Dear EsteemedReaders, for contextual understanding of this Post, please re-read Feb 1's "Threading a Few Bloggers' Homes" at Desi's homey place, can?
It all started at www.bakrimusa.com with some hard-hitting comments from "malaysia is no future" and "Anon",the latter throwing a challenge to Dr Bakri Musa and his regular Fellow Writer DIN MERICAN to answer his charge that they were sycophantic supporters of Dr Mahathir Mohamad and had a "blind spot" when it came to seeing the former prime minister's faults and failings. I admit guilt in adding some cili padi to the findings, and had echo-ed Anon's challenge.
I thank Sdr Bakri and Din in advance for enabling a heart-to-heart discussion into which this kaypohchic Scribe here had lent his 3sen's worth. But we all ended up downing endless goblets of tehtarik, laced with Miss Sunthi. I don't know about Miss ..SENic..
Next change: we await Bakri's response.
Din Merican Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 1:38 am
"Anon, ylchong and others,
I refer to Anon’s hard hitting comments on Tun Dr. Mahathir, who is a mentor and a role model to men and women of my generation.
I do not deny that I have a lot of admiration for his intellect, guts, vision and political skills. At the same time, I am not blind to his policy failures. Like the rest of us, he is not perfect.
In my opinion, however, Tun Dr. Mahathir did things that he thought was good for our country. He was a very active Prime Minister who set very high standards for himself. He was also an excellent crisis and time manager with great work ethics. In my eyes, he is a Malay sifu.
On the domestic front, Tun Dr. Mahathir successfully turned around the economy after the 1997-1998 East Asia by introducing selective capitals. His actions checked the slide of the Malaysian ringgit and stabilised the macroeconomy.
His decision to impose capital controls in September 1998 was controversial, but over time, he won praise from the IMF and the World Bank,monetary experts and academics for doing so. He got the economy going again and restored investor and public confidence so that by 1999/2000, the Malaysian economy rebounded strongly.
Malaysia would not be what it is today in terms of development, especially modern infrastructure, if he did not make bold decisions. He never wavered. Over 22 years, he transformed the Malaysian economy from a colonial agricultural backwater into a modern export driven one.
*Tun Dr. Mahathir brought the internet and inter-connectivity into our homes, offices and cafes so that today we can do business efficiently and exchange views and ideas in real time.
**His achievements in the area of foreign policy and international relations, especially in promoting South-South cooperation and ASEAN, and projecting our image abroad would be difficult to emulate. On the world stage, he stood firmly in support of our national interest and those of the Third World countries. He was particularly critical of the unilateralist policies of the Neo-Con led Bush Administration. In evaluating him, it is easy for us to overlook the role he played on the international stage.
+++Tun Dr. Mahathir set a clear agenda (Vision 2020) for a united and caring Malaysia, but he failed miserably to change the mindset of the Malays to embrace Islamic modernity. Regretably, he allowed his Deputy Anwar Ibrahim a free hand to outwit PAS in the Islamisation game.
Anwar was at that time an admirer of Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 Iran Revolution and had dreams of making Malaysia the new “Andalusia” of the Islamic World (See Ziauddin Sardar’s “In Search of Paradise”). This turned out to be a serious error of judgement, which he was to repeat with his choice of Badawi to succeed him in 2003. But no one dared to challenge him on both occasions. A few might have done so, but they might have been ridiculed or marginalized.
He was tough on his detractors and those who sought to disrupt public order. His human rights record was not good and that led him to be labeled an authoritarian leader or “dictator” by some. Did he grow arrogant? Yes, in some ways since he must have succumbed to persistent bodekism of his people.
++++Why should we impeach Tun Dr. Mahathir? On what grounds? He always sought parliamentary approval and those of his Cabinet colleagues for his proposals. We, as citizens and voters, too went along with him and kept him in office for 22 years. Most sought to curry his favour while others were indifferent, or did not dare to challenge his ideas. The minority who disagreed with him felt the heat of his high office. That is politics.
