I wrote below a piece as part of a commentary to an article publish in a bolg i admired. My exchange with the writer is publish below. I am sad but i stand to what I said although the writer was hot around the neck but I wrote what i believe in.

Glorifying Pak Lah
13 10 2008
Zaid Ibrahim ranted about Tun Dr Mahathir a couple of days ago while at the same time absolving Pak Lah from any mistakes the premier did since 2004. I think Zaid Ibrahim is so cute when trying very hard to criticise the grand old man while at the same time trying even harder to glorify the slightly younger but lethargic old man.
He is so cute, I am tempted to pinch that chubby cheeks of his. Maybe I’ll visit him at his new office in Merchant Square one day and do just that.
He said, as reported in The Star;
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will not be able to institute any crucial reform as Prime Minister as long as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is around, claimed former de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.
“The 2004 election manifesto is history,” said Zaid who had been appointed minister specifically to work on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s promise to reform in stitutions of government, improve accountability and transparency, and strengthen the Rule of Law and independence of the Judiciary.
“Najib is smart and articulate but to change the course of Umno, he has to be brave and why would he take such a risk.
“Second, even if he wanted to, he would not be able to do it with Dr Mahathir around,” he said.
Asked whether that was because he thought Dr Mahathir was powerful or had a strong influence on Najib, Zaid - who resigned from the Cabinet recently after journalist Tan Hoon Cheng, Member of Parliament Teresa Kok and news portal editor Raja Petra Kamarudin were arrested under the Internal Security Act - said:
“He (Dr Mahathir) has a large group of friends, otherwise the Prime Minister (Abdullah) would not have been ‘thrown out’ just like he wanted.”
“Mahathirism was all control, control, control. He has a strong influence on the top Umno leaders who had to choose between doing his bidding or facing his wrath.
“So many in Umno are bound to the old, making it difficult to abandon old values and principles.”
“Especially when if you allow for more democracy, you lose some control.”
Pray tell Datuk, who are Tun’s friends in Umno ever since Pak Lah took over? Is it Nazri Aziz who acted as a hatchet man everytime Tun criticised Pak Lah ? Is it Azalina Othman who can’t think beyond anything but to please Pak Lah? Is it Syed Hamid Albar who led the debacle in cancelling the scenic bridge? Or is it the spineless Datuk Seri Najib who had remained quiet when Tun was attacked left, right and centre by everyone in Umno?
Certainly it is not Johari Baharom, a one time strong apple polisher in Kubang Pasu who was alleged bribing the Umno members there not to vote for Tun as a delegate in 2006 Umno AGM. Is it even Shahberry Cheek, whom minutes after being a first time minister in March 2008, accused Tun of destroying Umno?
It is a FACT that Tun had no friends in Umno ever since Pak Lah took over. Or at most, Tun’s sympathisers in Umno were relegated to the grassroots level. Nobody in the Supreme Council and the cabinet was defending Tun. As we all know, everyone was castrated by the 4th floor boys and became half past six bunch of people in the end.
Zaid Ibrahim is shifting reality in order to justify Pak Lah’s downfall.
Pak Lah was thrown out not because of Tun Mahathir. Tun was only the messenger. Pak Lah was thrown out because he mismanaged this country for the past 5 years! He was thrown out because the country could not afford another day of his drowsy and flip flopping ways.
Most of Umno members do not want Pak Lah. Even a blind man knows how destructive this Prime Minister is. He had backstabbed this nation ever since the day Kalimullah became the boss of NSTP.
To up the ante, Pak Lah gave an interview which appeared on Saturday newspapers.
Saya tidak menyesal menyerahkan kuasa lebih awal - PM
PUTRAJAYA 11 Okt. — Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berkata beliau tidak menyesal dengan keputusannya melaksanakan pelan peralihan lebih awal dengan menyerahkan kuasa kepada penggantinya, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“Keputusan itu tidak mengganggu saya. Satu keputusan telah dilakukan dan saya telah menimbangkannya dengan amat teliti. Saya berasa selesa mengenainya dan itulah sebabnya saya berasa ceria,” katanya dalam satu wawancara eksklusif dengan Bernama sebagai mengulas soalan bagaimana beliau boleh berasa ceria semasa membuat pengumuman pada Rabu lepas kerana ia bermaksud hilang pegangan kuasa penting.
