Reading Mahathir through expert eyes
Many see positive changes in Tun Dr Mahathir as the new Prime Minister, but there are others who find him incomprehensible. Professor Khoo Boo Teik provides in-depth reading on this leader.
IS Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad unpredictable and irrational? Is he anti-China? Is he reviving his past policies and political beliefs (Mahathirism)?
These are some questions people have been raising after Dr Mahathir resumed premiership on May 10, following the May 9 general election that saw the ouster of the previous government led by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Since the 93-year old leader returned to power after 15 years of retirement, he has often – in his usual characteristic manner – whipped up surprises, debates and controversy.
Over the past four and a half months, the seasoned politician has made many bold policies and political comments – some seen as refreshing and enlightening for the new Malaysia he has promised, while others shocking and even worrying.
Malaysians were pleasantly surprised to see the powerful leader relenting when his intention to hold the Education portfolio in Cabinet was opposed by other Pakatan Harapan leaders.
Known to be autocratic when he was the fourth premier, from 1981 to 2003, Dr Mahathir proved sceptics wrong in May 2018 by bowing to criticism and democracy.
And he did the unexpected by offering the important Finance Minister post to a Chinese (DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng) based on the latter’s capability and track record.
The appointment of a non-Malay as attorney general, despite objections from some powerful quarters in his community, saw multiracialism and meritocracy in action.
Giving his views on the doctor-turned-politician, Professor Dr Khoo Boo Teik tells Sunday Star: “Mahathir’s current administrative priorities and political debts to his Pakatan allies are producing modifications to Mahathirism.
“Instead of imposing authoritarianism again, Mahathir has shown an uncharacteristic commitment to democratic and institutional reform.”
Prof Dr Khoo, known in the academic world as an expert on Dr Mahathir’s ideology, is professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo. The Penangite is the author of Paradoxes of Mahathirism: An Intellectual Biography of Mahathir Mohamad as well as Beyond Mahathir: Malaysian Politics and its Discontents.
Before the 14th general election, Dr Mahathir had promised to introduce reforms to rid the country of rampant corruption and high debts, racism and economic mismanagement.
He had also agreed to a political pact within the four-party Pakatan coalition that he would be premier for two years before passing the baton to his foe-turned-ally Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, premier-in-waiting.
However, some components of Dr Mahathir’s ideology or Mahathirism – as coined by Prof Dr Khoo – have reappeared in Dr Mahathir’s new policies.
Hence, it should not come as a surprise when the senior politician proposed a plan to build the “third national car”, which has attracted wide spread opposition due to the failure of the first national car Proton – his brainchild.
In criticising openly the flaws of the Malay race, the author of The Malay Dilemma is displaying his Malay nationalism to jolt his fellow Malays to work hard and succeed in economic sectors, like their fellow Chinese. Internationally, Dr
Mahathir continues to show his gut to say “No” to big powers, which he did to Britain and United States in the past.
By cancelling mega China-linked projects in Malaysia, he has angered the world’s second most powerful nation and has been labelled as “anti-China” by Chinese nationals.
However, his oft-repeated statement that he welcomes investments from China that can bring real economic benefits to Malaysia is also causing confusion.
Currently, many people find it impossible to understand this former champion of the developing world, but not for Prof Dr Khoo, who is able to dissect Dr Mahathir’s thoughts and actions. Here are excerpts of the interview:
> Do you think Mahathir has a political ideology to fulfil after he unexpectedly toppled the government of Najib?
Mahathir did not approach GE14 or the task of governing with any fixed ideology.
He followed Pakatan Harapan’s programme. Part of that required him to cleanse the administration, reform public institutions, investigate rampant corruption, and improve economic and financial management.
Naturally he had his ideas about what should be done. Some ideas were bound to his political ideology and worldview.
One sees, for example, his nationalism in the initiatives he took in the name of “saving Malaysia”. His other measures diverged from his previous ideological inclinations: the seventh Prime Minister is more democratic than the fourth Prime Minister.
> Someone once said: Dr Mahathir, as a national leader, can be different from being a politician. Do you agree with this observation?
Mahathir the leader cannot be artificially split from Mahathir the politician.
