But they have basically stuck to reporting, with hardly any commentary. This seems unusually reticent. After all, there is no dearth of commentary about the current Israeli war against Hezbollah, there wasn't a month ago when Timor Leste collapsed into chaos, and certainly not when Thaksin was being assailed by his opponents in the first quarter of this year.

Singapore and Malaysia are currently linked by a (straight) causeway. The Mahathir administration wanted to replace it with a bridge, but Singapore baulked. The Malaysian side then proposed to build a curved bridge (curved to accommodate the needed gradient) on their half. Earlier in 2006, the Malaysian government decided to abandon the project.

No doubt, the Straits Times' editors are aware that Malaysia is a special case. Much of their internal politics is built upon a heightened suspicion of and sensitivity towards Singapore. One of ex-PM Mahathir's complaints against the Abdullah Badawi administration is that of "giving in" to Singapore by cancelling the crooked bridge project meant to replace the causeway linking the two countries. If the Straits Times published any opinion in their pages, it could be seized upon by one side or the other in Malaysia for their own purposes.

But this vulnerability itself tells us that the Straits Times is viewed by everyone, including the Straits Times themselves, as a mouthpiece of the Singapore government. Since they are the mouthpiece, they cannot say anything without being construed as Singapore interference in Malaysian "domestic politics".

In contrast, a fella like me can say whatever I please without anyone thinking I am out to help the Lee Hsien Loong government stir the Malaysian lemak.

The second uncomfortable truth is that any opinion expressed about the motives and tactics of Mahathir or about the predicament faced by Abdullah Badawi will almost surely beg comparison with the situation in Singapore. And since such comparison would come perilously close to blasphemy, it might be more prudent of the editors to keep quiet.

Precisely because of this unavoidable comparison, it must be a joy to quite a few Singaporeans to watch Malaysian politics come to a boil. Every day that it continues bubbling is one more day of discomfort to Singapore's gerontocracy.

* * * * *

 
I have no special insight into Malaysian politics, so there is nothing I can say to explain what is going on over there that you cannot find on various well-known blogs. In any case, the details change fast.

However, by now, it's clear that Mahathir is deeply disappointed in the man he handpicked to succeed him. The former PM thinks that his successor has reneged on a promise, implicit or otherwise, not to undo his legacy. This legacy may not just be limited to specific high-profile projects, such as the national automobile company Proton, or the crooked bridge, but may encompass the broader strategy of modernising Malaysia via state-led investment in infrastructure and the cultivation of a select few Malay industrialists as a kind of vanguard.

To be fair, there may be some truth in Mahathir's allegations that Badawi has been soft on some new hangers-on, including the latter's son-in-law, who allegedly have been quick to exploit their new-found connections. In turn, Mahathir's critics have naturally pointed out that it's a bit rich for him to accuse others of cronyism when the 2 decades of Mahathir rule were replete with examples of the same.

However, it's not the details, but the more global lesson, that interests us as Singaporeans.

The first is that hand-picked successors may turn out completely different from what you expected, and through the power of patronage, attract away many who were once loyal to you.

The second is that the media control that once served you so well when you were in power, can work against you when you are out of power.

Mahathir has been complaining bitterly that the New Straits Times, Utusan Malaysia and other mainstream media are acting as proxies for the Abdullah Badawi government. Either his words are not being reported, or if they are, they are being slanted against him.

Seeing how Mahathir's retirement has turned out to be a trail into the political wilderness, our own strongman must feel it's not a path worth following. All the more, he must think it utterly foolish to ever retire from the cabinet. Yet, his continued presence means his style of politics stays, however much Singaporeans' own sentiments are turning against it, as can be seen from the tone of the TV "dialogue" he had with 10 journalists in April 2006. Political evolution is impossible so long as he maintains a grip on power.

So here we are, an entire republic paralysed, stuck, feet encased in concrete, waiting for a funeral.

* * * * *

 
It's a truism: dictators never know when to stop. The longer he stays around as the shadow shogun, the more he will be known as a stubborn protector of his "legacy" against the tide of history, and the more people will forget that he was once a selfless leader of a small city-state with a tenuous chance of survival. Already half a generation has grown up knowing him as a cranky old man ever demanding obeisance, and little else.

In that sense, whether or not he follows Mahathir's path into retirement, their fates parallel each other's: both may be remembered for their final struggles to prevent change. It's an enormous pity that men who could have basked in glory will in the end be known for their vainglory.

* * * * *

 
There is another lesson we can learn from Kuala Lumpur, and it is that anointed successors are weak. Abdullah Badawi's problem is that he does not have a power base of his own. He did not fight his way to the top but was handed his position on a platter. That being the case, he is very vulnerable to challenges, even if they do not come from his predecessor. Skills to parry them have not been honed.

What he has is the power of patronage, but patronage attracts a certain kind of allies. Their support is based on exchange, whereas if one rises to political power through impassioned campaigning upon principles and dreams, one's supporters are there for the same principles and dreams. When push comes to shove, allies of patronage are much less reliable.

Furthermore, there is a very fine line between patronage and sleaze. For Abdullah Badawi to rest his claim to power on a "Mr Clean" image when his power has to rest on patronage is almost an accident waiting to happen.

The other prop that keeps an anointed successor in power is media control. This, alas, is a double-edged sword, for the more one relies on media control to stay in power, the more legitimacy and public esteem one loses.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how the drama plays out in Malaysia. In the meantime, it may hurt its economy somewhat and raise tensions. But there is no doubt that their politics (and civil society) is alive in a way that ours is not, and through it, that there is a real sense of nationhood where we cannot get beyond the superficial and the choreographed. In their own way, Malaysians are remaking their country, while we produce "Remaking Singapore" coffee-table books, then stand around paralysed, stuck, with feet encased in concrete. Waiting.

© Yawning Bread