While I laud Jeffrey for his quite credible albeit pretentious attempt in trying to provide an analytical view of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's inner sanctum and to be balanced about the Mahathir-Anwar saga, I noticed a few biases ([#1] The other side of the Mahafiraun [/#], March 27).

Firstly, he was quite sweeping in his conclusion that insulating Malaysia from the international financial system saved Malaysia from collapse. At first glance, being an economist and a financial analyst, I thought the same back then, but after further research and discussions especially with Prof KS Jomo, I have come to the conclusion that it was actually a redundant act.

Malaysia was much stronger financially and was in no danger of a financial meltdown back in 1998, with external private debt at only 33 percent compared with South Korea's 75 percent, Thailand's 70 percent and Indonesia's 90 percent. Malaysia's low external debt level is around a developed country's level due to our high savings rate and prudent financial management.

Jomo argued in a speech to the Malaysian Youth Professionals Association (Promuda) that the capital control measures instituted on Sept 2, 1998, had a neutral effect since they came at the tail end of the currency meltdown and in part because Malaysia was financially strong in terms of the private external debt ratio. Malaysia was at no time in need of borrowing from the International Monetary Fund simply because we have enough internal liquidity and resources at that time to finance our restructuring scheme.

In a layman's terms, the government can afford to borrow locally due to the banks' liquidity and our high savings rate. Therefore, it was totally untrue and misleading that the capital controls ensured Malaysia sovereignty and saved us from borrowing from the much-maligned IMF.

Jomo also said that it was under Anwar's stewardship as finance minister that Malaysia's financial strength was strongest and growth most stable, because of his policy of maintaining a budget surplus while reducing the government's debt.

Secondly, the writer seemed inclined to give Mahathir too much benefit of the doubt on the Anwar sodomy case. In this case, I think we should judge it like any other legal case. In that respect, I think we should take note of the condemnation of the International Commission of Jurists and many prominent lawyers in Malaysia that the case was unfair due to several obvious factors.

Firstly, the change of dates for three times was very abnormal and enough for any judge to throw any case.

Secondly, the 'victim', driver Azizan Abu Bakar, was never medically checked to ascertain whether or not he has been sodomised.

Thirdly, the mysterious circumstances of the detention of Dr Munawar Anees and Sukma Dermawan under the ISA, which cut off access to their lawyers prior to their confession to committing sodomy and their counter-confession in court.

Fourthly, the sudden elevation of the driver Azizan to being a director of a company.

I reckon for a seemingly articulate person and of sound mind, the writer should have not just accepted Mahathir and Azizan's words at face value without taking into consideration the other factors. I do not fall into the category of a blind follower of Anwar, but I call a spade a spade and in Anwar's case it is a spade which has been bent.