But the measure of a man is not in his chosen style of leadership, his personal idiosyncrasies but is in his actions.

Of the three Tunku, Razak and Ismail, Razak was the more moderate. Tunku was more of a visionary leader whilst Razak was more of a hands on manager, much like Hussein Onn. Ismail? Well, he had very strong though sometimes inconsistent world view.

But it would be a mistake to characterize the man as a ‘moderate’ politically. In Sino-Malay affairs Ismail would stand next to the likes of Musa and the young Mahathir – a Malay ‘ultra’.

He was what you call those days an ‘ultra’ among UMNO leaders. As a westernized Malay individual educated abroad, he often appeared conflicted. He was fond of pants with flairs, wore white shoes and scarfs – seldom seen without his pipe. He carved an unusual if not aberrant figure those days. He definitely was not a Malay traditionalist but like other Malays educated overseas, a professional from a newly emerging elite Malay class. As a Malay leader he was impatient for change, struggled in search of the correct mindset for the Malays to emulate in a world fast modernizing, and during a time when ‘modernization’ stood for nothing much more than ‘westernization’.

I would love to read Ooi Kee Beng’s biography on Ismail. I expect it to be more balanced and objective than had it been written by a Malay. As a biography written by a non-Malay on a Malay leader the downside is that it may be superficial on occasions in the treatment of things Malay.