Seven years into his retirement, Abdullah has published his authorised biography “Being Abdullah Ahmad Badawi”.

The former prime minister appeared lean and haggard at the launch earlier this week, his suit apparently oversized now.

Men falling from the pinnacle of power often age unusually fast, and this holds true for the majority of people who once had all the power with them, Abdullah Badawi included. The only probable exception is Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Despite his look, Abdullah remains amicable, the familiar smile still on his face.

Three questions, all of a sudden. popped into my head:

• In the midst of the utter political chaos we now have, will more people start to think of Abdullah again?
• Would the country be any different if Abdullah had remained as PM until today?
• Did he fail the nation or did the nation fail him?
• For my first question, I believe the answer is an affirmative one. There was nothing much for us to question his character. He was everyone’s Mr Good Guy, the real Gentleman in politics and a man of integrity.

He hardly showed his temper, and this can be proven by talking to his closest aides.

Unfortunately, such a nice and approachable personality did not augur well for his political survival, let alone prosperity.

In the later part of his autobiography, he writes about his resignation. He was forced to step down under pressure from within and outside his party.

He could have wrestled out his opponents easily given his authority as the Umno president and the country’s prime minister.

But what was in his mind was that the party and the country would inevitably be headed towards a definitive split, whether he won or lost in the end.

This was what he least wanted to see.

When the final outcome of the 2008 general election was made public, Barisan Nasional lost the two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat for the first time, along with several state administrations.

An instant fear swept across the country: people had no idea what would happen next, or whether there would be trouble or a riot in the making.

Abdullah decisively acknowledged the results, and handed over several state administrations in a smooth transition.

He displayed a very high degree of political maturity. He bowed out of politics completely, and has since stayed away from political intervention, something that sets him apart from most other politicians.

Such a lofty personality is a rare commodity in Malaysian politics today, and this makes him all the more a cherished figure.

My second question: Would Malaysia be any different had he stayed as PM until today, or at least for one more term?

Abdullah was well aware of what the country needed, and what Malaysians had expected of him: a clean government and a united and peaceful society.

Clean governance was at the top of his agenda. He expanded the powers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and set up the Malaysian Institute of Integrity to educate public servants on the right service attitudes.

He also attempted to reverse the rampant money politics from Mahathir’s time.

He wanted to restore judicial independence in this country. The several judges penalised during Mahathir’s time were offered apologies and compensations from the government soon after he took office.

He advocated Islam Hadhari in place of outdated and conservative religious fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, corruption and conservatism were already deeply rooted at that time, and his philosophies hardly resonated within Umno or the conservative Malay society in general.

Of course, his own indecision and a weak team were also to blame for his failure.

Abdullah did have noble aspirations, but this would not see to his success in today’s context given the indolence and prevailing confrontational mood in our mainstream society.

As for my last question, Abdullah’s resignation, to a very large extent, had something to do with widespread public frustration. He wanted to do away with fuel subsidies, and this sparked large scale protests. Many voters abandoned him in the general election.

Malaysians indeed needed a good leader, but they still brought him down out of discontent.

Looking from another point of view, he had received overwhelming support from the people in the 2004 general election. But, he failed to deliver over the following years, and the people’s patience ran out fast.

What if we had been a little more patient and given him just another chance, would he have been able to prove his worth?

A very tough question. Anyway, he’s no longer in the picture, and his departure signalled the end of an era, and a lost opportunity to reform the country.

Tay Tian Yan writes for Sin Chew Daily.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s (or organisation’s) personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.