After reading [#1] Mahathir deserves immunity [/#] (April 2) by MGG Pillai, I am greatly baffled. I have read and re-read his article a few times. However, I'm still baffled. Perhaps my grasp of the English language leaves something to be desired but the truth is, I am at a loss as to what exactly does the writer think Mahathir should be immune from.

He said the head of government should have immunity. Why? He also said immunity should be absolute. Absolute? How about genocide? Should leaders like Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin be immune? Should leaders like Suharto and Marcos be permitted to plunder their countries' wealth and be immune?

He said leaders should be able to commit acts (in national interest) that could put you and me in jail. Can the writer kindly give us an example? Incidentally, can he also define 'national interest'? And who should decide what is or isn't in national interest?

In the last paragraph, he said, "This proposal that Mahathir be called to account is directed at him personally." Account for what? Is this an esoteric article not meant for people like me to understand?

Incidentally, I totally support Dr Mahathir Mohamad's removal of the rulers' absolute immunity. In this day and age, it is an anachronism to have someone - anyone - with absolute immunity. In theory, a ruler can shoot you on the spot (for whatever reason) and get away with it. I'm surprised that we still have dinosaurs who would give absolute immunity to the heads of governments and states.

Yes, I agree that we get the government we deserve. I'm only glad that not all of us think like the writer. We will not be electing a head of government; we will be electing an emperor with absolute power.