idowrite

Tuesday March 27

The other side of the mahafir’aun

Jeffrey

4:01pm, Tue: Mohd Fauzi, in his letter Dr M isn't all that bad (March 23), commented that Kevin Gan had unfairly denigrated Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad without an objective and balanced account (Interesting to probe workings of PM's mind, March 22). So, what is the other side of the picture?

I am not a member of any political party and have few political convictions but the following thoughts occurred to me as a politically neutral bystander.

When I was abroad, I found with disconcerting surprise that foreigners were more generous with their praises of the PM than Malaysians. The PM's ‘xenophobic outbursts’ against the ‘rich and powerful’ in defence of the Third World have endeared him to many underdogs of Maori, Aborigines, African and Asian descent who lauded him as their champion!

It is also ironical that but for the PM having so far kept his promise not to censor the Internet, the writer (Kevin Gan) would not even have malaysiakini as a forum to criticise him and his policies.

Under his administration, the country achieved a high growth rate of around eight percent for 10 years preceding the Asian currency crisis, which was second in Asia only to China that started from a lower economic base. In that span of years, the country leap-frogged from a largely agriculture- and resource-based economy to an industrialised one of steel and cars, in the centre of the global electronics industry. A substantial middle class was created, and there were stability and order.

He is the country's most entrepreneurial prime minister and is indefatigable in opening up business opportunities everywhere in the world for the country. He has come a long way to be CEO of Malaysia Incorporated from the days when as a young schoolboy, he sold balloons for pocket money and, later, during World War II, started a little business peddling snacks from a hawker's stall.

The PM has always endeavored to have Malaysia punch beyond her weight class as in the grandiose projects of the Petronas Twin Towers, KLIA, the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), the Light Rail Transit (LRT), Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, Langkawi and Labuan. Whatever the criticisms of these costly projects, I have found it expedient traveling on the LRT and enjoyed visiting the other places mentioned. Who knows - today we find them a waste of taxpayers' money, but many years from now, they may be viewed a benchmark of development.

His shoot-from-the-hip remarks may outrage, but they do get the necessary attention, and put Malaysia on the international map whilst at the same time instilling confidence in the people as evinced by the national mantra ‘Malaysia Boleh!’. (Never mind that we try all kinds of things from jumping off a plane above the South Pole to scaling Mount Everest!)

He challenges Pax Americana and yet is pragmatic to make the United States our biggest trading partner without our country being at the same time one of her many client-states.

Whilst he promotes religion, he eschews fanatical and militant fundamentalism and pursues a moderate secular course of administration as suitable for a pluralistic and multiracial country.

Under his administration, he has tried to bridge the gender gap by recently appointing capable women into positions of influence and power as in the case of appointments of a Women and Family Development Minister, Bank Negara Governor and the Attorney-General.

When the currency was attacked by currency traders and speculators, he criticised George Soros, rebuffed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and, contrary to conventional wisdom and international opinion, insulated the currency from further attack by withdrawing value to the ringgit outside of Malaysia. Rightly or wrongly, these measures were taken to prevent local strategic assets from falling into foreign hands and the concomitant dismantling of the affirmative programmes for bumiputras by foreigners.

For Malay nationalism is the raison d'être of Umno that he leads and the historical basis of his political ascendancy. Making Suqiu a scapegoat was an instinctive response to recover lost Malay cultural and political ground in the wake of the Anwar Ibrahim upheaval. Before he is labelled a racist, let it not be forgotten that in calmer times, he gave the country the visions of Bangsa Malaysia and ‘2020'.

I believe he understands in depth the impulses, insecurities, the strengths and weaknesses of the constituency he represents and the country in general. He criticises, cajoles and encourages his people. If he is accused of being out of touch with today's sentiments, it is not that he doesn't understand them but he may be captive of certain habits acquired over the long years in power.

As leader, he offers the nation bold visions that challenge us to grow beyond our traditions and culture. This cannot be done overnight. He cannot ride roughshod over deeply ingrained cultural habits. He has to play along and slowly guide the change of public opinion for the better in line with the vision.

