For many Malaysians, Dr Mahathir Mohamad's retirement
is something hard to imagine.
For over two decades, the Prime Minister has stamped
his authority over Malaysia's political, economic and social development
like no other leader before him.
On balance, the result is positive, but I'd characterise
it a qualified success. Malaysians enjoy a pretty good standard
of living and, although racial polarisation exists, there is a high
degree of tolerance among the various races. This can be directly
credited to his pragmatic policies.
But there are also downsides to his administration.
Confidence in the judiciary, the media and civil liberties in general,
is not exactly at a high point. Although he came up with the slogan
"Clean, Efficient and Trustworthy" shortly after he became
Prime Minister, this didn't stop money politics and crony capitalism
from rearing their ugly heads.
Veteran opposition leader Lim Kit Siang probably put
it best when he said: "When Mahathir came to power, I knew
he was capable of doing great good or great ill — 22 years
on, he has proven me right on both counts."
As a national correspondent for a leading Japanese
business newspaper, I covered Dr Mahathir closely from 1997 through
1999. I watched him wrestle with the twin shocks of the Asian economic
crisis and the political fallout that ensued when he sacked his
deputy, Anwar Ibrahim.
On Sept 1, 1998 — during one of his many press
conferences which I covered — I asked Dr Mahathir: "To
clear the air on rumours about tensions between you and your deputy,
how would you characterise your relationship with Anwar?"
With a convincing poker face, he responded: "Good."
He sacked Anwar the next day.
Dr Mahathir says a lot of things, but he may not always
mean what he says. For example, he has called Malaysia an Islamic
state — in order to steal the thunder from Parti Islam SeMalaysia
(PAS) — yet, his record is one of a moderate and secular leader.
Indeed, his policy choices have often differed from
his rhetoric. He often rails against globalisation, yet he welcomes
international trade. He slams Western "imperialists" intent
on dominating the local economy, yet he actively encourages foreign
investors.
But words can hurt, even if they are not followed
up with action. A Western diplomat once told me that "Dr Mahathir
can wear out any relationship with any country because of his rhetoric".
He was referring, in particular, to the United States,
Australia and Singapore. I've tried hard to understand why he has
been so antagonistic towards these countries. There is no easy answer,
but here's what I think.
With the US, it seems to be more of calculated rhetoric.
It is an easy target for his rhetorical pot shots, which allow him
to bolster his reputation as a spokesman of the Third World —
one who dares to speak up to the West.
As for Australia, a lot of people trace this back
to 1993 when the then Prime Minister Paul Keating called him a "recalcitrant".
That might have been the catalyst for his hostility towards Australia,
but it is clear that Dr Mahathir truly resents the idea of a "white"
nation joining any Asian regional grouping.
How about his attitude towards Singapore?
Some people like to attribute this to an incident
in the 1940s when he asked a Chinese taxi-driver to take him to
his friend's house and the driver dropped him off at the servants'
quarters of the house. This could have been the catalyst, but what
has sustained his resentment is the fact that Singapore is Malaysia's
most direct and strongest rival.
People may dislike his rhetoric, but no one can deny
the man's political brilliance. Mr John Simpson, the BBC's world
affairs editor, calls Dr Mahathir "a kind of successful Asian
Robert Mugabe, highly intelligent and articulate, deeply embittered
by the colonial past and fully aware that there is no one in his
government and, perhaps, in the country, to match his intelligence
and fire".
Others have been less kind when comparing him to Mr
Mugabe. But I should point out that while there are some superficial
parallels, it's grossly unfair to equate the two.
Dr Mahathir might be anti-West in rhetoric but, in
practice, he has been anything but that (barring Malaysia's Buy
British Last episode in the early 1980s).
He has welcome Western companies with open arms. Several
prominent American businessmen told me that they are genuinely happy
with the way the government has created a pro-business environment
for them here. And, they feel safe here.
Dr Mahathir is also the ultimate strategist. In watching
him, one gets the sense that this is a man who does a cost-benefit
analysis on every single move he makes and every word he utters.
And because he is such a masterful tactician, he almost always gets
away with it, no matter how radical his actions or words are.
In the past, he's had bruising battles with the royalty,
the judiciary, a breakaway faction of Umno and his own anointed
successor, Anwar. In each case, he understood what the odds were,
and the price he would have to pay if he were to lose.
But he took the risks anyway and won.
Even his recent anti-American rhetoric during the
Iraq war was an act of calculation. By taking a hard line against
the war, he stole the issue from PAS, Umno's biggest threat.
Dr Mahathir understood that while Washington might
be furious, it would not retaliate. The Americans needed a moderate
Muslim leader like him in their war against terror.
The same can be said of his recent speech at the Organisation
of Islamic Conference (OIC) that has been roundly condemned in the
West as anti-Semitism. Dr Mahathir said his speech — in which
he accused the Jews of controlling the world by proxy — was
taken out of context, but he knew well what he was doing.
As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said: "Indeed,
those remarks were inexcusable. But they were also calculated —
for Mr Mahathir is a cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor
foolish."
Dr Mahathir got exactly what he wanted. He made an
impact with his OIC audience, who promptly gave him a standing ovation.
And, he made a big splash internationally, earning him headlines
all over the world. What a way to bow out!
Even many of his harshest critics say they will miss
him. As a journalist, I certainly will. His biting comments have
spiced up many of my articles.
But change is the elixir of growth. After 22 years,
it's really time for the country to move on with a new leader.
Like many Malaysians, I look forward to life without
Dr M with mixed emotions — a little bit of hope and a smattering
of trepidation.
By: Oon Yeoh
First published: 28 October 03, Today
