Between 1998 and 2004 when former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim was sacked, arrested and jailed, an individual named Kim Quek wrote tough and clear-eyed critiques against former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Recently, he published a compilation of his articles, entitled Where to, Malaysia A future with Anwar's Reformasi or back to Mahathirism? (Kuala Lumpur, SIRD, 2005).

At a meeting in Kuala Lumpur recently, the 66-year-old retired engineer and grandfather from Johor Baru proved to be a knowledgeable individual.

In an email interview in conjunction with the publication of his book, he responded to questions on his political motives, moral conviction and assessment of the political economy of Malaysia. He also outlined the strengths and weaknesses of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, his deputy Najib Abdul Razak, Mahathir and Anwar.

Malaysiakini: Why did you write so prolifically in support of Anwar and in opposition to Mahathir's political economy and his politics between 1998 and 2004?

Kim Quek: I was swept into writing by the tumultuous upheaval following the sacking of Anwar on the heels of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. I could not contain my indignation at Mahathir's heinous mismanagement of the country and the disgusting injustice inflicted on Anwar. I felt compelled to tell the truth according to my conscience and because of a need to relieve my tensions.

The Asian financial crisis almost brought about the collapse of the Malaysian economy, but instead of facing up to the truth - the main culprit being Malaysia's structural weaknesses - Mahathir indulged in a frenzy of denials and xenophobia. He hit out at all and sundry, ignoring the fact that it was mainly his policies that brought on this calamity.

Through abuse of the New Economic Policy, a crony capitalist empire was rapidly built up which was not backed by commensurate entrepreneurship and management expertise. These corporate weaklings were destined to fall at the first sign of economic reversal.

Meanwhile, Mahathir was merrily fulfilling his dreams of grandeur through an orgy of grandiose projects, prompted and goaded on by greedy cronies. If not for the interruption of the Asian financial crisis, we might have gone on to do the RM30 billion Kedah coastal reclamation project, a northern international airport, a bridge joining Peninsular Malaysia to Sumatra, the RM15 billion Bakun Dam (photo) with an undersea power cable to Peninsular Malaysia, etc. What would have happened to our economy then?

On the political front, cronyism and corruption had spread like cancer from the political leadership to the civil service to the corporate sectors. Umno had turned from Malay nationalists to a hotbed of corruption and intrigue. Public servants seemed to be busier serving themselves. Thieves and robbers never had such a field day. Juvenile delinquents and drug addicts seemed to increase faster than the population growth. In short, morality seemed to be breaking down, compared to the days gone by in the 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s, when our civil service was fondly remembered as disciplined and conscientious, and our streets were safe to roam.

Mahathir ruled as the absolute autocrat, having subjugated the judiciary and built up an awesome arsenal of repressive legislation to cow his opponents. Democratic institutions were undermined and the rule of law was wanting. Prolonged hegemony by Umno through racial divide and rule had resulted in rampant racism and self-endowment of Umno leaders and their cronies.

The decadence of Mahathir's rule was brought to a head by the sacking and subsequent persecution of Anwar, who had to be eliminated as a spanner in the works in the Mahathir system of governance.

In the few precious days of freedom following his sacking, Anwar revealed sufficient high levels of corruption, massive squandering, and abuse of power to convince any right minded citizen that Mahathir's regime must be opposed with full force.

Did you know Anwar before you started writing in support of him? If yes, what was your relationship with him? If not, why did you provide such passionate support to a stranger?

I have never met Anwar. My knowledge of him is through the news media. Like many people, I first thought Anwar was just like 'one of them' - those political leaders who amassed wealth for themselves, their families and cronies by grabbing government contracts, projects, licences, permits, share allocations, kickbacks etc. The first time I sensed that Anwar could be different from the rest was when he was acting prime minister during Mahathir's two-month overseas vacation, shortly before the Asian financial crisis.

As acting prime minister, Anwar pushed through tough anti-corruption laws and instituted a nationwide campaign to combat corruption by establishing high level committees in every state to ensure proper follow up. Anwar looked and acted serious in his anti-corruption pursuit.

However, as soon as Mahathir returned, Anwar's anti-corruption campaign died a natural death.