The tragedy is even he cannot prevail over deeply ingrained mind sets and cultural practices.

Take, for example, the writer's charge of cronyism, failed privatisation projects and bailouts that the Asian currency crisis exposed and laid bare.

The criticism should take into account our feudal political culture in which followers blindly support their leaders who in exchange for support, and the right to exercise power, are expected to distribute largesse and patronage to their followers. Cronyism and patronage permeate every facet of our culture including business. If we do not help our cronies, who do we help - strangers? This is why in every takeover of (say) control of a public-listed company, a new team displaces the old.

Come on people, be real. Do you seriously believe that these age-old practices will be stamped out overnight when a new party or leader comes to power? One can however legitimately question the scale of these practices but not the principle of it.

In saying the above is, of course, not to condone cronyism or the politics of money and patronage and the corruption that they inevitably engender. It is to plead for an understanding that when we judge a leader, we cannot take the high moral hallowed ground and measure him without heed whatsoever to the cultural milieu under which he and the whole political and social systems operate. Our criticism will otherwise evince hypocrisy or plain naiveté.

Without doubt, the PM cannot be where he is today - being Asia's longest serving leader - without being a consummate Machiavellian strategist in the exercise of power especially when local politics has always been a labyrinth of intrigues in which only the strong and capable survive. (One cannot really blame him for being upset with how media photographs of him could affect leadership perception by portrayal of tiredness or weakness).

This brings us next to his greatest challenge posed by the Anwar saga.

Anwar's unceremonious ouster and the brutal manner by which he was treated outraged many and canvassed much sympathy for Anwar and acrimony against the PM.

The PM has often been cast as a cruel and vindictive dictator - in contrast to the much-maligned Anwar - in this saga.

In this connection, the following questions (often ignored when emotions are high) should be addressed objectively in the interest of a balanced picture.

First, on the charge of political conspiracy by Anwar, politics is always fraught in factionalism, conspiracies and counter conspiracies. If there were a political conspiracy by the PM's faction against Anwar, was it instigated by a prior conspiracy on the part of Anwar and his close associates against the PM in the first instance?

Secondly, in respect of the allegation of the PM's cruelty, the most important issue (which only the Anwar camp knows) is whether the PM had offered Anwar an alternative honourable exit out of the political contest prior to sacking him from the Finance Ministry and then Umno.

It will be recalled that none of the PM's other political opponents who fought him fair and square through the ballot box and lost, including Musa Hitam and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, fares too badly at this moment. In fact the Deputy PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was originally from Team B.

What could the PM reasonably be expected to do when after being sacked, Anwar took to the streets and the mosques and agitated tens of thousands of supporters in challenge of a lawfully elected government and defiance of law enforcement officers?

Once a political struggle had gone beyond acceptable and civil boundaries, it would be a no-holds-barred conflict with neither side expecting mercy from the other as winner.

On the sodomy charge against Anwar, it will be presumptuous for third parties like me to express a belief or disbelief. Only Anwar and God know. To get to the truth is like staring down a bottomless abyss.

One may however surmise that Anwar's main strength is his religious credentials, and in a political confrontation, sodomy would neutralise it.

Whatever the truth, it however does not mean that the PM didn't believe in it. If the PM were a Machiavellian strategist, one wonders why, if he had ever wanted to trump up a charge, that he would use such an incredible allegation as sodomy.

He could on the other hand have really believed in the driver, Azizan's version of facts, which made him think that Anwar was not fit to inherit the responsibility of high office. The fact that Azizan did not testify credibly in court was not conclusive that he was lying either. For even a person far better educated than Azizan could be contradicted or confused in cross-examination by a dream team of the best lawyers in the country. Perhaps that was why the PM himself would prefer not to testify.

The bringing of the whole weight of the government against Anwar who whistled on the system that he was part of, was the defining moment. As from that moment, the issues raised (transparency and proper governance without repression) extended far beyond the person and fate of Anwar.

Generally, governing depends on the mystique of infallibility. When the people perceive government could do no wrong, it suffers little criticism and is instead lavished praise especially by sycophants and controlled media.

