Regarding his reasons for asking the other to step down as ‘Prime Minister and the President of UMNO’, Mahathir junior talks of people being unhappy judging from election results and that they have rejected him as the nation’s chief executive.

He talks as if the election debacle BN suffered has nothing to do with the depredations and corruption within BN in general and UMNO in particular and that PM was solely to blame.

Then he says that the sole intention of writing letter is “to save UMNO and BN from being rejected further by the people and from being no longer relevant to our religion, race and nation”, that in writing letter he is prepared to face consequences “for the sake of the Malays and UMNO”.

Next breath, he urges him to “ do the right thing “ for the sake of the people and the nation”.

You will notice that Mahathir junior, just like the senior, has equated the interest of “the people and the nation” as if it were the same as interest of “UMNO and BN” and their relevance to “our religion, race and nation”. This I submit is a parochial and exclusive approach excluding other Malaysians, typical of the stance of communal warlords waving keris and asking others labelled pendatang to go back to China or India! This kind of mentality has been going on for 50 years that is infinitely worhe stance more dangerous than the ineptitude of AAB’s leadership. If as Mahat elyhir junior says, the election results – that have brought a new dawn to Malaysian politics by allowing the development of an opposition coalition of strength equal and neck to neck with the ruling one, applying a brake to abuse of power by the latter, if the results evince that Malaysians have come of age basing their votes on parties transcending race and religion and all these paradigm shift is due to the alleged ineptitude of AAB’s leadership, then I say lets support this alleged ineptness and incompetent leadership of AAB, without which the shift in Malaysian voting behavior would not have changed and the parochial warlord mentality of such as Mahathir junior, still identifying the interest of “the people and the nation” as if it were the same as interest of “UMNO and BN” and their relevance to “our religion, race and nation” will be allowed to persist as it did in last 50 years to the detriment of the very concept of Bangsa Malaysia.

To Bakri I would say that if you express so glorious commendations of Amirsham Aziz’s and Zaid Ibrahim’s appointment – which I have no problem with – how come you don’t give an iota of credit to the one who made this appointment even if Amirsham/Zaid had not been fielded to contest seats in last election?? Why the selective criticisms? You complain about ‘Abdullah’s inept administration’ and said “we cannot allow Abdullah to do that; we must force him step down for the good of the country”.

If it were not for him, would Malaysians have been able to discuss freely the so called ineptness of the administration in the blogs and public discourse arena like for eg Bakri’s own blog which once being in public domain, is next taken up by an otherwise manacled mainstream media, bringing these issues to national attention even amongst those without internet access all playing a part as catalyst for this “political tsunami” that has come????

You happy with this “political tsunami”, then you thank AAB and don’t criticize and support his stepping down or else no more favourable “political tsunami” for us in the future!

During Senior Mahathir’s administration, he manacled Judiciary and restricted powers of traditional rulers by constitutional amendments.

To me, AAB’s appointment of Royal commission to enquire into Lingam Video Clip, albeit half hearted, did much to publicize the shenanigans of fixing of judicial appointments to the public’s horror, and his appointment of Zaid Ibrahim is intended to help restore public confidence in judiciary.

In Senior Mahathir’s administration, rulers were curtailed in their powers and they ceased to be powerful counterweight to the elected government as regards abuse of power by the latter.

Thanks to AAB’s perceived weak leadership, we see a resurgence of rulers’ power to have a say in appointment of MBs, the traditional preserve of the ruling government.

What has happened is that AAB’s “inept” administration has deconstructed and is promising further deconstruction of Senior Mahathir’s legacy of removing all check and balance.

That is why both Senior and junior Mahathirs are asking AAB to step down. Unless we relish Senior Mahathir’s legacy, we should support AAB’s continuance to further dismantle Senior Mahathir’s legacy, whether unwittingly or intentionally.

I agree with what lkt-56 said in his posting at 10:16.34 above – “ I don’t know about you guys but within UMNO I see AAB as the lesser evil amongst the possible replacements”.

In contrast Bigjoe said in posting 08. 1400 above, “after you get rid of him, then you get rid of the next guy and the next until you get to the reformist group” but who is the “next guy and the next” that you think UMNO would endorse??? What if the next is another Mahathir in relation to whom ABB is opposite??? And where is the reformist group anywhere in sight near the vice presidency? You must ask whose premiership, whether intentionally or unintentionally and unwittingly, competence or incompetence directly or indirectly promotes nascent democracy and provides Opposition better than a fighting chance to be juxtapositioned almost 50-50 against the ruling coalition??

If we’re pro Malaysia, we must support he who feathers our nest and advance our Cause for the country’s betterment, even if he does so by default….

You take, for example, the ‘Evil’ Soviet Empire.

Sure, the Soviet Union had economic problems, and had been ailing for most of the 20th century. But it was militarily mighty. In spite of American superior weapons of war, the Americans dared not take the Cold War powerful enemy, the Soviet Union on. For to do so would inflict unacceptable losses.

Then the Soviet Union got a half baked reformist leader in the person like Mikhail Gorbachev with his political rhetoric “Glasnot” (open up) and “Perestoika” (reform) – the two scalpels ostensibly to cut on the ailing patient- Soviet Union.

American President Ronald Reagan immediately recognized Gorbachev as a new breed of Soviet leader: he supported and encouraged Gorbachev.

Although Gorbachev could not implement reforms effectively within government in the face of rightist and conservative opposition within Soviet’s ruling establishment, yet his rhetoric of “Glasnot” (open up) and “Perestoika” (reform) posed a contradiction to the close and totalitarian and conservative mindsets of the Soviet’s ruling establishment.

It established a bench mark against which the ordinary people could take measure and be galvanized against the ruling soviet ruling establishment that later led to President Boris Yeltsin supporting Gorbachev against moves to oust him, with Yeltsin’s dissolving (illegally) the country’s legislature, opposing the rightists’ moves to re-consolidate power and to push forward with neo-liberal reforms, supported by the people…

What Gorbachev had done despite talking and not walking the talk (within a political culture and milieu discredited by the talk) was to cause an IMPLOSION of the totalitarian soviet system that even American Pershing and cruise missiles and nuclear weapons of war could not achieve.

The rest is history when US emerged sole super power without a single bullet spent.

All Reagan did was to brilliantly support he who undermined and caused implosion of a mighty totalitarian system from within. Never mind that someone was a half baked reformer and never walked his talk – as long as he talked and gave others space to talk. The rest would all fall in place neatly in due course.

There is a lesson to be learnt here on how to deal with a power otherwise unassailable reactionary and totalitarian enemy.

Thanks HJ Angus, “Glasnost” it is, in this case it was a typo omission.