Nov 10, 2010
by Gavin Khoo
Mahathir is a racist and a bully, or a true statesman
Why is Mahathir trying so hard to demonize Abdullah? Is Mahathir afraid that history might judge if he was mostly responsible for what had gone wrong in this country? No wonder his party is talking about a review of the history subject in schools. Is UMNO, like Mahathir, is also worried about its legacy and credibility?
Mahathir is attempting his usual gimmick again. He is trying to push the entire blame of what had gone wrong in the country over the last 3 decades to his self-appointed successor and ex-PM Abdullah Badawi.
Why is Mahathir trying so hard to demonize Abdullah? Is Mahathir afraid that history might judge if he was mostly responsible for what had gone wrong in this country? No wonder his party is talking about a review of the history subject in schools. Is Umno, like Mahathir, is also worried about its legacy and credibility?
Mahathir is trying very hard to establish these fallacies:
1) He (Mahathir) had done no wrong. Everything that was wrong was committed/contributed by Abdullah.
2) Abdullah was a weak leader. Hence, he was disliked and hated by the Malays who needed a strong leader to safeguard their interest and special position.
3) Because Abdullah was weak, the other races started to make demands and asked for the Malay special rights to be abolished. He was trying to justify the existence of Perkasa by creating imaginary ‘extremists’.
4) Abdullah had detained opposition members under ISA.
5) Abdullah flip-flopped on policies.
Pak Lah not the real target
His real target is actually not Abdullah. The latter was merely a distraction and a sacrificial lamb for Mahathir. Mahathir needed a person to push all the responsibilities to. Abdullah was not nasty. He was meek and weak, yes.
If he was nasty, he would have done something terribly bad to Mahathir for bad mouthing him and plotted for his downfall. To him, Mahathir is simply a big bully. Mahathir was acting like a spoilt brat who had set Abdullah up for stealing the ice cream when he had actually ate it himself.
Second, did Mahathir protect the interest of the poor Malays? Mahathir had created a new class of Malay cronies during his rule. His action had distorted the main focus of NEP from poverty alleviation to 30% equity. Would it be right if the 30% Bumiputera equity was held in the hands of a few super rich businessmen?
Malays need a leader who can focus on a bottom’s up approach to socio-economic restructuring. No extremist would argue against the need to help the poor regardless of race. But Mahathir was more keen to protect the interest of super rich. Who created and promoted the APs, negotiated contracts, nepotism, corruption, money politics, racial politics and cronyism if not Mahathir?
Who muzzled the judiciary and ripped the credibility of the once independent civil service and public institutions?
Did Mahathir flip-flop on policies? Yes, many e.g. education, economics, NEP and many more. In fact, policy inconsistency was the main reason why investors avoided coming to Malaysia since the mid-90’s.
Did Mahathir put any opposition members under ISA arrest? Truck loads of them. It is hilarious for him to accuse Abdullah for doing the same.
Mahathir’s political career has come through a full circle. He had started as a racist politician, became a PM, promoted unity through Bangsa Malaysia and had gone back to his racist past by championing race supremacy and dominance. There is nothing wrong to defend his race. What is wrong is Mahathir had manipulated race to protect the interest of a few selected elites in the ruling regime.
Does Mahathir care about the poor Malay? If he was, why are Malays still form the largest percentage of the poorest in this country? Why was the government willing to waste billions on PKFZ, Bakun Dam, Cyberjaya, Putrajaya, corruption, wastage, new palaces, and a few newly proposed multi billions projects but peanuts for the poor?
History will judge if Mahathir is a racist and a bully or a true statesman. – Straight Talk