Reading Abdullah Junid's 'Dr M back on the saddle again' (Aug 2) and Yong Seow Foong's 'Meritocracy yes but only if...' (Aug 2), it seems to me that to many people Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad simply can do no right any more (after ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's fall from grace) when ironically before that, he has always been praised for doing everything right.

For example, when he earlier denounced Suqiu's appeal for meritocracy as being chauvinistic, the PM was criticised for playing racial cards and trying to posture as champion of the Malays to recover lost Malay cultural ground that had supposedly shifted to Malay-based parties in the Alternative Front.

Now when he wants to implement meritocracy in stages beginning with first-year university intake, he is accused of either vengefully punishing the students for supporting the opposition or hatching a ploy of doubtful sincerity.

(PAS, which held the view that in Islam there were no racial quotas, has come out to attack the PM's stance that DAP had supported meritocracy all along is conspicuously silent on it now).

That he may be introducing meritocracy for valid reasons stated by Aizuddin Danian in 'Meritocracy's merits' (July 30) simply will not occur to many as remotely possible.

In short, the PM can do no right. As your columnist Farish A Noor said, "whatever the man says - even if he claims that two plus two equals four - " the PM would be wrong! ('Mahathir and Mahathirism', July 16).

Detractors will pick out whatever position the PM takes -never mind whether he is right or wrong- and impute a motive on his part or extrapolate a conclusion in support of their prejudices against the man even in the absence of visible support in logic or on facts.

Can't Malaysians be more issue-based than personality-based?

Now even foreigners like former American ambassador to Malaysia, John R Malott (keeping abreast with developments here from 'afar') have joined the fray ('Bravo, Marie!' of Aug 2) and taken sides against the PM.

Malott had even suggested that Anwar who was convicted under our judicial process be freed as a condition for reinstatement of Malaysia's democratic credentials for the PM to meet with US President George W Bush. (I don't think that even the next American Ambassador to Malaysia, Marie Huhtala has gone that far (I believe she merely stated Anwar should be allowed to seek treatment abroad).

I think it was out of line for Malott to make such a call in the context of Malaysian-US state relations.

Whether the PM has done right or wrong in respect of the Anwar's episode and the ISA detainees or whether our judiciary is independent or otherwise is an issue for Malaysians to decide and express our approval or disapproval through the ballot box, come next elections. I am sure the majority of us have the capacity to judge wisely. If not, we are the ones (not foreigners) to face the consequences.

So why is the United States so "deeply concerned by the case of ... Anwar and the treatment of members of the political opposition", which is basically a domestic affair having no direct adverse effect on the US's national interest?

Is it because the US is the champion of democracy and human rights world-wide to which the Mahathir's administration is antithetical?

Malott sure sounded that way when "in reference to some people's thinking that Bush's administration is more likely to be conciliatory to Mahathir's than Al Gore", he said that "these people never studied American history and don't understand the principles that motivate the people of my country today".

I take issue with that statement that is made from a self-serving, elevated and moralistic platform that is unsupportable by facts.

As far as my understanding of American history and principles goes (also viewed from 'afar'), although the US has helped to overthrow some dictatorships, she has also equally helped to buttress just as many when she perceives it is to her strategic and economic interests to do so. For example:

1) President Truman supported Batista's dictatorship in Cuba, prior to Fidel Castro.

2) In South America, the CIA assisted popular Allende's overthrow and installed a puppet military dictatorship in Chile. What about American support of dictatorships in El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama?

3) In Asia, Kennedy's administration supported the dictatorship of South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem who suspended certain freedoms and persecuted Buddhists; subsequent American administrations supported known dictators like Ferdinand Marcos (for military bases) and Suharto.

4) The US also supported the dictatorial regime of the Shah of Iran for strategic control of oil and Persian Gulf and the CIA helped to establish Savak, the Shah's secret police force.

5) In Africa, American military and financial support were given in support of Somalia's Siad Bari dictatorship for several decades during which he abused the human rights of his population. What about American support of Zaire's Mobutu's government, Liberia, Sudan, and Kenya as well?

6) American support was also given to Ukrainian dictatorship of Leonid Kuchma, which plundered the nation and suppressed the press.

The list goes on.

Can Malott honestly deny that the "history and the policies" of the US is replete with copious examples of how his country has used funding and arms and continues to arm dictators world-wide who often use US weapons of war against their own and neighbouring people?

These dictatorships don't have free elections and are often controlled by the military and against press freedom. They help enrich American defense contractors and stimulate the US' war economy.

I think the US in many ways is a great country and demonstrated principles in many situations and areas.

But let this not be an excuse for her ex-ambassador Malott to seize the high moral ground in judgment of the PM, who though autocratic, is far less dictatorial by any standards than the dictators of US client states, shored up by the US; and for whatever his shortcomings may be, is certainly not one servile or obsequious to American might and Pax Americana!

Whilst there is nothing wrong with America's vigorous pursuit of national interest, for Christ's sake, spare us the moralisation of your history and principles and the hypocrisy and farce that comes with it.

On American's history, principles and policies allegedly in support of democracies against 'dictatorship' like that of our country's, I would similarly say the same to Malott of what he said was the way it would be said in America: "Put up or shut up!"