It appeared that Mahathir picked Khir without ever once meeting the man - no face-to-face interview or first-hand assessment. It is simply incredible that such a senior appointment be made without Mahathir's careful personal evaluation. He obviously relied solely on his subordinates' judgment.

Isn't Mahathir curious about Khir's views on such major issues as special privileges, globalisation and Islam? What is Khir's take, for example, on the Religious Department's raid on the nightclub? If Mahathir is not careful, this Khir may turn out to be another Anwar Ibrahim in professional garb.

The second point was the lack of coverage of Khir's non-political achievements. The media carried voluminous reports of his meteoric rise within Umno but precious little of the man's other accomplishments. Granted, it is difficult to make one's mark as a professional at the relatively young age of 35. I barely started my surgical practice at that age.

Nonetheless, there are other indicators to look at. Was he a brilliant undergraduate? True, academic excellence does not necessarily translate into success in later life, but it does reveal hard work, diligence and intelligence, traits that would be useful in any position.

Then there was his dental practice. Was it a thriving one or was he a professional in name only, with his clinic manned by others while he was busy with politics? There are many clinics and legal firms with fancy Bumiputra names, but the professionals inside are other than Bumiputras - a sophisticated form of Ali Babaism. I am however, heartened to read that Khir volunteers as a dentist in his own village. At least he is different from the usual lot of "takers" who infest Umno.

The quality of a leader can be gauged by the calibre of people he attracts. US president John F Kennedy was pre-eminent in this regard. His administration was filled with America's best and brightest. Kennedy's appointees did not all turn out to be successful but they were all brilliant, incorruptible, and committed. His was an administration others were measured against.

How does Prime Minister Mahathir stack up in this regard? The man once proudly observed that he inherited his predecessor's cabinet. Implicit in this is the assumption that he can work with anyone, as in the Malay saying about the skillful carpenter able to use any material to turn out a masterpiece. As a counterpoint, Mahathir should remember that it is hard to soar like an eagle when surrounded by turkeys.

Mahathir's record in picking talent is abysmal. I cannot think of any "star" among his appointees and ministers. (Many would consider Anwar to be one but more on him later.) When I think of Mahathir's legacy, images of Malacca's Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, a man implicated in the statutory rape of an underage girl, come to mind.

Then there is Selangor's Muhammad Muhd Taib, caught with millions in cash in his pocket. Kedah's Sanusi Junid, another Mahathir's man, now awaits trial for assault. And the man whom Khir will be replacing, Abu Hassan Omar, resigned for "personal and family" reasons. He has yet to deny widespread rumours of illicit sex with his sister-in-law.

Mahathir once proudly remarked that under his administration the son of a paddy farmer can own an airline, referring to Tajuddin Ramli's acquisition of Malaysia Airlines. He went on to recite the names of other Bumiputra nouveau riches who have joined the ranks of the rich and famous, thanks to his policies. And these opulently rich Malays are not shy of flaunting their flamboyant lifestyles. Alas that was then.

Now, these NEP's billionaires are more accurately described as men who brought down Bank Bumiputra. It is indeed sad and downright criminal that Bank Bumiputra, Tun Razak's finest legacy, was done in not by defaulting farmers or ungrateful students, but by Mahathir's best and brightest.

In fairness to Mahathir, it is the rare leader who is lucky or smart enough to always pick the best and most capable. Inevitably there will be mistakes. The brilliant technocrat may turn out to be a poor politician; the innovative planner may have some unsavory fetishes; and the once upright and righteous may turn out to be easily corruptible.

I am reminded of the kampong adage on selecting durians. Occasionally you will pick a bad one. No harm done as long as you recognise it quickly and not serve it to your guests. Throw it out, or better still, turn it into tompoyak (paste). Mahathir's fault is that he keeps his tompoyak durians on the table too long. The danger then is that the rotten fruit will infect the good ones, or worse, your guests will think that you have no good durians at all.

Muhammad Taib, for instance, should have been fired the moment he was arrested in Australia with all that cash. Similarly with Rahim Thamby Chik. Whether they were guilty or not was irrelevant. A chief minister must be held to a higher standard; innocent till proven guilty and reasonable doubt are fine in a criminal proceeding, not in a position of high public trust.

In his nearly 20 years as leader, Mahathir has yet to fire anyone. His appointees cannot all be outstanding. He is not infallible; he must have selected some losers, that is, tompoyak-quality candidates. The best (or worst) that Mahathir ever did was not to reappoint a few. Tolerating mediocrity only encourages it.

The one notable exception was his firing of Anwar two years ago. Because it was out of character, the event precipitated an upheaval. Had Mahathir fired a few ministers before, Anwar's sacking might have been taken in stride. Many regard Anwar's firing as Mahathir's greatest blunder. To me this was a singular act of courage. History may well regard this to be Mahathir's greatest contribution, eclipsing his many other feats.

As Anwar's recent behaviours have shown, Malaysia under him would have been a disaster. But the question remains: Why did Mahathir take this long to discover Anwar's defects? When Mahathir coopted Anwar into Umno in the 1980s, did he do what he is now doing with Khir, that is, rely solely on the judgment of others? And despite a very long and close relationship with Anwar, Mahathir was oblivious to Anwar's tompoyak qualities till very late.

Mahathir has made and continues to make many eventful contributions to the nation. Imagine how much higher he (and Malaysia) would have soared had he gotten rid of the many turkeys cluttering his cabinet and been selective in his appointments.

M BAKRI MUSA is the author of The Malay Dilemma Revisited: Race Dynamics in Modern Malaysia, published by iuniverse.com.