“Saya bersyukur kepada Tuhan kerana telah memudahkan saya membuat keputusan.
Saya rasa apa saya lakukan adalah demi kepentingan negara dan parti,” kata Abdullah, yang memakai Baju Melayu coklat dan kelihatan tenang di kediaman rasminya di Seri Perdana. - Bernama
To strike at a man when he is down is considered quite unbecoming for us civilised people. But I would just like to set the record straight here. If Kalimullah, as his parting shot would lay all blame to Tun Dr Mahathir concerning our current troubles, then I will not stand in silence.
Pak Lah did not step down due to his love for this country or for the party. He steps down because his attempt to stay longer till 2010 did not bear too well with the rest of Umno leaders. Wasn’t Pak Lah the one adamantly wished to stay on indefinitely even after the huge lost of support in the last general election?
Only after constant negotiations with his number 2 that the 2010 transition plan was set up. But that was still not enough. 5 years with him at the top had been really destructive. 2 years of waiting till 2010 is a long wait indeed. I applaud some Supreme Council members for finally finding their long lost balls and realised how this president has got to go soon.
This pitiful act of glorifying Pak Lah is just an attempt to make him look favourable within the history books in years to come. I would understand or even forgive these attempts by Pak Lah’s lackeys if they did not demonise Tun Dr Mahathir in the process. But what they are doing is wrong.
Pak Lah and his gang of misfits must understand that the responsibility and accountability of his leadership since 2004 lies squarely on his shoulder. His inability to control the greed of his son, his inability to control his arrogant son in law, his wrong decisions in taking the wrong advisors into his close circles of friends contribute to his gigantic failure in prospering Malaysia.
Tun Dr Mahathir handed over Malaysia to Pak Lah when Malaysia was stable, united and prosperous. Pak Lah on the other hand, is handing over Malaysia to his successor a disjointed, divided and lacklustre nation.
Pak Lah even had the cheek to tell Najib that the latter’s biggest challenge is national unity! A national unity destroyed because he failed to contain racist extremism in the opposition and BN.
Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon on the other hand even called Pak Lah Bapa Demokrasi. His argument was, criticisms and dissent are tolerated during Pak Lah’s tenureship as Prime Minister. Yeah right. My take is, criticisms and public uproars were prevalent during Pak Lah’s time because he was so corrupt and at the same time unable to cleverly defend his actions and decisions.
Coupled with half past six cabinet ministers who were equally inept to counter all the allegations, it was just a matter of time before everyone in Malaysia was talking about how malevolent the government had become. The government controlled media on the other hand, did not publish any negative views about the nation’s leadership. That was why, the blogosphere became the strong voice of dissent.
An example of how Pak Lah handle criticism of his leadership? Detain bloggers under the Sedition Act or the ISA. That’s democracy alright. When Sabah and Sarawak MPs began to criticise Pak Lah after they did not get enough representatives in the cabinet, Pak Lah gave extra RM1 billion for each state in the form of shady development drive. How to quell the anger of vindictive ex judges? Give them ex gratia money. How to contain a potential mutiny by the grass roots? Give them each a kain pelikat.
Pak Lah do not know anything else except throwing money here and there.
Unlike what Zaid Ibrahim said above, Pak Lah lost control not because he allowed democracy. He lost control because he was crushed under the weight of anti Pak Lah sentiments. His dictatorial style in controlling the media and the balls of his ministers was no longer tolerated.
Pak Lah’s legacy will always be marred by constant examples of high level corruption, hypocrisy and policy flops.
If my words are not strong enough to illustrate and to clarify my contempt about this constant effort in glorifying him in the wrong way, then let me demonstrate this further with a quote from a great leader about Pak Lah;
“All this shows that the he is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, tasked beyond it’s power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man.” -
Abraham Lincoln (January, 1848)
Sorry, apparently Abraham Lincoln was criticising the current President at that time, James K. Polk, not Pak Lah. My mistake. But this historic 160 year old speech can still be applied now.
We are also in the middle of history right now. Lets get the record straight.

my comment

It is easier to blame than to understand. Yes Pak lah made many grave mistakes and he is paying for his mistakes but that does not absolve TDM one bit. JMD as a person who is knowlegeble you must be aware under Tun we lost a bit of our freedom. We gain Economic freedom but civil liberties were trampled. Tun was responsible for creating a vibrant Malay middle class of which I pressume you belong too. But he left divided Malay too! Many Malays fail to appreciate what NEP has achieve. I believe you were born post NEP so you have first hand knowledge of NEP vis a vis the Malays. but it was Tun who hurried the process. In the end we lost some of our soul. We grapple with ourselves the meaning of what malay means, we hide ourself in religion sometime adopting cultures alien to us. Our own culture were discarded and some are regarded as blashphemous. I wonder why? Tun likewise came with the idea of Islamization a political coin word that create a chism among the Malays and the non Malays. Liberal Malays who fought for Malay were shun those who wear sheep clothing but are wolves like Anwar were praise. These were Tun's dong. I wrote in his blog too, it was never publish. I am perhaps from the old school which believe that religion and politics don't mix. I am of Tunku's idea that we are a secular nation. Tun open the pandora box, Pak Lah try to put a lid on it by proposing Islam Hadhari or Civilasation Islam that means what is good of Islamic administration. Thus he tries to nulify the Islamisation process but to no avail. Like Tun he was laugh at, mock at by the islamic group even by Tun.
Tun is perhaps the most brilliant Prime Minister we ever had but surely not the wisest. Even his brilliance is overshadowed by Tun Razak. Whose doer face his son shares. Because of Tun he made the Malays having a superiority complex which sometimes make them unberable bigots. I am rascist like you. To say am not is blasphemy. I do not buy the idea rascism is wrong for a rascist to me is someone who love his race but it does not make me a bigot. Under Tun bigots in race and religion was let loose. But Tun was a strong leader, he brood no disent thus he will always be in control, Pak Lah is weak maybe because of that he thought he could control Pak Lah but he forgot that weakling of a man is besotted with his family thus his children always will be his bane. He made a mistake like he did with Anwar. So Tun do make mistake just like Perwaja and now Putrajaya.
Pak Lah fail because he did not surround himself with inteligent man so he seek his son in law who was an Oxford graduate to help him. He in turn rope in his boys who filled up the fourth floor. They are the one who decide for Pak Lah. Tun lead Pak Lah is lead that is the different. Pak Lah forgot his sahabat thus his mistake quaruple and none can save him but never say to me Tun is a saint he is as guilty Pak Lah for the state of the country.

His rebuttal

JMD : Thank you for the comment. I just would like to know what were your civil liberties that was trampled and what was your freedom that was lost during those times? What did you plan to do during those times that was not allowed?
Vibrant but divided Malays. What a predicament ey?
If the Malays failed to appreciate what the NEP had done to them, then they are of course an ungrateful lot. Bear in mind, the NEP has a life span of 20 years. Of course in order to catch up with the other races which are far ahead from the Malays, they need to run twice as fast to catch up. The Malays can never catch up if they are having the same work rate with somebody ahead of them. What more if they were even slower than the people ahead of them.
If Malays were divided and ungrateful, then it must be the work of other section of Malays which called Umno as infidels and everything that Umno did was not beneficial and should be treated with impunity.
If the Malays lost their soul along the way, then religion is the only way to regain some of that back. Wouldn't you agree? At least there's a balance between spiritual progress and physical progress. It was a good balance. And by the way, Tun did not advocate extreme taliban like islamisation process. Other people did. If you believe religion and politics do not mix, then I would say you are quite wrong in your views. Politics are the subset of Islam. Islam I think encompass all. And of course, Tunku never declared we are secular nation. Where did you get that idea from? The Constitution puts Islam as the federal/official religion while the rights of other religion are also taken care of. We are not a communist country where religion takes a back seat. If that is the case, then not only politics and religion are separated, religion itself will lose its place in the society. In no time, society without religion as its integral part of its being will downspiral itself into apathy and social degradation.
I could not actually comprehend the last two parts of your comments. I am lost at what you are trying to actually say there. I apologise. But I am sure you're made some points through.
Addition : I would say your assertion that "Under Tun bigots in race and religion was let loose" was quite wrong. Remember May 13, 1969 where bigots went on riots? That was under Tunku. And years before that, even before independence, racial clashes occured sporadically under the British. Thus the usual admonition that Malaysia, eventhough is blessed with multi cultural and multi religious citizenry, is also can be a cauldron of ethnic strife and racial tension if the country is not governed correctly and without some form of discipline.
Thank you.

My awnser

To your awnser when did tunku assert his believe that this is a secular nation, than JMD pls refer to the Star in his coloumn As I See It as publish in the paper. One of the reason of the operation lalang 1987 and the closure of the paper Star and Watan was this column. So if you talk about muzzling the press, who was the Home Minister then? was it not Tun. As for Islam, well what type of Islam are you proposing. To the Arabs what they consider islamic is different than the liberal westernised Muslim who resides in the US and western world. To a bosnian Muslim it is different and so to the turks. Their differences show in their perception of life tentang hukum dan hakam(About Laws and Regulations). I am not going to dwell in that to much but sad to say perception plays an important part in human mind. I am againts divisive policy because my faith in my religion is not about pandering to slogans but i believe we have enough fragmentation in our mind between us to futher divide us with religion. Let it be separate because moral guidance is subjective and i believe should remain private. If I am wrong than you cannot blame taliban and the rest of us as unislamic because this is an extention of their faith however misguided they are as your belief predates it. To the taliban and the fundamentalist they are right, to you they are wrong but what justified them to be label as such. Conservatism has envelop the human race from the west to the east, and mixing religion and politics is potent especially in Multi racial Malaysia. This is my belief but promoting faith in any religion is positive to the nation but not labeling it like what Tun has started. I rest my case.