Those who wish to understand his politics and socio-economic programmes should read Khoo Boo Teik’s ” The Paradoxes of Mahathirism” (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1995). Dr. Khoo made a fairly balanced assessment of the Tun.
As for Tun Dr. Mahathir and upon looking back, this much I can say: “He did what he had to do, he saw them through without exception and he did them his way”. For that, I thank him for his hard work, dedication and for his convictions.
Let us not be diverted from the present. Prime Minister Badawi is in the 4th year of his administration. So far we have nothing but talk only. He has yet to show me at least what he can do. I am waiting for the day when I can say “Thank You” to Prime Minister Badawi for doing what he had to do.
For the time being, I have yet to be convinced if he is up to the job. I will rejoice if he proves that I am wrong for taking very skeptical view of his administration.
______________________________________________________________
DESIDERATA: The highlights (THUS BOLDED) are Desi's.
Mainly to also say that Desiderata endorses these two points marked * and ** highlighted i.e. I share similar opinions as expressed by mGf Sdr Din Merican.
However, indulge me in rebutting two of Sdr Din's points, marked +++ and ++++.
(1) +++Tun Dr. Mahathir set a clear agenda (Vision 2020) for a united and caring Malaysia, but he failed miserably to change the mindset of the Malays to embrace Islamic modernity. Regretably, he allowed his Deputy Anwar Ibrahim a free hand to outwit PAS in the Islamisation game.
Desi believes that Dr Mahathir's Vision 2020 mainly incorporated the key features or beliefs he expounded in his book "The Malay Dilemma" which was banned by then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. And I contest many of the presumptions the former MP for Kubang Pasu (Aside: Dr Mahathir LOST in this seat in the 1969 General Elections) made in drawing up the socaled "clear agenda" of Vision 2020. But this forum is not for discoursing this topic in deail; suffice to add that the greatest drawback was the New Economic Policy, later extended after 20 yaers of its initial shelf-life for fixed periods under "guises" that the main target of attaining 30% of Bumiputra equity stakes in national wealth had not been achieved. It is now a fatally flawed "never-ending NEP" for which Dr Mahathir has the major part to answer. I believe the answer is found partially in the phrase I extract from Din's statement that "...but he failed miserably to change the mindset of the Malays to embrace Islamic modernity."
On the assertion "Regretably, he allowed his Deputy Anwar Ibrahim a free hand to outwit PAS in the Islamisation game." I would then ask of Din: A Prime Minister must hold overall responsibility for all his subordinates' actions, including his Deputy (Anwar Ibrahim), Yes?
Scape-goating one's deputy once too often reflects an "irresponsible" person, what more a national leader! -- is this also among the failings that many of Dr Mahathir's mentees inherited?
(2)
++++Why should we impeach Tun Dr. Mahathir? On what grounds? He always sought parliamentary approval and those of his Cabinet colleagues for his proposals. We, as citizens and voters, too went along with him and kept him in office for 22 years. Most sought to curry his favour while others were indifferent, or did not dare to challenge his ideas. The minority who disagreed with him felt the heat of his high office. That is politics.
Desi thinks there is ONE case which warrants Dr Mahathir's "impeachment" -- that of the Sacking of Lord President Salleh Abas and several fellow senior judges in 1988. Recently, there has been calls, especially by the Bar Council, to "review" the Case, perhaps with the establishment of a Royal Commission to thoroughly examine the Case.
I reiterate here the same call for the formation of such a Royal Commission. The panel which reviewed the Bank Bumiputra Finance debacle is a good example to emulate.
PS: I remember a three-man panel was set up to report of the BMF incident in which one Malaysian paid with his life, and most Malaysians saluted the fantastic work done by the three EMINENT MALAYSIANS, I believe we still have many such Good Men in NegaraKu. Otherwise, why should Desi, maybe I guess fellow Malaysians -- Bakri and Din -- want to continue writing?
4 comments:
Desi,
I note your comments and thank you.
