The Rajpal Abeynayake Column

The Rajpal Abeynayake Column By Rajpal Abeynayake

Mahathir - and how not to be in anyone's pocket
Mahathir Mohamad made his now infamous speech about the Jews running the world at the recent Organisations of Islamic Nations (OIC) conference in Malaysia, and raised another hornet's nest which he must now be proud to have among his trophies as the most constant wrecker of Western sensibilities.

But Mahathir Mohamad presides over a Malaysia that enjoys the sixth highest per capita income of an Asian nation, trailing only those of the Asian big boys of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. "Almost everybody in Malaysia can afford a car today,'' is one of the favourite slogans of Mahathir supporters. If it's not everybody at least a lot of them can, with most middle income families in Malaysia now owning two cars on the average.

So, what has all this got to do with Sri Lanka on the threshold of experimenting with an Interim Administration that according to the ruling party at least carries with it all the hopes for a united and prosperous country for the future? Mahathir's success as a West- basher and his unmitigated success in creating a successful Malaysian economy has plenty of lessons in it for a Sri Lankan political elite which has been latterly very ingratiating to the West, particularly to America.

Anyone in parliament two Thursday's ago at the adjournment debate on Ranil Wickremesinghe's UN speech would have realised that the ruling party seems to think that there is some inevitability about having to support America and be on the good books with the Western ruling elite. Speaker after speaker from government benches that day talked of how it is not possible to ignore the American factor in the world economy, and how it is difficult or impossible for a country as small as ours not to --- basically -- cave into the American hegemon.

The government's policy has of course been nakedly pro American. Milinda Moragoda has been the captain of the side in maintaining this pro American tilt, and he has tilted so much that you have to look around these days to see whether he is still tilting or has already fallen over on to a side. In other words, in trade and in general policy, the government has been advocating a praxis of aligning with the super-power, to a point where it might alienate Sri Lanka from some of the country's natural allies in history such as those of the developing third world club.

All this goes of course in the name of improving the economy, and securing American help in diffusing the situation in the North and the East. But Mahathir offers a good lesson in successful economics, which does not advocate biting the American bullet.

Others such as Taskshin Sinawatra of Thailand are also now becoming famous for their new economic manoeuvres. Takshin is empowering the regional and rural economy and is enjoying unexpected success at the moment with countries such as the Philippines and Cambodia clamouring to copy the new "Taksheconomics'' of the Thai leader. But one thing he has not done in order to shore up the economy is to align himself with the American bloc.

Mahathir on the other hand has bashed the Western powers mercilessly and quite brutally and rudely at that, but he has made Malaysia an enviable Asian tiger. His methods may have been unorthodox, and when he got his nominated successor jailed on trumped up charges, that was certainly the low point of his strongmanship. But, that notwithstanding, he has been a strongman who has had the gumption to take on American interests, while keeping his economy strong and competitive.

Now, what's acknowledged is that Mahathir does not have a conflict such as the Sri Lankan Tiger uprising to deal with. The Sri Lankan government says the only way to beat the Tigers is to ally with the big powers, to the point of becoming their lackey.
But Mahathir's other big achievement is that he avoided a conflict such as ours, in a rather fissiparous and racially polarised state. His success in this department did not come through luck or fortitude but through his talent for leadership.

What's clear from the angry old man Mahathir's undisputed success while rubbing the Americans on the wrong side, is that there is no substitute for good leadership, and certainly rubbing the Americans on the right side or creeping into their tent is not the answer. It is only a shortcut that is bound to bring leaders who take such expedient routes someday to grief.

When Mahathir said some unkind things about certain influences from the West (he once said "Malaysia had tried to build its economy for a score of years, and then a moron like George Soros comes along'') his outbursts were criticized by Western commentators as "rants.'' But, with Mahathir about to step down, these same critics are saying now that Mahathir's polices were "correct in hindsight.'' Emma Clark a BBC columnist says that Mahathir was able to stave off the Asian financial crisis better than any of the region's leaders.

So am I wrong in the assessment that one need not be an American acolyte to be a good leader, a leader who delivers the goods as opposed to an ineffectual effete democrat? If you think I am wrong, then you friends of America (especially our frequent America flyer and US ally Mr Milinda Moragoda) should hear the Sydney Morning Herald say it. In an article about Mahathir's official stepping down from power today, the SMH says "Unfashionable as it may be to say, Mahathir has been the greatest leader of any developing country since the postwar independence movement began.''

There again it is clear that he is a leader that the Western powers and their handmaidens love to hate. "Unfashionable as it is to say'' indeed!!! Will it be fashionable then for the Sydney Morning Herald to say that Sri Lankan leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and Senior Minister Moragoda are eager to please the West -- so eager that they even made a thinly veiled justification for the American role of world policeman?

The fact is that the SMH says Mahathir "has been the greatest leader of any developing country since the postwar independence movement began.'' I do not hear much in that vein about Sri Lankan leaders.

''Mahathir's anti-Western and anti-Semitic tirades are aimed at building a sense of nationalism in an ethnically diverse state''. (Sydney morning Herald Again.) See? Mahathir has a vision, even though the Western powers would only commend him back-handedly. It is much more than what can be said for our leadership that hovers about the tables of the Western leaders looking for some crumbs that may have fallen by the footstools.

Back to Columns