Editorial»
Malaysia: End of an era
NOV 05 - Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia stepped down from office on October 31 as pledged publicly 16 months ago.
The act of voluntarily relinquishing high political office, even without facing any ostensible leadership challenge, is not one that is easily matched by any political leader, anywhere in the world.
END OF AN ERA
Yet, that is precisely what the controversial Dr M. did, capping a remarkable political career that spanned 22 long years.
Another notable feature of the changing of the guards in Kuala Lumpur was its exemplary smoothness.
Thus, as announced earlier, deputy prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of the dominant United Malays National Organisation party in the ruling coalition took over the reigns of political power.
It is widely accepted that Mahathir was the principal driving force spearheading Malaysia’s transformation from a rubber-and-tin producing country to one of Southeast Asia’s most modern and prosperous states.
However, his rule has been viewed as authoritarian, leaving the tantalysing question of whether spectacular economic progress is possible within the hurly burly and dissent of a robust democracy.
An off-spring of an Indian Muslim father, Mahathir, so it is said, bent over backwards to prove his Malay credentials by pursuing policies that sought to give Malays – or bhumiputras – an edge over Chinese and Indian Tamil demographic groupings.
His greatest domestic political controversy is associated with the sacking and subsequent arrest of his one-time deputy and finance minister, Anwar Ibrahim. The two
fell out while the 1997-98 Asian economic crisis was in full swing taking a heavy toll on the Malaysian economy.
Anwar was arrested in September 1998 after leading massive protests demanding Mahathir’s removal. He was later convicted of corruption and sodomy and awarded prison sentences totaling 15 years.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
It may now be in order to provide some historical background to Malaysia starting with the initiation of the colonisation process via the British East India Company in 1786.
A high water mark was reached in 1895 with the formation of the Federated Malay States with a British resident-general and a central government.
Tin mining and rubber grew rapidly under British rule and large numbers of Chinese and Indian workers were imported, respectively, for those industries.
Japan invaded Malaya and the Borneo territories in December 1941 and occupied them throughout World War II. Within a year after the surrender of Japan in 1945, Britain formed the Malayan Union, consisting of the peninsula states, together with Penang and Malacca.
In 1946, too, Singapore and the two separate Borneo territories became separate British crown colonies. The Malayan Union was succeeded on Feburary 1,1948 by the Federation of Malaya.
Over the next decade the British weathered a Communist insurgency, as Malaya progressed towards self-government. In quelling the insurgency, yeoman’s role was performed by General Sir Gerald Templer – aided and assisted, among others, by Gurkhas.
On August 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya became an independent member of the Commonwealth. On August 1, 1962, Great Britain and Malaya agreed in principle to the formation of the new state of Malaysia – a political merger of Singapore and British Borneo territories (Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo) with the Federation.
On September 1, 1962 by 70 percent plurality, Singapore voted in a referendum for incorporation in the proposed Malaysia. However, on August 7,1965, Singapore seceded from the Federation and established an independent republic.
Initially, Malaysia had to face an open bid for takeover by Sukarno’s Indonesia. Indeed, cordial relations between them were not established until Sukarno’s departure from the Indonesian political scene in 1966.
(Interestingly, during that period, Indonesia briefly established a residential embassy in Kathmandu which diplomatic watchers believed was mainly mandated to prevent Gurkhas from assisting Malaysia and Singapore, linked with defence agreements with the British government.)
BACK TO PRESENT
To return to Mahathir, he had a reputation not only as a sharp-tongued gadfly of the West but also as a champion of the poorer and Islamic nations.
Even in his farewell address, for instance, Mahathir could not resist lashing out against the US interests in Iraq saying that it would “shatter consumer and business confidence and dampen global trade and investment”, promising that Malaysia would use the World Trade Organisation to try to change global trade practices that favour richer countries.
He also took parting swipes at the US about slavery and Christianity, comparing Europe’s past ill treatment of Jews to the way Israel treats Palestinians.
Most famously, however, Mahathir left office not long after the fire-storm of controversy over his remark at the Organisation of Islamic Conference summit last month charging that “Jews rule the world by proxy” and that they get others to do their fighting.
Understandably, it led to denunciation in Israel and across the West. In the US, in concrete terms, it prompted a US Senate vote to tie $1.2 million in military aid for Malaysia to a guarantee of religious freedom and tolerance for Jews.
In Washington, the House of Representatives joined the Senate in condemning Mahathir for his remarks against the Jews.
The outgoing premier of Malaysia had choice things to say about Australia, too. Recently, he rubbished Australia’s bid to be accepted as part of Asia describing it as “some sort of transplant from another region.”
More substantively, on the eve of his departure from office, Mahathir paid official visits to East Timor and Papua New Guniea whose relationships with Australian has, for sometime now, been in the dumps.
In both countries, he promised assistance in developing their oil and gas resources and in training their human capital, prompting the Sydney Morning Post to publish an article headlined, “Malaysia to Muscle in on Trade Territory.”
No wonder, then, that Australian Prime Minister John Howard said in a radio interview that he had no farewell message for Mahathir.
Yet, unfazed by it all, Mahathir told the press at his last press conference as prime minister: “I say nasty things. Ask me nasty questions, I will give you a nasty answer.”
MR NICE GUY
From media reports coming in, his successor Abdullah, who has a reputation as “Mr Nice Guy”, is not expected to make any radical changes to Mahathir’s economic and social policies, at least in the short term and is expected to be quieter and less confrontational than his predecessor.
Perhaps because of such an expectation US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher had this to say: “At this point, we believe the incoming administration should be judged on its own actions and its own views.”
While it remains to be seen whether “Mr Nice Guy” will heed the call by various human rights groups for Anwar’s release, it is interesting that Mahathir is reportedly off on a holiday at an undisclosed destination on the Mediterranean.
Here, however, more attention is likely to focus on the reported opening, soon, of the Malaysian embassy in Kathmandu.
Coming on the heels of a similar move by Nepal and the initiation of air connection between them, it should mesh in perfectly with the growing “manpower” nexus rapidly developing between the two countries.
Thus, while a new era begins in Malaysia, a new beginning is shaping up on the Nepal-Malaysia front, too. Posted on: 2003-11-04 09:48
Headlines
Advertisements
