How to understand post-Mahathir Malaysia

The Straits Times, Singapore
18 March 2005

How to understand post-Mahathir Malaysia
By Ooi Kee Beng

THE focus of political analysis in Malaysia since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad handed the reins of government to Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi has been on how well the latter will do on his own engine, and how well he will limit the excesses of his predecessor.

However, beyond studying and commenting on the processes of post-Mahathir politics, Malaysian analysts face a much larger challenge. Tun Dr Mahathir held the country's top position for 22 years. But even before that, he had been influential in Umno politics and directing Malaysian policies. This dominance has been profound in many areas. His legacy therefore goes far beyond popularly discussed phenomena such as the Look East philosophy, buying British last, positioning Malaysia as an anti-Western power, industrialisation, privatisation, concentration of power, favouritism as nation-building strategy, his visions of future grandeur, his many deputy prime ministers and his mega-projects.

For historians, journalists and political scientists alike, what remains to be done is a revisit to Malaysia's early history. Especially in its finer points, the period immediately preceding that under a sustained leadership should be studied for trends dismissed deliberately or inadvertently by political agendas. These necessarily constitute a major source for analytical and policy-making inspiration in the post-Great Leader period.

Tun Dr Mahathir had his hits and misses. His longstanding influence on Malaysia's political life could not but have precipitated certain excesses on society in general, and on knowledge creation in particular.

There has been a recent renewed interest in Malaysia's formative years. Books on the subject include Cheah Boon Kheng's Malaysia, The Making Of A Nation and Khong Kim Hoong's Merdeka! British Rule And The Struggle For Independence In Malaya 1945-1957. Cheah's book places the first four prime ministers within a comprehensive process of nation-building. Khong's book describes some of the important factors in Malaysian politics.

These works may, along with others, be seen as some of the first initiatives to put the overpowering Mahathir era in the wider context of the nation's history and future.

Beyond such attempts, what is required of Malaysia analysts, given the fact that the country is in a post-Great Leader period, is an awareness of the side effects of Mahathirism. Things highlighted by Tun Dr Mahathir necessarily threw other phenomena into the shadows, and it is the latter that need to be identified.

His stance against the West, for example, excessively influenced the way Malaysia and Malaysians saw (and see) themselves vis-a-vis the world at large. His wish to put Malaysia on the global map involved the country not only in unnecessary battles of words with bigger powers, but also in a civilisational - and not only national - positioning involving 'the West', 'East Asia' and 'the Muslim world'. His excluding regionalism was conceived within such an ideological context. Notwithstanding the merits of his perspective, a side effect of it was the subsequent detachment of Malaysian foreign policy from the realities of neighbourhood politics.

Since Tun Dr Mahathir's retirement, the concrete reality of Malaysia's neighbourhood tensions, to an extent by coincidence, has made itself felt with a vengeance. Relations with Thailand have recently been damaged by irredentist tensions in that country, while ties with Indonesia deteriorated drastically when Malaysia laid claim earlier this month to disputed islands in the Sulawesi Sea, inopportunely at the same time as Indonesian illegal workers were being rounded up throughout the country. The Indonesian mass media took the opportunity to incite nationalistic passions that were uncomfortably reminiscent of the Konfrontasi of the early 1960s.

These events suggest that a sustained effort to improve ties and cement good relations had been lacking. Indeed, the absence of a deterioration in ties over the last decades should not be mistaken for a bettering of ties.

Datuk Seri Abdullah's efforts immediately after taking office in October 2003 to improve relations with Singapore were a wise remedy prescribed quickly to cure the ignored state of neighbourhood politics. It should be recognised as another of his attempts to rectify the excesses, misses and detrimental side effects of the Mahathir regime.

His battle against corruption, his decision to stop mega-projects wherever possible, his many charm trips to countries around the world, and even his propagation of Islam Hadhari (moderate Islam) and moral behaviour, may all be seen in this light as well.

The salience of such domestic issues should encourage revisits to the 1950s and 1960s by scholars and journalists to search for forgotten trends, and should lead to reassessments of events such as the Baling Talks or May 13, and renewed interest in central personalities such as Tunku Abdul Rahman and Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman.

Datuk Seri Abdullah's policy of investing in agriculture also serves to highlight a phenomenon overshadowed in earlier times. Not only did the New Economic Policy, despite its clear goals, fail to eradicate poverty, but Tun Dr Mahathir's obsession with the creation of a formalistic Malay middle class also logically put all other Malay classes into disfavour.

One should, of course, note that Tun Dr Mahathir, to his lasting credit, did sometimes try to rectify the detrimental side effects of earlier federal policies. His decision to reintroduce English as the language of instruction in the teaching of science and mathematics was most probably prompted by the evident advantage that Asian countries where English is encouraged, such as India and Singapore, obviously possessed in the new economy era.

Thus, behind the Mists of Mahathirism, more inspiration for new perspectives and new possibilities on Malaysian politics and society should be available for those willing to look for it.

The writer is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies in Singapore. The views stated here are his own.