Who is more patriotic, Mahathir or Abdullah?

Shamsul Yunos
May 1, 2008
I HAVE been mulling over this piece for well over a week. The verbal jousting between Tun Dr Mahathir and his detractors have become an important sidebar to every conversation on Malaysian politics and it is no less important than Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s fight for survival.
In effect we have two men, one in power and one no longer in power but both are fighting to defend their credibility before a nation that is in deep thought about its future.
The legacy of Mahathir is under fire just as he launches broadsides against Abdullah’s ways, in reality these two battles represent the fight that is taking place in the conscience of many Malaysians.
We look at these two men who represent 25 years of Government, between the two of them they ruled Malaysia for half of its independent existence and they shaped the country into what it is today but when we look at the gist of their arguments, both sides are saying just one thing: “I am not all good, but he was worse”.
Mahathir’s sympathizers and fans have always been keen to point him out as a nationalist, someone who would always, even in his most erroneous ways have the country’s future at heart and never give in to foreign influence.
Meanwhile Abdullah’s supporters would argue that the current Prime Minister had inherited a rotten government from Mahathir and is doing everything that he could to make things right, it’s just that some things take time and he needs a bit more time.
I will come out in the open and admit that I have very little love for Dr Mahathir because I believe that he did more harm than good to the nation.
His report card is impressive if you take into account only the physical and economic development of the nation in broad terms, that is to say if you count the number of tall buildings, length of highway and gross domestic product.
Things begin to take a less rosy hue when we assess his performance in the softer aspects of Government such as freedom of the press, separation of power between the three arms of Government, judicial integrity, freedom of expression and basic human rights.
As the country became more physically developed and wealthy, Mahathir’s government never softened it’s stance on freedom of expression, press freedom or democratic process, in fact under the doctor these three basic gauge of society’s development took a step backwards.
In terms of freedom of expression, strict rules which were necessary during times of emergency became the norm in times of prosperity. The law still prevents assembly of more than a handful of people without prior permission. The media still had to tiptoes a fine line that is allegedly drawn to protect national interests. The democratic process is stifled both in public and at the party level within Umno.
Let us look closer at the law that restricts the assembly of more than a few people without prior permission. The Government insists that they would not arrest friends having a evening out or families gathering and that the law is there to prevent the spread on non nationalistic ideals.
If a group of people is plotting against the country then they can easily be hauled up on charges of sedition and it does not matter if they are acting solo, in a duet, trio, quartet or quintet does it?
Most of the blame for the persistence of this law must be placed at the foot of Dr Mahathir because he failed to repeal this repulsive section in his 22-years in office. Tun Abdul Razak was the prime minister who had to heal the wounds of the race riots so it is understandable that he would keep the law.
Tun Hussein had less reasons to keep it and must shoulder some of the blame for its continued existence but Mahathir presided over a fast growing economy and a period of great prosperity. There is never a better time to repeal such an oppressive legal provision than when everyone’s pocket is full.
Mahathir and his Government repeatedly reminded the people of the black day in 1969 as justification for this law’s continued existence, in fact that is also the same justification that he uses to stifle the freedom of the Press.
No one would argue with the fact that the media should not fan racial hatred and play up racially sensitive issues but what about stories of ministerial wrongdoing and corruption, what about tales of cronyism. Do articles exposing money politics and nepotism run against national interests?
Then there is the sacking of the Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas, during which time Mahathir expressed frustration that the judiciary is interpreting the words of the statutes passed by parliament and not the intention of the august House.
Any first year law student can tell you that the court must interpret the statute according to the language used because to expect it to be able to second guess the intentions of the legislators is downright crazy.
Some laws are new so the people who drafted them may still walk among us but some laws are old and the people who wrote and passed them are long gone. If the courts are expected to ask the legislature what it meant by the words then it is a clear indication that the legislature is incompetent and quite unable to discharge the duties expected of it.
The task of drafting laws is not an easy one, the persons entrusted with this responsibility must judge the nuance , tone and timbre of each word and ensure that they convey the right amount of urgency and gravity to the person reading it. It should be the most precise instruction to the judges who are expected to execute them independent of any direction or guidance from the legislature. This is the essence of separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary and executive.
In short I believe that Abdullah has done a lot of damage to the image of Umno and Barisan Nasional through his seeming failure to deliver on his 2004 promises and a certain fumbling through important issues but Mahathir introduced some of the worst systemic flaws into Malaysian life and for that I find it difficult to come to his defence.
More than half of those in power within Umno is still there because of the stifled democracy within the party that protects the top echelon with all sorts of barbaric devices such as the quota system and the notion that leaders must never be pushed out. Tyrants can become leaders and tyrants must be pushed out.
I accept that Mahathir has given the nation an abundance of physical development but as anyone will tell you, physical development is the shell, it is the quality of life that fills it up with goodness. Now we have a country that is creeping closer to first world physical attributes but lagging far behind in terms of social development.
Abdullah’s open Government policy was the one thing that historians will remember of the current Prime Minister. While it may have led to much unhappiness within the Barisan Nasional and cost them their domineering two-thirds majority in Parliament, the lack of any party’s ability to alter the constitution unchecked is the best prescription for democracy this country has ever had.
For that alone Abdullah, however inadvertently, is a greater nationalist than Mahathir.
Abdullah’s shortcomings may fill pages but at least he allows us to discuss it in public, even if it means in the blogs and internet news portals and not the pages of mainstream newspapers. Very few doubt that Mahathir would have come down hard on bloggers who are critical of his administration. - malaysiaaktif.com