Then, the Asian financial crisis spread to Malaysia and Anwar took the opportunity to halt some big-scale projects including the Bakun Dam. He was also against the indiscriminate bailing out of crony companies while advocating 'creative destruction' for companies that do not deserve survival so that there could be renewal in the economy. I could sense that friction was brewing between Anwar and the Mahathir-Daim (Zainuddin) axis. I became convinced that Anwar was not like 'one of them', that he had integrity - a rarity in the ruling clique.

In the days that followed Anwar's imprisonment, the local media, police and courts acted in cohort in a massive campaign to vilify him, making him out to be a sexual fiend, and a corrupted criminal. That our democratic institutions should stoop so low to humiliate and persecute a righteous leader just to serve the selfish interests of one man incensed me. And that was the time I picked up the pen to write.

Mahathir was leading the nation down the drain, and Anwar was the only leader with the requisite integrity and capability to check that decline, and hopefully to move the country onto the right course. So why shouldn't I have supported him passionately?

Why did you decide to publish a compilation of your articles. What is the purpose of the book?

Knowing the frailty of human memory, I was worried that the grievous wrongs done by Mahathir might fade from our consciousness. Besides, the minds of most people have been so conditioned by the routine glorification of Mahathir and his rule by the local media over the decades that few are aware of the dark side of his rule. I wouldn't be surprised if the man-in-the-street would get the shock of his life, if he were to read my book.

Adding to my worries was that current prime minister Abdullah's (Ahmad Badawi) anti-corruption campaign sounded like a voice in the wilderness and the legacy left by Mahathir looked unshakeable, given that Mahathir stalwarts are still manning strategic positions. I found no assurance that Abdullah's reform leadership would not fizzle out in time to come, whereupon the nation would go back to Square One.

Since Abdullah's reform campaign has found no strong support from the upper echelon of the leadership in his party and his government, the flame of reforms could only be kept alive through political education of the masses - unveiling truthfully to the people the wayward path taken by the previous leadership and instilling the urgency to take corrective measures now. My book, which records the blunders of the previous leadership and analyses current political options, should therefore contribute towards this objective - by educating the people on the perils of inaction and the necessity to make drastic reforms.

In your writings, you level much criticism at Mahathir's political ideas and economic policies. Do you see any positive points about Mahathir?

Mahathir was a gifted politician and an efficient administrator. Unfortunately, he succumbed to greed and was overcome by his oversized ego. If only he had the moral fibre of Anwar and the latter's compassion for the have-nots, he would have made a great prime minister. Now that he has stepped down, the greatest contribution he can make to the country is not to interfere with Abdullah's reform measures.

In your writings, you obviously support Anwar. Do you see any political weaknesses in him?

The earlier part of Anwar's political career in Umno was marked by his image as a Malay and Islamic extremist. But as he climbed up the political ladder, especially after he became finance minister and deputy premier, his outlook visibly broadened and matured. The unfortunate part was that his earlier extremist image stuck in the psych of the Chinese community well beyond the transformation of the man. That was why when Anwar was sacked, the Malay masses gave him overwhelming sympathy and support while the Chinese community stayed cool. They remained friendlier to Mahathir.

However, since the trials and tribulations of Anwar, many Chinese have begun to see him in a different light. They have also had enough of Mahathirism, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Abdullah's avowed reforms, which can be interpreted as repudiation of Mahathirism.

Anwar's current advocacy to dismantle the racial juggernaut and his campaign to wipe out corruption will surely receive the whole-hearted support of the Chinese community. But the question is logistics. How do you reach the people when the media are firmly in the hands of Barisan Nasional? In fact very few people have any idea of what Anwar's thoughts and policies are now or what Anwar has been doing since leaving prison, thanks to the media blackout.

This is also another reason why I am anxious to push out my book now - hoping to make a small contribution towards imparting vital information to the public.

In your observation, what made Anwar such a tough-minded man who could survive the six-year ordeal in prison?

The most important factor is his deep religious faith. Second, like Mahathir, Anwar is also a dogged political fighter who never says die. Combined with his patriotism, he will surely travel a great distance for this country.

In your opinion, what are Abdullah's strengths and weaknesses?

