Bakri seems to overlook two facts here. First, political as well as private sector appointments, in which Umno is heavily involved are carried out authoritatively by none other than the prime minister himself. Information about certain candidates are of course provided by his scouting team. But if such candidates seem to offer potential trouble in terms of their strong and incorruptible character, then, forget it - none of such candidates would deserve an appointment.

What the prime minister wants is a group of people who would reply "Yes, boss", regardless of the rationality or soundness of the assignment in hand. That is why "Malaysia Boleh" was institutionalised into an unofficial policy. This resulted in Malaysia ending up with white elephant projects rather than good social welfare programmes in health, education and community-oriented infrastructure.

This is also the reason why those Thanksgiving birds surround Mahathir in the first place. Academic brilliance or personal integrity takes a back seat to the willingness of his subordinates to do his bidding without questioning the moral and realistic implications of his policies.

Look at the judiciary. Salleh Abbas was the most courageous and brilliant of all judges in the country. His only downfall was not bowing in to Mahathir's whims and fancies. As a result of his removal, a significant group of high-calibre judges were also gradually removed and replaced with toe-the-line nincompoops. The rot of the judiciary was Mahathir's own undoing, but I suppose Bakri would beg to differ.

Second, Bakri is obsessed about academic brilliance as a prerequisite to good leadership and management. I do not deny that academic success would help a person perform brilliantly in his or her career. However, to correlate academic excellence with being an effective and clean politician is absurd.

Statistics have shown that many prominent professionals as well as politicians, who had impeccable academic careers, have ended up participating in white-collar crimes or committing corporate misdeeds. Some also have created political and financial disasters. His own example of the Bank Bumiputra scandal, in fact, contradicts his previous thesis.

On the other hand, we are also often told that many of the finest businesspeople, scientists, inventors, and politicians were either mediocre students or never went to school at all. Bakri is too hung up on Ivy Leaguers or Oxbridge graduates to fill in influential positions, a notion I find quite arrogant and out of touch with reality.

There is no use in a politician or civil servant coming out of Harvard, and yet carry out their duties unscrupulously and with severe partiality. Many an Ivy League lawyer have been known to work for the Mafia and for ruthless corporations that degrade our social and physical environments.

Another perturbing element in Bakri's article was his demonisation of Anwar, so much to the extent that it sounded personal. Referring to Anwar as a tempoyak that lingered around too long, Bakri proceeded to deface him with speculative and sweeping statements.

To Bakri, the firing of Anwar was not an act of desperation on Mahathir's part, but one of courage. According to Bakri, Anwar's recent behaviours exemplified the justification for his removal, and that Malaysia would have been a disaster under him.

Bakri's defamation of Anwar is focused perhaps, around Anwar's unimpressive academic record and his identification with Islamic movements in politics. And how can he forecast that under Anwar, Malaysia would collapse, when Anwar has not had the chance to lead? Isn't that an obvious bias on his part?

Bakri found it convenient to place the blame for the stench that surrounds Malaysian politics on Anwar, and not Mahathir. His adulation of Mahathir prevents him from seeing the reality of the situation. Placing the blame on the victim seems like the right thing to do for a man suffering from the denial syndrome. But this is not unlike Bakri. His book, The Malay Dilemma Revisited, is filled with victim-blaming.

Bakri is very confined in his ways and views, the reality being that his style of comments and justifications are out of date and very illiberal. In this sense, his worship for Mahathir and his tolerance for the prime minister's wrongdoings are too obvious. Diverting the issue and placing the blame on others is not only irresponsible but also unprofessional.

But who am I to say. I'm only a civil engineer who graduated from a mid-western university in the US.

Adam Iskandar
Minnesota