I refer to the Malaysiakini report PM not contesting, to quit in March.

Many Malaysians feel conflicted about Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Despite all the mud that his own party members have hurled against him, only the charge of incompetence seems to stick.

There is something about Abdullah that makes one feel sorry for him. Most people think the job as PM to be a little beyond his abilities.

But is it really incompetence or the failure to meet our expectations? Most of us have grown accustomed to leaders who make decisions unilaterally and decisively. CEOs, for example, are respected more if they have an entire lift catered specially to their needs. Action is what we have grown accustomed to.

More importantly, decisions must be made from the top and implemented ruthlessly downwards. That style of leadership is very easy to achieve especially in a country where the ISA and OSA still exists.

But this creates a problem for leaders who believe in sharing power. Thus, we blame the PM for the recent ISA arrests without thinking that it might have been the decision of the home minister or even the police without prior consultation.

So it is infinitely harder to be a democratic leader. A man who respects the law and expects it to work blindfolded is considered naive. A leader who delegates but who does not come down hard when certain tasks are not performed adequately does not get our respect. We have gotten used to the edict ‘the end justifies the means’.

So why did Abdullah go down the path when he knew he could not win? He said all the right things. Software over hardware, a leader of all Malaysians and he even did the right thing respecting the people's verdict in the last general elections.

Some things were really beyond him - like bringing the police force to book or dismantling Umno's patronage system. The roots of corruption, it seems, run too deep.

More importantly, Abdullah must have discovered that many in his party and the wider BN coalition were tainted. There is only so much that he could do.

Should Abdullah had been more assertive? Lock up all those who opposed him? Perhaps throw a few notable critics from his own party in jail? That would have defeated his purpose.

For Abdullah was after a legacy after all. His interview with the press yesterday confirms his reformist agenda.

Sometimes leaving a mark that is merely physical is less deep than an attempt to change people's thinking. Abdullah has left a Malaysia that is freer, a people who can now see each other as human beings rather than merely ‘Malays, Indians or Chinese’ and a nation that is more tolerant than most people imagined.

We did not break apart despite the best efforts of some quarters. The cry for race has been eclipsed by a cry for justice. Malaysians must ponder the Abdullah years with an open mind.

It is not marked by skyscrapers, national cars or great economic strides. It is merely lined with an aspiration, a long term project to create a mature and civilised Malaysia.

So, perhaps the late Hussein Onn was wrong after all when he said that ‘there is no integrity left amongst men’.

Perhaps all this is sentimentality but it is nice to believe - even if only for the moment - that not all politicians are toxic.