Abdullah is a deeply religious and moral person. He has wide experience as an administrator and politician, having served in many capacities. In a mature democracy with a tip-top administration, he would have done well as a popular and humane leader. But in the rough and tumble of the present day Malaysian politics, where the body politic has already been thoroughly soaked by corruption, what we need is a charismatic commander with a strong disciplinary bent. Abdullah lacks the forcefulness and decisiveness to push through his reform agenda.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Najib, his likely successor?

There is no doubt that Najib's instant and meteoric rise while in his twenties, in the party and government hierarchy, was due to his position as the heir to (his father and former premier) Abdul Razak Hussein. That said, during the past three decades as a ruling elite, he has acquired considerable maturity as a politician and has the experience to maintain the status quo. But he is no innovator or reformer. Don't expect him to carry out the reforms advocated by Abdullah. Perhaps that was the reason why Mahathir picked him as successor to Abdullah.

Can Umno still be reformed? If yes, how? If no, why not?

People who usually watch the telecast of Umno's annual assembly would have noticed the assembly is now filled with people who are flabby, overweight and listless, which is in contrast to the scene in the 1960s or even the 1970s where the central delegates looked lean and fit and purposeful. These differing scenes tell the story of the transformation of Umno No more the nationalist fighters. Only the overfed leaders indulged by easy wealth, thanks to Mahathir's largesse system of governance.

Can Umno change from a corrupt racist body to a positive force of nation-builders? The answer is: extremely difficult, though not impossible. The first step of reforms must be to 'uninstall' (to borrow a computer jargon) the deeply imbedded programme of racial ideology: racial privileges as a birth right; obsession with racial identities, racial comparisons and racial statistics; siege mentality that tends to conjure up mental scenarios of Malay vs Chinese or Malay vs other races. As racial hegemony has been the umbrella under which corruption and cronyism have grown and spread, so racial prejudices and discriminations must first be tackled.

Look at Thailand. All the past four prime ministers including the current one are ethnic Chinese, and most of the top financial conglomerates are also controlled by Chinese, and the Thais have made great strides in economic and political advancement in recent years, well poised to take on the globalising world - all this without any hint of racial tensions safe those at its southern border.

There is now a sufficiently large Malay middle class of well educated people in the educational and economical fields for Umno to feel at ease in removing its racial cocoon and opening the door to other races. Umno must start to think and act in national, not racial terms.

Two things are needed to effect Umno's transformation. One, a thorough revamp of the top leadership - a strong leader leading a team with the right integrity and calibre dedicating to the nation, not to themselves. Two, mass re-education of Umno members in particular and Malays in general, into genuinely embracing multi-racialism while retaining the Malay identity by giving up raced based privileges while retaining the affirmative action policy. Simultaneously, there has to be a sustained long term campaign to cleanse this country of corruption and cronyism.

In your opinion, what is the political and economic future of Malaysia?

Until recently, the word 'meritocracy' was taboo in Malaysian politics. Until today, racial discrimination is practised in every aspect of national life - perhaps the only country in the world doing that, safe possibly tiny Fiji.

In a multi-racial developing country where the majority race forms only slightly above 50 percent, this policy has devastating consequences not only to national integration but to national survival as well, if sustained over a long period. This is particularly true when we are entering the globalised era. Whether we like it, protective walls are going to tumble one after another, and the privileged race will then be forced to compete without their privileges.

Prolonged mediocrity (or even decline) in education, public service and industry while brain drain accelerates will make Malaysia less and less competitive, and that means the different races in Malaysia will be further squeezed to fight for the same cake, if the racial quota mentality advocated by Umno is maintained. That would tend to intensify racial frictions which may spiral in a vicious circle that may go out of control.

If the seventh most powerful economy in the world - the state of California in the US - has to depend heavily on foreign talent to sustain its economy, should a small developing economy like Malaysia remain nonchalant to the long term brain drain that still rages in these days of intensifying competition? Where are our leaders of vision?

Abdullah hit the nail on the head when he admonished Malaysia as a 'first world infrastructure with third world mentality'. But that was several years ago. Is Malaysia any less so? Have we made any meaningful progress? If the last Umno annual assembly is any guide, then I say we count upon ourselves lucky, if we have not slipped further down the slippery way.

You ask what Malaysia's political and economic future is. My answer is: bleak, unless there is serious reform.

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia. He is a former DAP member of Parliament for Kampar (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily (now Sin Chew Daily). He read political science and economics at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.