I agree with John Teo's 'Release of Tunku Tapes, a disservice to all involved' (Jan 4). Not only "nothing significantly new was added to what we already know generally", there is a strong element of impropriety in using the posthumous voice of the first prime minister to disparage the present one, where quite apart from the truth or otherwise of what the first had said:

  • The Tunku is not around now to decide whether he wanted the contents of the tapes to disseminate in public domain especially when they dwell on matters beyond public record such, as for example, psychoanalysis of the present prime's alleged "complexes" arising from genealogical roots;

  • The present prime minister is also placed in an unenviable position of not being able to rebut and defend himself without improperly dishonouring the stature and historical achievement of the first.

    No matter that those who help release the tapes to the public may be driven by high journalistic fervour to expose the truth or simple plain animosities towards the present prime minister, it is plain that it cannot be a fair stance to advance their agenda where the playing field cannot be level when the first prime minister could not speak from the grave to either stop the publication or amend some of their contents, and the present cannot rebut the fallacies, if any, contained in their contents without desecrating the memory of the icon in Malaysian history.

    It serves to be reminded that even as one criticises the integrity and partiality of mainstream journalism, the integrity and impartiality of those outside too, leaves much to be desired. In fact it leaves behind a bitter taste of a 'hit below the belt'.