I accept Jeffrey's point in his letter [#1] Innuendoes cloaked in magnanimity [/#] (April 7) of the inherent insinuations and innuendoes in MGG Pillai's article [#2] Mahathir deserves immunity [/#] (April 2), but his lengthy diatribe is devoid of even the tacit admission that Mahathir may not be blameless.

His outrage at Pillai's article is itself a subtle innuendo that Mahathir has done no wrong and hence undeserving of the implication of guilt assumed by the columnist. If the writer cannot rise above his own innuendo that Mahathir is an icon of probity where comparisons with Suharto and Estrada are offensive, then he has no right to be attacking Pillai on this.

Let me point out that to many of us, Mahathir's track record is replete with abuses and wrongdoings so copious and conspicuous that it is quite unnecessary to provide facts and evidence to back up any direct or implied assertion of the premier's flaws.

Mahathir's unsavoury acts may be considered common knowledge and so well-known that to labour the point may sidetrack an article into a lengthy dissertation of Mahathir's faults which will bore the readers with the obvious rather than enlighten them with the main thrust of the article.

In the same vein, if one were to write an article which refers in passing to the corruption of the Marcos or Suharto regime, only the most exacting person in self-denial or totally isolated from the reality of current events would demand that proof and facts be given to support the implied or direct assumption that those regimes were indeed corrupt.

I find it highly ironic that the writer while venting his outrage at Pillai for daring to assume Mahathir's guilt without furnishing supporting facts, did not extend the same requirement of proof and validation on his hero. For Mahathir does not insinuate or imply, he is brutally direct in accusing the opposition or his political enemies of vile acts without the least bit of supporting evidence.

In case that I too, may be accused of not giving supporting facts, let me hasten to mention the PM's accusation against the opposition of instigating the Petaling Jaya Selatan riots, of collaborating with foreigners to topple the government through street violence and demonstrations and, to quote the most repulsive accusation ever by a national leader:

"They (the opposition) saw what happened in a neighbouring country and appeared to be happy to see chaos, the killings of Muslims and Christians, Dayaks and Madurese; they are disappointed because there were no killings in Malaysia."

I like Jeffrey's writings; he has something worthwhile to say when he is not defending Mahathir. But instead of being a super-apologist and a dogmatic defender of Mahathir, he should open his mind to see the bad as well as the good instead of selectively blinding himself to the grave faults of the man.