The man has an elephant’s memory, and I just find it hard to believe he really could not remember the various incidents asked of him in the Royal Commission hearing. He is no Ronald Reagan in terms of suffering from Alzheimer but he is in terms of being a good actor. And he is a very smart man, not easy to pin down by desultory questioning on the commissioners’ part, especially after they had shown such deference of standing up when he made his entrance.

And maybe they had rightly stood up in deference to this great Malaysian “statesman” (in the local context especially where talent pool, especially amongst politicians, is small) who put the country on the international map.

I use the word ‘great’ in restricted and special sense, which has nothing to do with the moral criteria of good or bad but the amoral criteria of being measured against the sheer effect or impact on the country in terms of the couse the country took during and after his time.

For Malaysian history records no phenomenon like him. And no Prime Minister before or immediately after him had produced so incredible accelerations in the pace of Malaysian history, and I don’t mean just lifting or transforming Malaysia from agrarian to Industrial base (which earned him a description from Times Magazine as “Father of Development” or adopting unorthodox capital controls against hedge funds (against conventional IMF’s wisdom of acceding to market forces and biting the bullet) but changing the whole fabric of Malaysian society from pluralistic to polarized society, secular to Islamic and a relatively independent judiciary to something many Malaysians would perceive as subservient to Executive especially in light of the Lingam video clip.

His peculiar claim to greatness within the limited scope of Malaysian politics is unfortunately unconnected to laying the important foundations of nation building for the future but linked instead to the quality of sheer excess – whether mega projects and their wastage, Islamisation etc, sacking judges, hypocrisy, or being the first PM to openly criticize his anointed successor etc…

As leader then he was a tremendous eruption of energy that forces his indomitable will on the course the country would take, for better or worse.

If it was for the worse he is also able to escape public accountability by, in part, the sheer force of his personality and intelligence, and in part the uncanny ability to confound his critics and detractors alike. Examples of that confounding of critics/detractors alike, taken from Malaysiakini report of Jan 29th are: -

· he recently “lashed the government as ‘weak’ (and comparatively less popular) but said he feared that vote-buying (money politics) would be deployed to stem its losses in upcoming general elections…”I hope that this kind of money politics – I know a lot of people are collecting a lot of money now – if they use money politics the result may not reflect the true feeling of the people….I fear corruption of the voters,” he said (This is as if he did not know money politics was prevalent under his administration and watch);

· then he “criticised its (govt’s) decision to jail ethnic Indian protesters (Hindraf), saying the minority community had no way of airing its grievances, and that a wave of public protests was inspired by the government’s repeated errors. He further said, “no, I don’t think they should have thrown (Hindraf) leaders (into detention), they should have met these people first and had proper discussion.”

· Of Anwar, he said, “There is no more political future for (Anwar)… If he thinks he is going to be the prime minister, he is daydreaming.”

His critics and detractors are confounded because they don’t know whether to criticize and disparage him and continue exposing the failures of his administration or restrain themselves to forgive (let bygones be bygones) and support him and treat him as an ally since nowadays he is talking in such liberal and democratic terms in opposition to the government of the day, which he alone apears to be placed in the unique vantage place to criticize the Powers-That-be, without mincing words, and yet enjoy immunity from whether persecution or prosecution.

So the question invariably arises – is he trying to really and sincerely make amends for his failures of his administration of 22 years or is it just another ‘show’ just so that his legacy will not be condemned in the history books in the generations to come after him?

The desire to protect his legacy in the evening of his eventful life lies in this cue of what he said of Suharto – “Even though Indonesia was not an ideal democracy during Suharto’s time, the fact remained that he brought stability to Indonesia – of course, there is a price to be paid”…..

He is indirectly pleading for an understanding that in his case he did it his way (his favourite song is “My Way” by Frank Sinatra) of what he thought best at that time for the country, and it might well be his belief that nothing could be achieved unless this country evinces strong, and even authoritarian leadership to push things through, never mind (in his case) the Judiciary might be the first casualty…

I don’t know whether he is sincere but surely many Malaysians will not be in the position of saying “I can’t remember” as he did in the RC hearing, and we will be in the position to adjudge objectively the kind of political legacy bequeathed.

Also there’s an old saying – you can fool some people some time but not all the people all the time! :)