Mahathir vs Pak Lah: A Problem of Leadership
One of the most heated issues in Malaysian politics at present is who you support — Mahathir or Pak Lah. Your first allegiance may lie with another personality or party, but in the end, generally things boil down to who you'd go with: Mahathir or Pak Lah.
On the one hand, Pak Lah (as the present Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is known) came to power with a strong anti-graft campaign. His policies since have been lacklustre, but for a number of people, he is seen as a welcome respite from the abrasive and controversial stands taken by Mahathir, especially in areas such as foreign policy.
Mahathir, on the other hand, oppressed the media, threw dissidents in jail, institutionalised a culture of corruption, and created a Malay dependency on their special privileges. Nevertheless, he is now making his mark by making a near-180 degree turn on most of these issues.
Mahathir now accuses Pak Lah of worsening the status of media freedom (while Pak Lah claims he has loosened the reins of government control over the media). He claims that Pak Lah is now nepotically abusing his position of power. The only thing he has yet to do is fully renounce his support for this Malay dependency on their special position.
Some people, mainly those who were absolutely and totally traumatised by the authoritarian regime of Mahathir, are ardent supporters of Pak Lah. They may or may not acknowledge his flaws, but they insist that he is a far better choice for premier than Mahathir. They just cannot stomach another man like him.
Meanwhile, the Mahathir camp has large numbers of people who agree with what Mahathir is saying at present, without regard for what he has actually said in the past, or the context of his present actions. The reason is simple; for them, the pendulum has swung the other way. Now they simply cannot stomach a man like Pak Lah — a man who falls asleep at government functions, and reportedly delegates much of his responsibilities to his son-in-law.
What I wonder, though, is whether that anti-Pak Lah movement really needs to coalesce around Mahathir. After all, Mahathir was little better than Pak Lah in his own time. He might have been far more capable than Pak Lah, but the actual results of his policies weren't too different from what we see now.
Moreover, there's no sign that Mahathir has actually had a change of heart. He just seems upset that the culture of corruption he worked so hard to build has been taken over and usurped by Pak Lah's cronies rather than his own. After all, Mahathir promised to stop criticising the government if it continued work on the infamous "crooked bridge" to Singapore (a project that would benefit many of his cronies) — hardly principled behaviour.
It's an unfortunate fact that the typical man needs a human leader to look up to. Our society is innately based on rank and hierarchy, and if we did not have some leader for our cause celebre, we would simply not be motivated to fight for it.
I remain concerned, nevertheless, over the potential for effecting change through Mahathir. His complaint is not so much about the system, but about the fact that he is no longer benefiting from the system. He had no qualms about silencing the media when he was in power, since it benefited him. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, he is more than happy to champion freedom of the press.
There's no reason we can't use this support — we need all the support we can get for changing our country. But we need to look beyond the simplistic Pak Lah-Mahathir dichotomy. Neither man is worthy to lead our country; one has the calibre but not the principles, while the other has neither the calibre nor the principles.
It's time we found a leader worthy of our support. Some postulate that Anwar Ibrahim could be this man. I am almost as skeptical about him as I am about Mahathir. It's a sad fact that we have yet to identify a single charismatic leader who can truly lead us to change, without having been tainted by past involvement in corruption at the highest levels.
This problem of leadership is something that has to be solved if we want to change our country. It's time we found ourselves a better leader.
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "Toppling UMNO/BN: An Agenda for Change": | |
|---|---|
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged | Posted at 11:11:00 am Aug 28, 2005
UPDATE: More on this proposed party can be found in the replies below. Okay, it's pretty much clear now that politics in Malaysia cannot move forward without real multiracial parties, an unbiased media (or at least, a media consisting of many people with different biases for balance) and a decent opposition that has a plan, a direction, and some principles it will adhere to and not compromise on for a little more power. A lot of bloggers at other sites seem rather pumped up about brainstorming ways to achieve these aims, but the most they end up doing is talking about talking how to reform the government/opposition. So, if you please, I'd like to have a real discussion on how to reform Malaysian politics. (Although I'm quite pessimistic we'll see much change in our lifetime; the most we can do is plant the seeds for the next generation to reap; right now, the existing generation of adults is simply too set in their ways to change much.) I propose the formation of a new political party. A party that is for the people, of the people and by the people. A party where the little man can speak and know what he says can have a real impact on his daily life. The elite of our country cannot form this party. They have no interest in promoting change. This party has to come from the middle class. The middle class has a latent but large amount of resources - physical, mental and intellectual. All this will go to waste if we continue to stay at the periphery and let the big guys squabble for the right to ride the gravy train. On the other hand, the poor are incapable of promoting much change because of their low resources. Even if they have intellectual brainpower, it has not been developed much due to their little capital available for educational purposes. It is up to those of us, those of the middle class, to step into the breach and save our country. Malaysia is falling apart. Nobody can deny that. Peek into the pages of any newspaper, even the NST or Berita Harian. There is ample evidence that if we maintain the status quo - and doubtless, UMNO and BN intend to maintain it - Malaysia will die a slow and agonising death. We have a country built on division and corruption. Either we tear it down and rebuild a magnificent edifice we can be proud of, a building to rival the veritable skyscraper of Singapore, or we let our dilapidated gilded hut of a country rot and collapse fifty to a hundred years from now. It's up to the middle class to promote change. It's in our interest, and in the interest of every Malaysian, rich or poor. |
| Last five replies (35 comments not shown): | |
|
marvin
Member Posts: 6 IP Logged | Posted at 3:50:44 pm Jan 27, 2007
