With respect to Sifuhiu's response ('In defence of the premier', July 21) to my letter, allow me to reply in my defence. Normally, I won't even care to respond to an argument that is so full of holes and contradicts itself, but this time, I just couldn't help myself from pitching in my two cents.

The writer begins by asserting that no leader can do everything by him/herself. That's true, but Dr Mahathir Mohamad is no ordinary leader, he is a dictator. By definition, a dictator is someone that does not tolerate any viewpoint contrary to his/her. In fact, that is the exact sentiment of Dr Mahathir. He himself has said as much: A developing country needs a 'good' dictator.

It becomes in practice, a single-person leadership; the rest are just followers doing his bid. Anybody who dares to challenge his decision either ended up sacked, resigned, jailed or purged from the party en masse .

In the Nanyang Press takeover saga, MCA wouldn't even dare to act without his consent or behest. MCA first tried to justify such risky takeover as sound investment, then to justify it as preventing it from falling into the hands of 'another race'. How ironic as MCA takes orders directly from Dr Mahathir and Nanyang shares has now dropped 20 percent. Either way, there is one less voice to question the government.

The writer said: "Rationally thinking, how many 'non-cronies' are there who are capable of handling mega-projects? I wonder if a burger seller is awarded such a project, will he be called a crony as well?"

With all the takeovers, restructuring and debt consolidations that cost the tax payers billions of ringgit, one wonders whether all those national corporations were actually managed by burger sellers.One doesn't need to dig hard to come up with examples of bailouts. Just a couple of days ago, the Umno debt-ridden investment arm Renong had to be taken over.

The writer then contended that all judges are of high morality and there are laws preventing one person from subjugating the judiciary. Let the facts speak for itself: We have not long ago, a then chief justice, no less, caught honeymooning with a lawyer. A lower court judge was 'advised' to drop a case and now the government is amending the constitution the umpteenth time, this time to prevent judiciary challenge to the electoral roll.

The writer also pointed out that Gandhi had plenty of enemies and detractors, too. True, they hated him because he was unable to prevent Pakistan from separating from India, not unlike the Malays here blaming Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj for letting Singapore split from Malaysia. By the way, I didn't mention Bill or Bush.

As for the Internal Security Act supposedly protecting the peace by preventing people from doing whatever they feel is right, let me just say that we don't want the ISA, not so much for us to do whatever we like; we don't want ISA just so Dr Mahathir and his government can't do whatever they like.

Finally, the writer said that "the majority of us who help ourselves enjoy a peaceful and harmonious life here in Malaysia". If the majority of us pulled ourselves up on the bootstraps, then we really don't need the government's handouts do we? Then what is this government's tagline that the Malays can't compete without handouts?

I don't know whether to take his article literally or as a form of satire, because what the writer's 'arguments'actually does more disservice to the person he/she purported to defend. A related letter by Lekiu Bakri is much more convincing.

I am not questioning Dr Mahathir's work ethics. But no amount of hard work can make up for a misguided policy. Just yesterday, Dr Mahathir observed (again) that his policies failed because the Malays are lazy. The good doctor is blaming his patients because his prescription doesn't work as well as he hoped. If he does that in his medical practice, how long will he be able to keep his licence?