The differences between Malaysia's current and previous prime ministers have resulted in scandalous revelations, accusations, macho challenges and even a number of vogue terms such as 'elegant silence' and 'elegant disappearance', bringing a unique Malaysian lexical meaning to 'elegant' when 'convenient' would have been the traditional choice.

But what has startled many Malaysians has been the unexpected (or perhaps, to be expected) participation in the public quarrel of the two Malaysian leaders by a foreign newspaper, the Singapore Straits Times . The Singapore Straits Times is closely linked to the island state's government so one may reasonably assume to an extent that its views would reflect or be similar to that of the government.

The Singapore government has never been shy about speaking out to the world about its position, but those occasions would usually be related to issues about its own policies, administration, governance, conduct and commercial interests.

If the Singapore Straits Times' abrupt intrusion into a mainly Umno internal political stoush between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi reflects the thinking or the silent approval of the Singaporean government, then this would represent a first where the Singapore government has felt it necessary to vicariously join an internal squabble of a Malaysian political party. And it is a 'first' that has strayed, nay, deliberately stepped into dangerous territory.

Malaysians would be rightfully alarmed if such a supposition bears true. Following from that, we may ask why would a foreign country, which hitherto had observed proper and diligent distancing from Malaysian internal politics, at least publicly, has now seen fit to stomp right into the fray.

Its involvement has been obviously on the side of Abdullah, for it has attacked Mahathir's 22 years of stewardship of Malaysia. While some of its challenges to Mahathir have been questions many Malaysians like me would also like to ask, I was stunned by a couple of its 'silly bugger' confrontational queries.

I see some of the Singapore Straits Times' questions as grubby at best, and sinister at worst. As a package, they seemed to be posed for as much sensationalism as possible, to divert the Malaysian public's attention from Mahathir's questions to Abdullah. Mahathir's most telling question has been the 'sand and airspace' issue leading to the abandonment of the 'scenic' bridge project.

Those Singaporean questions, if caught onto by Malaysians' insatiable hunger for the politically scandalous, may serve to restore the somewhat rather worn out 'elegance' of Abdullah's 'silence' worn out perhaps by the political 'sand' storms and his increasingly untenable position of refusing to account to Mahathir's pointed piercing and painful queries.