From time to time, he may be forced by circumstances to make policy or political compromises. In either case, he might claim to set aside narrow political calculations in the national interest. It was as leader and politician that he announced the first four members of his Cabinet, including Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the deputy Prime Minister and Lim Guan Eng as Finance Minister.
The leader exercised discretion in assigning the portfolios; the politician had to give the senior posts to the Harapan leaders.
> After ruling for four months, which parts of Mahathirism have resurfaced? And which parts have been discarded? What has he achieved so far?
Two core components of Mahathirism, as I used to call his ideology, are visibly present. There is his nationalism – Malay and Malaysian, economic and diplomatic – which was evident even when he was prime minister from 1981 to 2003. There is his pro-business, Malaysia Incorporated form of capitalism that manifests itself negatively in his habitual opposition to a minimum wage.
His third – populist – component was mostly evident in the substance and style of his GE14 campaigns, but it could return if he needs to mobilise mass support against certain quarters opposed to him.
On Islam, a fourth Mahathirist tenet, he has not said or done much, having said and done most of what he wanted via his former Islamisation policy.
By way of achievement – an astonishing achievement, he has discarded his old authoritarian thoughts.
> Dr Mahathir wants to launch the third national car. Do you think he is trying to revive a dream or he truly believes this project can bring about further industrialisation?
More than 30 years ago, Mahathir found it ideologically persuasive to promote the first car or the second car as an emblem of national pride. To him, however, the project was no less a “late industrialising” effort to undertake heavy industry, master manufacturing technology, acquire innovative capabilities, develop domestic entrepreneurship, and so on.
For a while, state policies and support kept Proton vibrant as a corporate project, if not quite a world-class manufacturing venture. It is difficult to see how he can now push through a “third national car”, partly because of broad opposition even within Harapan, and given his present time and resource constraints.
> How do we interpret Dr Mahathir’s thinking in respect of his policy and actions towards China-linked, Belt and Road projects? Do you think China ought to be wary about Dr Mahathir?
Perhaps China and Mahathir are privately wary of each other.
Mahathir has couched Malaysia’s efforts to renegotiate several China-related infrastructure projects in financial terms. China’s leaders can appreciate that, although how far they will go to ease Malaysia’s burdens remains to be seen. (Malaysia and China are currently negotiating compensation for project cancellations).
Mahathir has not opposed the Belt and Road Initiative’s rationale of transcontinental connectivity. But he is not Najib and China cannot take Mahathir’s agreement with China’s geopolitical plans for granted.
> What type of foreign policy would Dr Mahathir be pursuing? Do you think this will be taken seriously by the international community, given that he will only stay for another 20 months?
Mahathir will remain nonaligned in foreign policy as much and for as long as he can.
His government, for example, lost little time in withdrawing Malaysia from Saudi Arabia-led military or security arrangements, at home and in the Middle East. That move reaffirms Mahathir’s long opposition to militarisation and war.
His foreign policy will be as credible as he is personally respected. But he should groom other national leaders who come after him, such as Anwar and (Defence Minister) Mohamad Sabu, to be likewise non-aligned and peaceable.
> Recently, Dr Mahathir made some statements that are seen as irrational. These include tearing down the wall around Alliance Steel and building East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) with RM10 billion. What is your analysis?
There was a time when the foreign media would have called Mahathir cranky for making statements like those.
But, now, who really doubts him? Lots of people question the financial feasibility of the ECRL, the appropriateness of erecting an unprecedentedly high wall around Alliance Steel, or, for that matter, the social desirability of largely foreign-populated residential projects (like The Forest City).
> What is your rating on Dr Mahathir? Do you think he should be given more than two years to complete his tasks?
It would be presumptuous to “rate” Mahathir at this point. He has repeatedly said that he “could not care less” how history would judge him. His or anyone’s legacy is not fixed at the very point he leaves office. Compare the adulation of Mahathir today with the condemnation of him 20 years ago.
We have no reason either to suspect that Mahathir or Anwar will not abide by Pakatan Harapan’s agreement on the length of Mahathir’s tenure and his succession by Anwar.
Of course, the more the media asks Mahathir how long he wants to stay, the more likely he is to tease them with open-ended responses.