After a week of sabre-rattling by the top guns of Umno, the Malaysian government's official rebuttal to the critical aspects of the Economist 's special report o­n Malaysia is an anti-climax.

This rebuttal, in the form of a brief letter to the magazine, is a lame duck reply that touches o­nly o­n peripheral technicalities, while carefully avoids the main issues which are the real plague of this country.

But what else could the Barisan Nasional government say, with such glaring evidence of Mahathir's overwhelming misrule staring at us? Earlier, I wrote that the Economist has in fact been over-generous in its assessment of the Mahathir regime. Even with such bias, the Economist could still point out flaws galore in his administration.

In essence, the magazine points out that in spite of its apparent economic success and stability, Malaysia is in fact a troubled country, deeply flawed by entrenched racism and pervasive political repressions.

As the o­nly country in the world practicing legalised racial discrimination o­n an exhaustive scale for the past three decades, the severe scars of such policy are evident everywhere. These are manifested in national integration (deepening racial polarisation), in politics (perpetuating racial parties), in education (lowered academic levels and massive brain drain), in commerce (lingering cronyism and blunted entrepreneur development).

And behind the democratic facade, is a regime that ruthlessly suppresses civil liberties and political dissent. Two decades of Mahathir rule has brought serious retrogression in the Malaysian society, effected through draconian legislation and abuse of democratic institutions.

Instances of such scenes highlighted by the Economist were:

Abuse of the Internal Security Act to jail political opponents. o­ne such casualty is opposition party Keadilan, a viable alternative to Umno due to its popularity among the urban and the educated Malays. Mass jailing of its leaders has practically incapacitated this party.

Blanket banning of political gatherings has cut the opposition off from the masses, as unlike the ruling party, the opposition has no opportunity to reach the masses through the press or TV. Newspapers and TV stations are out of bounds to the opposition, even during election campaigns.

Absence of free press and TV. "Malaysian press is the most supine in non-communist Asia, except for Burma".

There is no fair election, as "opposition parties are contesting election against great handicaps".

Judiciary is not independent, as illustrated by the "farcical" trials of Anwar Ibrahim.

And what has the Mahathir government got to say o­n the above issues? It said nothing. Instead, it claimed that the magazine's report is "full of errors" and points out a few such instances. However, none of these claims of "errors" turns out to be valid or consequential.

Even the o­nly error that was accepted by the Economist - criteria of university admission - and for which it apologised, turns out to be not an error at all.

The government may claim that it has implemented a meritocratic system for university admission, but Malaysians know fully well that this claim is untrue, as the introduction of such system last year has resulted in even smaller percentage of admission for non-Malay students (31 percent), due to the unfair blending of two separate examinations of different standards (one of them is exclusively for Malays).

It is notable that the above mentioned letter of reply was written after the cabinet had deliberated o­n effective actions to be taken against the magazine. Hence, it reflects the thinking of the highest hierarchy of the BN government.

It is also noteworthy that this cabinet decision was preceded by a series of furious attacks by mainly top Umno leaders who have called for punitive actions that include apology, banning of magazine, closure of office and even claiming for financial compensation, against the alleged maligner of the reputation of Mahathir and his government.

As it turned out, these lightning and thunders culminated in o­nly a few tiny raindrops, not a downpour.

What does the whole episode signify to us? It brings us two messages.

First, it reflects the shallowness of the BN (mainly Umno) top leaders. Second, the darker side of the Mahathir regime is at least as bad as that presented by the Economist 's report, or else why shouldn't the government have rebutted them?