But mystique is something fragile as a ceiling glass. Once broken, and the process of de-mystification begins and continues on its inexorable course, nothing the government does can thereafter ever be judged proper or correct. Every act and policy - every institution of the state from press, judiciary to police - will come under intense critical scrutiny and be criticised, whether with or without justification. All weaknesses of the government will be ferreted out and highlighted, and all strengths ignored or taken for granted. The wheel has turned and cannot be unturned. Any effort at damage control, whether by propaganda or repression, leads to greater damage.

Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew expressed sadness for the entire episode that was damaging to both protagonists.

For the trial of Anwar had turned into a trial of the administration as well. Where Anwar was convicted by a court of law, the administration was convicted by large section of the court of public opinion (both local and international). That is because the administration did not expect and was ill-prepared for such a trial of itself. Anwar won the war of public relations with the assistance of the many incompetents within the administration - and most dramatically, a black eye from the then Inspector-General of Police.

The PM, for all his faults, is a strong leader prepared to take unpopular decisions and go his own way. Now more than ever, in the wake of a global slowdown, the country needs strong leadership. But first are the people willing to give him a fair and balanced accounting?

Wednesday March 28

Whitewashing the PM’s failures
Kevin Gan

5:28pm, Wed: Jeffrey's letter (The other side of the Mahafiraun, March 27) seems to a long litany of apologies and whitewashing of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's faults while offering us only the nation's economic progress as the sole beneficial point of his leadership. The rest of his letter is a brave-faced attempt to defend the prime minister which does not convince.

So Mahathir did preside over much of the economic growth of Malaysia in his 18 years in power. But we can expect economic development and prosperity to occur in any country with a hardworking population and rich natural resources provided the government of the day has not placed unnatural obstacles to people's natural aspiration to improve themselves.

He deserves some credit but one should not labour under the false impression that only Mahathir could have effected our economic progress. On the contrary we should ask ourselves whether were it not for the resource-wasting multi-billion ringgit projects of ‘prestige’ and the economic inefficiency of favouring crony businessmen, we could have progressed even further.

Mahathir's xenophobic outbursts are excused on the dubious grounds of putting Malaysia on the world map and having earned the nebulous admiration of underdogs like Moari, Aborigines and Africans. What about our brave leader hobnobbing with notorious dictators like Castro, Mugabe and the Myanmar junta while being shunned by democratic world leaders? What about the blows dealt to foreign direct investments, the tourism industry and the loss of goodwill?

No, it is not all right to make Suiqiu and the Chinese community scapegoats in order to recover lost Malay political ground. This is a bizarre rationalisation of an unbecoming action by a national leader. It is not all right to use any community as political punching bags when it is politically expedient, more so if this community has helped him retain power. It is even worse to resort to inflammatory racial politics in a multi-ethnic country like Malaysia.

Giving the country visions of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and '2020' is empty and hollow if not backed up by appropriate policies, more so if the progenitor goes the other way and takes contrary action to keep the races divided. We have Mahathir's ‘Malay unity talks’ which is nothing more than a transparent attempt to rouse Malay sentiment to unite under the Umno banner under imaginary threats from other ethnic communities.

As for cronyism, corruption, bailouts and the politics of money and patronage, the justification seems to be that they have been long-standing in our culture and habits so Mahathir cannot be expected to dismantle them overnight. Nobody expects him to, but having 18 years to work with is certainly not overnight. But time is a moot point when Mahathir has shown totally no interest in remedying such conduct, rather he strengthens and enlarges these odious practices to cling on to power.

Let me just say that Anwar Ibrahim took the right step to curb those practices and Mahathir cut him down ruthlessly.

So being a consummate Machiavellian strategist is essential to hold on to power in today's political intrigue. This may be so, but it does not ameliorate our disgust for a Machiavellian character. Perhaps he has been too good at it to manage to cling on to power for far too long when he should have retired long ago.

