Based o­n what Najib Tun Razak and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi have said in their Heritage Foundation speeches, I agree that there is a 'double-talk' going o­n. There is a need to decode this conflicting behavior by Umno leaders - why do they work so hard to improve the US-Malaysia relationship o­n o­ne hand, while being so critical of the US-led campaign against Iraq and Israeli oppression of the Palestinians o­n the other?

Perhaps Mahathir is walking a tightrope here. He is trying to balance two competing strategies for o­ne ultimate goal - to gain enough Western, especially American, support for the ailing economy while pandering to the Islamic radicals (perhaps not the extremists), both in order to ensure that Umno will survive the upcoming general election.

Essentially, it seems to me that all the 'anti-American rhetoric' which has come from Mahathir's mouth lately is not really 'anti-American' as such. Rather, they should be properly read as 'pro-Islamic' rhetoric.

First, the economy. As the election approaches, Umno leaders are in a state of severe panic. Valuecap does not work, the stock market is dying. The government therefore needs to maintain a positive relationship with the western business interests in order to shore up the economy.

The visits by high-level leaders last year, and their 'shameless and spineless' speeches, are part of this effort.

On the other hand, to win back their lost Malay votes, economic performance alone is not sufficient. This battle is also ideological. The cardinal weakness of Umno leaders in the eyes of traditional Muslims is their 'weak' Islamic credentials. Mahathir, wanting to regain the support of the majority Muslims, has to appear more 'Islamic'.

The ideal image Mahathir strives to portray is o­ne akin to the righteous Caliph, the leader of the ummah , someone who is concerned with and speaks up for the entire Muslim population of the world.

Therefore, he has begun to pay more attention to the plights of the Palestinians, and has taken a fiercely vocal stance against the US-led campaign against Iraq. (And let's not forget the obviously unworkable, yet 'seriously pro-Islamic', 'Muslim countries should use oil as a weapon against the West' strategy.)

The hope is to 'prove' to the Islamic radicals in this country that he, and Umno, are 'truly Islamic' and 'good Muslims': They are deeply concerned with the problems faced by all of their Muslim brothers everywhere in the world and are not afraid to speak up for them - even if it meant offending the superpower.

Also, do not forget the added benefit of this strategy to distract the people's attention from domestic problems, especially the seemingly incurable stock market.

This 'pro-Islamic' explanation is supported by the fact that Mahathir's criticisms of the US are mainly 'Islam-related'. So far, we have not heard him criticising the US for the other non-Muslim-related oppressions in the world, notably his relatively muted comments o­n US multi-national corporations.

I bet the American elites understand this. So far, no direct, hostile response to Mahathir or any serious consequences has come from Washington, which is a huge contrast with Bush's direct warning to France that non-cooperation with the US is considered as an 'unfriendly' gesture.

Malaysia is o­nly a small country not worth paying attention to - that is why Washington does not mind what Mahathir is doing because it has no domestic nor international political consequences for Bush.

But more importantly, Washington understands that Mahathir has to do what he has to do at home. And being an 'ally and friend', they will just keep quite and let him make his noise and carry o­n with his show outside of the prime time slot. A tacit, if not behind-the-scene-explicit understanding has long been reached.

Both sides would be happy if Umno continues to stay in power. When this Iraqi war (and the Malaysian election) is over, they will be back to being friends 'again'.

Perhaps we, the public, need to learn some serious lessons here. Perhaps we have been too caught up by what Mahathir says, and get distracted from paying enough attention to the really important issues.

Though known as a 'straight-talker', at times, Mahathir is a confusing figure. He says a lot of inconsistent things to many different people - Chinese in this country have been his most willing and easily manipulable audience.

For example, his 'guarantee' that the government has no intention of eliminating Chinese education "because it is safeguarded by the constitution", and his explanation to the Malays in an Umno gathering where he said that the government could not eliminate vernacular education "because they supported the government in the last election, we have to keep our promise."

And I am not even talking about broken promises, where the government repeatedly promised to, say, build more schools or to allow them to move, but in the end no action is taken for years, sometimes over a decade. The Chinese press still willingly misled their readers by printing these empty promises in bold headlines.

Many people - the experienced o­nes - have advised me that I should watch what Mahathir does, not what he says. Nobody should take what the politicians say seriously, because frankly, in politics - especially in Malaysian politics - words are not even worth the papers o­n which they are printed o­n.

If we allow ourselves to be misled or deluded by the politicians' colourful words, we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility for the existence of this bunch of dishonest politicians - because we deserve them. Perhaps we should become result-oriented in judging the politicians, and the press should report concrete results achieved more seriously than reporting the politicians' words.

This manipulation of public opinion is part of a politician's essential survival kit since the existence of politics as a profession. It will not go away after Mahathir leaves office. You can bet that his Umno successors and other politicians too would try to emulate the same tactics in future. We the public better wise up.