Elderly and spiteful, former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s actions reveal a self-centered nature that disregards the interests of Malaysians. Instead of promoting harmony and inclusiveness in his twilight years, he launched attacks against non-Malays, accusing them of wanting to change Malaysia’s name and ownership to a multiracial country. In early July, he further claimed that multiculturalism was against the Federal Constitution and posed a threat to Malays and Islam by the DAP.
It’s worth reminding Mahathir of the state of the nation he left behind. Despite being celebrated for his vision in the construction of the Petronas Twin Towers, the country now finds itself divided along racial and religious lines, with a widening wealth gap and thriving crony capitalism. So, how did Malaysia reach this state?
Two distinct groups emerge when looking at those who experienced Mahathir’s era. The majority, mostly Malays, speak highly of him and his modernization efforts, while the non-Malays who felt like second-class citizens due to his preferential policies despise him.
Mahathir, an avid reader who allegedly prioritized development, ironically oversaw the fizzling out of his much-hyped Wawasan 2020. Corruption plagued the nation, racial and religious tensions escalated, and Malaysia became torn apart. Mahathir’s contradictory nature is evident in his “Buy British Last” and “Look East” policies, which secretly involved deals with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
While the Japanese were appeased through the “Look East” policy, Malaysian Chinese, who greatly contributed to the nation’s growth, were neglected. The encouragement of Ketuanan Melayu and the presence of those who support it continue to breed division in Malaysian society.
Although his supporters credit Mahathir with putting Malaysia on the world map through Proton, they fail to acknowledge the detrimental effects on public transport. Mahathir’s power base lied in the rural Malay community, whom he tapped into by leveraging their insecurities and promoting the idea that Malaysia belonged to them.
In his quest to consolidate power, Mahathir undermined various institutions’ independence. The judiciary was emasculated during the “Constitutional Crisis of 1988,” and English-medium schools transitioned to Malay-medium. Mahathir’s creation, Jakim, interferes in people’s private lives.
Ultimately, Mahathir’s tactics fueled corruption, cronyism, and nepotism. He manipulated the superstitious beliefs, insecurity, and fatalism of the Malays to increase his powerbase, at the expense of non-Malays. As a result, Malaysia finds itself morally bankrupt, with widespread corruption among political leaders and civil servants, and a lack of integration among its diverse population.
Given these realities, Mahathir’s image as a visionary is questionable. The Malays, influenced by Mahathir and religious clerics, failed to unite the different races and tackle corruption. Instead, they perpetuated the same problems. It’s time to reassess Mahathir’s legacy and acknowledge the need for a united, corruption-free Malaysia.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