This brings us to the Mahathir-Anwar saga. Whatever political enmity existed between the two, it is certainly no excuse to abuse every pillar and institution of democracy in the country to effect a political end. Our society has been dragged through gut-wrenching turmoil and darkness while truth has been turned on its head and the very notion of good and bad reversed. There will be horrible implications for the social and spiritual foundation of our society.

The writer does not deny the miscarriage of justice against Anwar, but tries feebly to rationalise and justify the cruelty to this man. He makes a brave case for the PM really believing Anwar's guilt of sodomy. But the PM's belief is irrelevant as far as the conduct of justice is concerned. What we had were two shameful show trials where Anwar was convicted on the flimsiest of premises despite the weight of evidence in his favour. In the sodomy case, the judge drew comfort from his opinion that Azizan had no reason to lie. And incredibly, that was the main legal basis of his judgment!

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew in a rare display of candour remarked that Mahathir made a grave mistake by putting Anwar on trial. He said that Mahathir should have just imprisoned Anwar under the ISA. As much as we cannot condone such an action either, the country would have been spared the pain of having all the ugliness and rot, all the abuse and the corruption in our system exposed on the world stage.

Lastly, should we be thankful to Mahathir for not censoring the Internet? A rather ironical way to defend a person's character. Let us be thankful for the good that a person does, not for the evil which he did not do!

Wednesday March 28

The other side of the Mahafiraun II
A Serving Umno Youth Bureau Member

5:29pm, Wed: While I laud Jeffrey for his quite credible albeit pretentious attempt in trying to provide an analytical view of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's inner sanctum and to be balanced about the Mahathir-Anwar saga, I noticed a few biases (The other side of the Mahafiraun, March 27).

Firstly, he was quite sweeping in his conclusion that insulating Malaysia from the international financial system saved Malaysia from collapse. At first glance, being an economist and a financial analyst, I thought the same back then, but after further research and discussions especially with Prof KS Jomo, I have come to the conclusion that it was actually a redundant act.

Malaysia was much stronger financially and was in no danger of a financial meltdown back in 1998, with external private debt at only 33 percent compared with South Korea's 75 percent, Thailand's 70 percent and Indonesia's 90 percent. Malaysia's low external debt level is around a developed country’s level due to our high savings rate and prudent financial management.

Jomo argued in a speech to the Malaysian Youth Professionals Association (Promuda) that the capital control measures instituted on Sept 2, 1998, had a neutral effect since they came at the tail end of the currency meltdown and in part because Malaysia was financially strong in terms of the private external debt ratio. Malaysia was at no time in need of borrowing from the International Monetary Fund simply because we have enough internal liquidity and resources at that time to finance our restructuring scheme.

In a layman's terms, the government can afford to borrow locally due to the banks' liquidity and our high savings rate. Therefore, it was totally untrue and misleading that the capital controls ensured Malaysia sovereignty and saved us from borrowing from the much-maligned IMF.

Jomo also said that it was under Anwar's stewardship as finance minister that Malaysia's financial strength was strongest and growth most stable, because of his policy of maintaining a budget surplus while reducing the government's debt.

Secondly, the writer seemed inclined to give Mahathir too much benefit of the doubt on the Anwar sodomy case. In this case, I think we should judge it like any other legal case. In that respect, I think we should take note of the condemnation of the International Commission of Jurists and many prominent lawyers in Malaysia that the case was unfair due to several obvious factors.

Firstly, the change of dates for three times was very abnormal and enough for any judge to throw any case.

Secondly, the ‘victim’, driver Azizan Abu Bakar, was never medically checked to ascertain whether or not he has been sodomised.

Thirdly, the mysterious circumstances of the detention of Dr Munawar Anees and Sukma Dermawan under the ISA, which cut off access to their lawyers prior to their confession to committing sodomy and their counter-confession in court.

Fourthly, the sudden elevation of the driver Azizan to being a director of a company.

I reckon for a seemingly articulate person and of sound mind, the writer should have not just accepted Mahathir and Azizan's words at face value without taking into consideration the other factors. I do not fall into the category of a blind follower of Anwar, but I call a spade a spade and in Anwar's case it is a spade which has been bent.