Please read Tun Mahathir's interview in the February 2007 issue of OFF THE EDGE magazine. I also hope you had a chance to watch his recent interview on Al Jazeera. Both these interviews will give you further insights into the man's character,his convictions and his worldview.
Mahathir never scapegoats anyone. He is a responsible leader. He is, in fact, a very good manager of the nation, and runs our country like a Chief Executive. He appoints, delegates, empowers and holds his colleagues and others accountable for results. If they do not perform he removes them, or they resign.
Scapegoating is not his style. But he is very adept at applying the heat on laggards with only occasional slip ups. There is nothing personal even when he is critical of the Badawi administration.
In politics, he was equally tough in his demands and expectations. He was challenged by the likes of Tunku Razaleigh, Tun Musa Hitam and Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, but in all these instances he won and throughout his 22 years in power he triumphed over his enemies.He is. therefore, politically astute. He was never above the Law and as he said in his OFF THE EDGE interview, he did not violate any laws in the execution of his duties.
Sdr Din:
Thanks for spending time enlightening us. Would brudder Dr Bakri do likeWISE?
I think you and I and johnleemk must accept the fact we are stalemated at neutral zone: WE agree to disagree, so I'll await our sext tehtarik or thy kopi to continue ...disNEXTcourse!:)
PS: I invite the Y&A john-come-lately to add his 3 or 4sen worth'swords?
Personally, I feel that TDM had a lot of potential. It is undeniable that he has the calibre and leadership of a true statesman. He also set a number of goals by which we could benchmark his leadership and the country. Unfortunately, we should not measure our leaders by their potential or their ability to set targets, but by how well they live up to their potential and how far they meet their goals. In this regard, I find TDM has failed abysmally.
I find Mahathir to be much like Hugo Chavez (more on the similarities here) in the regard that both men have tried to do well by their people and by the people of the world, in developing their own economies and criticising the geopolitical establishment. However, trying is not enough.
Many of the country's economic failures, I think, can be laid at the foot of TDM. Our problem with top-heavy and unwieldy government-linked companies stems from his policy of promoting such huge enterprises as a way to benefit a few "towering Malays". At the same time, this policy had the effect of ignoring the majority of poor Malays. It cannot be denied that (as measured by the Gini coefficient) intraethnic income disparities among the Malays widened during TDM's tenure.
Likewise, TDM's educational policies failed the country and our Malays, by permitting them to take it far too easy, as Dr. Bakri himself notes in his book The Malay Dilemma Revisited. The results were not immediately apparent during TDM's tenure, but they have become more and more stark during AAB's time - as exemplified by our growing problem of unemployed and mainly Malay graduates.
These are major failings, and almost any other leader would have been forced to take the blame for them by now. I think the reason these failings have escaped attribution to TDM is mainly because he successfully diverted our attention to his megaprojects. However, KLIA and Putrajaya date back to Tun Razak's time, while the Twin Towers were simply a colossal waste of our oil money which could have gone into training enough teachers to staff our woefully understaffed schools.
The only major positive thing I can attribute to TDM is his capital controls imposed during the '97 crisis, and even then this was mainly a fortuitous event stemming from TDM's desire to protect his cronies' firms rather than to protect the overall interests of the country.
Good comments, johnleemk. I never realised that TDM punched below his weight (potential).
To me, he was the most intellectual of our PMs, and had lots of guts to do what he did. He was never one who did procrastinate. He did what his convictions told him to do, although his critics and detractors continued to damn him. He never claimed to be democratic as he was open an "Asian values" man.In the looking ahead (Vision 2020), he never claimed to have perfect vision (20/20). Let the rest of us, he is also a man of his time and experiences.
He got results but it was unfortunate that he would not broach any opposition to his ideas. Having said that, he was astute enough to operate with the law.
At 82, he is still a very active man and reads a lot. Because he always seeking new knowledge and thinking outside the box, he is ahead of his successor who pales in comparison.
Post a Comment