Grads in Malaysia are a hopeless bunch. Judging by how the education is being handled, there's no wonder why the end results are usually lame and half witted. No doubt we have intelligent young people who are either visionary or charismatic. But we lack people who have the combination of both and more importantly young people who are idealistic. Idealism is the most important essence to a revolution. Your idea of a Malaysian utopia needs a revolution to be realized. The public in Malaysia do not possess ideological sense because they don't read, they follow their leader, specifically today, it's their feudal lords. Capitalism, socialism, nobody understands that. What's more important to them is to ensure they would live comfortably for another day. A charismatic figure, who is idealized, who is extreme in his belief, who relates to the public, who makes the public think, so like him, they can foresee the gloomy future. This charismatic figure, because of his idealistic nature, risks to lose everything if he doesn't succeed. You know, like an ol' Senor Ernesto Guevara minus the marxism and guerilla side. Unless the BN government really plunder the nation like Ferdinand Marcos did Philipines, it's unlikely that a generation of this sort idealist would be born. But certainly not impossible. Best case scenario, a new libertarian socialist party led by a Malay. Party is anti statist, anti royalist, anti feudal, secularized and headed towards decentralized government. People may not be prepared for the party's ideology but supports it because they believe in the leaders and believe that without a change, the country will dwindle into a state of carcass. Ultimately only that ONE person is needed and the rest will follow suit. I'm inspired by the writings in the Republic Of Virtue by Dr Azly Abdul Rahman. Is it likely? |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged | Posted at 4:55:02 am Jan 28, 2007
I agree that there is a dearth of grads with idealism and ability - but at the same time, they are not non-existent. I am also essentially optimistic about the ability of the brainwashed populace to cast off the shackles of BN - provided there is an opposition party which can show how ably it will govern the country, and knows its stuff. As Khairy noted in his opinion piece, the opposition has always been incompetently running on a platform of not being BN, instead of a positive policy platform for change. If the people truly believe they will have a better future under a new government, they will vote for it. That is why I agree that "Ultimately only that ONE person is needed and the rest will follow suit". The important thing is that the idealists and intellectuals should not be shackled by their ideologies and be able to handle politics. Many social activists in PKR are idealistic, but they cannot really fight for political power because all they know how to do is hold demonstrations. Similarly, intellectuals who are too detached from reality will never be able to compete politically. |
|
tanstaafl
Member Posts: 9 IP Logged | Posted at 10:31:06 am Jan 28, 2007
Being 15, you can take the long view and personally, I believe that's the right approach to take given the circumstances provided those currently in power don't cut this off at the knees before you get anywhere or some other events occur before meaningful change is achieved. I concur with your conclusion that a new party is needed for the reasons that you have clearly set out so I won't re-hash them. Insofar as the list of goals are concerned, I would like to add a couple more - Separation of State & Religion - might require a change to the constitution? Separation of Politics from Business - which I've always felt eventually leads to corruption For funding is concerned, I believe that the only viable sources locally are amongst the middle class professionals. Most of the so-called corporate tycoons will have no interest in supporting a party that seeks to upset the status quo and their own livelihoods. Incidentally, I suggest a change of name to this topic. The current one is too narrowly focussed. How about "Proposals for Political & Social Reform"?  |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged | Posted at 12:08:50 pm Jan 28, 2007
Separation of State & Religion - might require a change to the constitution?It depends on how far you want to go. Personally, I think we'll never succeed at getting Islam removed as the official religion, and I'm not sure we even want to go there. Rather, the focus should be on restoring the original intent of the Constitution, which was merely to permit some Islamic rituals at official functions (e.g. doa) without making Malaysia an Islamic state. (Tunku Abdul Rahman himself said this when speaking in Parliament in defence of the practice of serving alcohol at government functions.) Separation of Politics from Business - which I've always felt eventually leads to corruptionThis is something I agree with, but it is difficult to hammer down specifics about this. Even the most advanced democracies in the world haven't been able to tackle this problem, so unless we can come up with something innovative, I'm not sure it'd even be worth trying to do more than address this on a somewhat ad hoc basis. (That's pretty much how the Americans handled the Jack Abramoff scandal when Abramoff, a professional lobbyist, was caught bribing politicians.) For funding is concerned, I believe that the only viable sources locally are amongst the middle class professionals. Most of the so-called corporate tycoons will have no interest in supporting a party that seeks to upset the status quo and their own livelihoods.I agree. I think it would be actually possible to subsist on a similar budget to that of, say, the DAP. The DAP/PKR actually have a lot of potential despite their limited resources - it's just that they haven't been very effective since the DAP is constantly plagued by infighting while PKR has been focusing too much on social activism. Deployed appropriately, their limited resources could probably pose a serious threat to the government, since they've already been regularly winning about 30 to 40% of the popular vote. Incidentally, I suggest a change of name to this topic. The current one is too narrowly focussed. How about "Proposals for Political & Social Reform"?Hm, true...but the name of the topic has a certain bite to it. Maybe I'll change it to "Toppling UMNO/BN: An Agenda for Change". |
|
tanstaafl
Member Posts: 9 IP Logged | Posted at 1:50:27 pm Jan 28, 2007
State & Religion - on second thoughts, this is a tricky one As far as separation of State and Business is concerned, let's go back to the fundamentals and agree that it is not OK for political parties to own businesses or to channel government contracts and projects to those businesses, cap contributions, blacklist / prohibit companies in which elected officials or their families have an indirect interest from participating in any government projects extending up to a period of up to 5 years after ceasing to be an elected official. Hell, I'd even be happy if people would actually react to some of this crap instead of just saying "oh, that's how we do business in Malaysia". Hard to reform when patronage is institutionalised :P |
