Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was in Delhi recently to deliver a speech. Below is his elaborate and familiar reply (indicated in bold) to a question on "why Malaysia was not democratic" (NST, Oct 17). It is followed by a 'democratic' comment.

I am not in the least bit ashamed of Malaysian democracy
Considering its loss of credibility on many an issue in recent years, is the government capable of any sense of shame on anything, anymore?

which is a working democracy
Yes, it has no doubt worked very well in keeping this government in power.

We are a democratic country and the people in Malaysia understand the limits of democracy.
The people also understand that the limits of democracy seem to increase by the day, as the powers of the state become 'democratically' unlimited.

Some people say unless you change governments, you are not democratic.
And some people say unless the government remains unchanged, you are not democratic.

Some countries (have) changed governments every two years, giving the government in power no time to implement its plans.
Some countries do not change governments at all and even gives its PM 21 years to announce his retirement plans.

But in some places, democracy is more important than the well-being of the people.
But in some places, the well-being of 'some' people is more important than democracy.

If there are no demonstrations and no union strikes in a country, it is deemed as being undemocratic.
When there are demonstrations and union strikes, some deem it undemocratic.

But demonstrations and union strikes have kept foreign investors away from countries that needed them.
In Malaysia where demonstrations and union strikes are not allowed "...multinational corporations and foreign investors are reluctant to invest because they perceive there is no level playing field, " so declared Chief Justice Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah after his first official meeting with the country's judges on Jan 13, 2001.

In Malaysia, the unions are not tame but they know that if they want to progress and generate jobs, they must assist in attracting foreign investment.
They also know that there is the ISA, OSA, and an array of repressive laws to keep them fiercely quiet or so fiercely in union with the powers that be...especially if they want to progress and have a job, say, in the Senate...

Foreign investors will not invest where there is no stability, even domestic investors will not invest. Investors need stable and peaceful conditions.
Authoritarian and repressive regimes also need "stable and peaceful conditions" as a threat in order to survive.

There are various types of democracies such as liberal and guided democracies
Not to forget too, there is, in the words of the once-learned de factor Law Minister Rais Yatim, "the so-called democratic process through political manipulationsexemplified by the very mechanism of democracy, namely, majoritism..."

but what is important is the ability of the people to choose their leader and government through the ballot box and not on the streets.
Yes, the Indian audience should know that Mahatma Gandhi was only a dreamer with his non-violent street demonstrations, and Nelson Mandela a fool to say that Gandhi 's legacy and commitment to non-violence "has an immediate relevance".

In Malaysia, the people have a chance to elect a new government once every five years.
And for the five years that follow after the election, they have no chance nor choice.

Some States have fallen to the opposition
Some states have also fallen because they went opposition

but probably people chose the same government "because of the results".
Or they probably chose the same government because they feared the results of not doing so.