Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has denied purchasing a RM30 million yacht as reported by the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet .

The premier also reportedly said that he would ask the newspaper "to make a correction".

Earlier, news about the Hurriyet report originally published in Turkish spread like wildfire in cyberspace after it was first revealed in the blog of former Malay Mail editor Ahirudin Attan.

Photographs showing the alleged yacht as well as the English translation of the report also later appeared in cyberspace, including in Malaysia Today .

To Abdullah's supporters, the premier has certainly done the right thing by issuing a prompt denial and to ask the newspaper to make a correction.

However to his critics and sceptics, who seem to have grow in number in recent months, it remains to be seen whether Hurriyet would stand by its original report.

They would like to see in what manner and what precise words the newspaper would use should it decide to extend an apology. To them, it is simply the case of 'there is no smoke without a fire' or they would say in Malay, 'sekiranya tidak ada angin, takkan pokok bergoyang'.

A denial which is not expressed forcefully or passionately enough will not be able to convince the doubters as in politics, especially Malaysian politics, perception and impression often matter more than truth or reality.

'Old man' remark

This is especially so in the context of what is said to be the continuous decline of Abdullah's public credibility consequent upon several incidents of flip-flopping on major issues like the ministerial memo on religious conversion, the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) and half bridge.

The premier also did little to salvage his image when he told a Thai newspaper recently that ' the old man ' (in reference to former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad) 'smashed the rice bowl' of his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin.

Describing his predecessor as an 'old man' to a foreign publication could be seen as 'rude and ungrateful' by Malaysians, many of whom hold conservative values despite their modern outlook.

Also, like it or not, despite the fact that there are many criticisms against Mahathir, he is still respected by many for the structural transformation or modernisation of the Malaysian economy and his outspokenness on world affairs.

Second, the image conjured by Abdullah when he used the words 'smashed the rice bowl' contradicted the public perception of the premier being a 'nice guy' who does resort to such street-like expressions.

Third, by defending his son Kamaluddin and his son-in-law with what appeared to be excessive passion, Abdullah gave the impression that he is somehow associated with 'nepotism'.

Solution or problem?

All these new perceptions and impressions about Abdullah seem to have caused a widespread sense of disenchantment.

Already, questions are being posed as to why the premier seemed to be more concerned with his son-in-law's rice bowl instead of the rice bowls of ordinary Malaysians whose living standards and quality of life are dropping due to inflation, unemployment, rising crime rate and all forms of misallocation of public resources.

Abdullah's problem of personal image in politics is, of course, now compounded by the seemingly unstoppable torrents of controversies created by ministerial statements which are seen to be 'silly', 'insensitive' and 'arrogant' on a gamut of public interest issues.

His supporters would still argue that many of the problems are structural inherited from the Mahathir administration.

Abdullah himself has asked for time to correct the wrongs.

But there is doubt as to whether the premier could offer solutions to the 'Malaysian malaise' or that he is part of the problem himself.