Dr Mahathir, Malaysia's ex-Prime Minister, says a lot of things, but he may not always mean what he says. For example, he has called Malaysia an Islamic state — in order to steal the thunder from Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) — yet, his record is one of a moderate and secular leader.
Indeed, his policy choices have often differed from his rhetoric. He often rails against globalisation, yet he welcomes international trade. He slams Western "imperialists" intent on dominating the local economy, yet he actively encourages foreign investors.
But words can hurt, even if they are not followed up with action. A Western diplomat once told me that "Dr Mahathir can wear out any relationship with any country because of his rhetoric".
He was referring, in particular, to the United States, Australia and Singapore. I've tried hard to understand why he has been so antagonistic towards these countries. There is no easy answer, but here's what I think.
With the US, it seems to be more of calculated rhetoric. It is an easy target for his rhetorical pot shots, which allow him to bolster his reputation as a spokesman of the Third World — one who dares to speak up to the West.
As for Australia, a lot of people trace this back to 1993 when the then Prime Minister Paul Keating called him a "recalcitrant". That might have been the catalyst for his hostility towards Australia, but it is clear that Dr Mahathir truly resents the idea of a "white" nation joining any Asian regional grouping.
How about his attitude towards Singapore?
Some people like to attribute this to an incident in the 1940s when he asked a Chinese taxi-driver to take him to his friend's house and the driver dropped him off at the servants' quarters of the house. This could have been the catalyst, but what has sustained his resentment is the fact that Singapore is Malaysia's most direct and strongest rival.
Source :http://www.channelnewsasia.com/mahathir/031028.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment