to conventional wisdom and international opinion, insulated the currency from further attack by withdrawing value to the ringgit outside of Malaysia. Rightly or wrongly, these measures were taken to prevent local strategic assets from falling into foreign hands and the concomitant dismantling of the affirmative programmes for bumiputras by foreigners.

For Malay nationalism is the raison d'tre of Umno that he leads and the historical basis of his political ascendancy. Making Suqiu a scapegoat was an instinctive response to recover lost Malay cultural and political ground in the wake of the Anwar Ibrahim upheaval. Before he is labelled a racist, let it not be forgotten that in calmer times, he gave the country the visions of Bangsa Malaysia and '2020'.

I believe he understands in depth the impulses, insecurities, the strengths and weaknesses of the constituency he represents and the country in general. He criticises, cajoles and encourages his people. If he is accused of being out of touch with today's sentiments, it is not that he doesn't understand them but he may be captive of certain habits acquired over the long years in power.

As leader, he offers the nation bold visions that challenge us to grow beyond our traditions and culture. This cannot be done overnight. He cannot ride roughshod over deeply ingrained cultural habits. He has to play along and slowly guide the change of public opinion for the better in line with the vision.

The tragedy is even he cannot prevail over deeply ingrained mind sets and cultural practices.

Take, for example, the writer's charge of cronyism, failed privatisation projects and bailouts that the Asian currency crisis exposed and laid bare.

The criticism should take into account our feudal political culture in which followers blindly support their leaders who in exchange for support, and the right to exercise power, are expected to distribute largesse and patronage to their followers. Cronyism and patronage permeate every facet of our culture including business. If we do not help our cronies, who do we help - strangers? This is why in every takeover of (say) control of a public-listed company, a new team displaces the old.

Come on people, be real. Do you seriously believe that these age-old practices will be stamped out overnight when a new party or leader comes to power? One can however legitimately question the scale of these practices but not the principle of it.

In saying the above is, of course, not to condone cronyism or the politics of money and patronage and the corruption that they inevitably engender. It is to plead for an understanding that when we judge a leader, we cannot take the high moral hallowed ground and measure him without heed whatsoever to the cultural milieu under which he and the whole political and social systems operate. Our criticism will otherwise evince hypocrisy or plain naivet.

Without doubt, the PM cannot be where he is today - being Asia's longest serving leader - without being a consummate Machiavellian strategist in the exercise of power especially when local politics has always been a labyrinth of intrigues in which only the strong and capable survive. (One cannot really blame him for being upset with how media photographs of him could affect leadership perception by portrayal of tiredness or weakness).

This brings us next to his greatest challenge posed by the Anwar saga.

Anwar's unceremonious ouster and the brutal manner by which he was treated outraged many and canvassed much sympathy for Anwar and acrimony against the PM.

The PM has often been cast as a cruel and vindictive dictator - in contrast to the much-maligned Anwar - in this saga.

In this connection, the following questions (often ignored when emotions are high) should be addressed objectively in the interest of a balanced picture.

First, on the charge of political conspiracy by Anwar, politics is always fraught in factionalism, conspiracies and counter conspiracies. If there were a political conspiracy by the PM's faction against Anwar, was it instigated by a prior conspiracy on the part of Anwar and his close associates against the PM in the first instance?

Secondly, in respect of the allegation of the PM's cruelty, the most important issue (which only the Anwar camp knows) is whether the PM had offered Anwar an alternative honourable exit out of the political contest prior to sacking him from the Finance Ministry and then Umno.

It will be recalled that none of the PM's other political opponents who fought him fair and square through the ballot box and lost, including Musa Hitam and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, fares too badly at this moment. In fact the Deputy PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was originally from Team B.

What could the PM reasonably be expected to do when after being sacked, Anwar took to the streets and the mosques and agitated tens of thousands of supporters in challenge of a lawfully elected government and defiance of law enforcement officers?

Once a political struggle had gone beyond acceptable and civil boundaries, it would be a no-holds-barred conflict with neither side expecting mercy from the other as winner.

On the sodomy charge against Anwar, it will be presumptuous for third parties like me to express a belief or disbelief. Only Anwar and God know. To get to the truth is like staring down a bottomless abyss.

One may however surmise that Anwar's main strength is his religious credentials, and in a political confrontation, sodomy would neutralise it.

Whatever the truth, it however does not mean that the PM didn't believe in it. If the PM were a Machiavellian strategist, one wonders why, if he had ever wanted to trump up a charge, that he would use such an incredible allegation as sodomy.

He could on the other hand have really believed in the driver, Azizan's version of facts, which made him think that Anwar was not fit to inherit the responsibility of high office. The fact that Azizan did not testify credibly in court was not conclusive that he was lying either. For even a person far better educated than Azizan could be contradicted or confused in cross-examination by a dream team of the best lawyers in the country. Perhaps that was why the PM himself would prefer not to testify.

The bringing of the whole weight of the government against Anwar who whistled on the system that he was part of, was the defining moment. As from that moment, the issues raised (transparency and proper governance without repression) extended far beyond the person and fate of Anwar.

Generally, governing depends on the mystique of infallibility. When the people perceive government could do no wrong, it suffers little criticism and is instead lavished praise especially by sycophants and controlled media.

But mystique is something fragile as a ceiling glass. Once broken, and the process of de-mystification begins and continues on its inexorable course, nothing the government does can thereafter ever be judged proper or correct. Every act and policy - every institution of the state from press, judiciary to police - will come under intense critical scrutiny and be criticised, whether with or without justification. All weaknesses of the government will be ferreted out and highlighted, and all strengths ignored or taken for granted. The wheel has turned and cannot be unturned. Any effort at damage control, whether by propaganda or repression, leads to greater damage.

Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew expressed sadness for the entire episode that was damaging to both protagonists.

For the trial of Anwar had turned into a trial of the administration as well. Where Anwar was convicted by a court of law, the administration was convicted by large section of the court of public opinion (both local and international). That is because the administration did not expect and was ill-prepared for such a trial of itself. Anwar won the war of public relations with the assistance of the many incompetents within the administration - and most dramatically, a black eye from the then Inspector-General of Police.

The PM, for all his faults, is a strong leader prepared to take unpopular decisions and go his own way. Now more than ever, in the wake of a global slowdown, the country needs strong leadership. But first are the people willing to give him a fair and balanced accounting?