.Mahathir on the BBC.

21.4.2008.

I must grudgingly say that I admire the way these people carry out their interviews on programs such as "hardtalk".Obviously they are well prepared with all the hard,penetrating questions. For the less prepared on the other side, I can see how they can easily get into clever traps. I think the best way to present yourself is to be confident in what you have to say, and say it quickly. Truth is only a perception when you're live on tv. Under the cicumstances,  Mahathir could have been more pugnacious. 

I only happened to be switching channels when I came upon this interview which already was mostly through. Several issues raised and responded to merit mention here. 

Lim Guan Eng's speech was quoted as saying that DAP will ensure that there will be a level playing ground for all, and it will fight corruption. This speech was quoted mostly to criticise the "special rights" of bumiputras. 

I would have added into the response the special circumstances of multiracial society in Malaysia, and the need to balance the given inequality of the races because of the British administration policies before independence. If the bumiputras are not given government assistance, the glaring economic imbalance among the different races would cause social instability that can easily become racial instability. This "special rights" have not shrunk the economic pie, and is a small price to pay for stability. Sure, on paper it's hard to defend, but without it the economically backward bumiputras would have lagged further behind.

No country has the kind of close mix of 3 culturally different races. The fine equilibrium to maintain some semblence of racial harmony, at least on the surface, has been Malaysia's bane, and there's no other comparable nation in the world. And to remain generally stable and modestly prosperous all these years must surely be something that all Malaysians should be thankful for. 

On the alleged anti-west,anti-semitic posture of  Mahathir, and that it curtailed direct communication, it should be noted that it's just an adjective used by the western press. Those quoted statements should be taken in the context of the occasion, and not taken out in isolation. Otherwise every single criticism of anything west and anything Jewish becomes anti-those. In fact those speeches were in response to perceived unfairness by the west, partcularly the USA, against the Muslim world, and must be construed as an opening for dialogue and not the opposite. In truth,  Mahathir was being very brave, especially when speaking as the Chairman of OIC, which is more than can be said about AAB when he became Chairman.

The question of jailing people came up again.As was replied, the accuser should produce the facts and numbers.All countries have laws, and lawbreakers often end up in jails in India, China, UK, USA, wherever. The insinuation was that those allegedly jailed by Mahathir was for speaking up, such a suppression of free speech that press licences were issued yearly. This was and has been the law.Nobody has been locked up just for speaking up, unless it was for an unlawful act. 

On Anwar's claim on the same show aired before this, that he was framed, and that he will hold  Mahathir to account when he comes into power, it must be remembered that this has always been his contention. As pointed out in the interview, there was a long trial involved, and Anwar was well-defended, and the judgement was by the courts. It could be added that throughout the trial, Anwar didn't exactly sat quietly and let the judges have the sole say. The interviewer also alluded to a corrupt judiciary, based on the reporting of the "Lingam tapes" case.  Mahathir should have also mentioned that he participated willingly in the hearings, and that the case is still on, and even western laws say you're innocent until proven guilty.

On the ISA and "the system" that  Mahathir inherited and had the opportunity to change but didn't, Mahathir should have also added to his response that the ISA and any system that has a purpose and that purpose is still useful should in all logic be retained. Sure, people complain, as they do all the time. We have to consider the need for the majority of society, not just a section of it. Today, the main critic of ISA, the US, has something even worse in Guantanamo. England ,too ,has similiar laws.

On allegedly being undemocratic, dictatorial even, that simple reply - " I've won 5 elections with 2/3 majority" suffices and is one of the best retorts of the interview, at least the part that I heard. Now of course BBC can say the elections were fraudulent, but again we can just say your ambassadors were here, and sometimes they were also biased for certain people, ask them for the factual reporting. As rightly mentioned, the ideal democracy described by western writers exists nowhere. Each nation makes its own modification. Great civilisations have existed in the past without practising the type of democracy that is espoused by the west. One model doesn't fit all.You can't export it, much less push it down people's throat - why, that's undemocratic to begin with. The adventures of USA is full of lessons to be learnt, and this coming from a nation born out of wanting their own democracy barely two centuries ago ! 

Lastly, why make noise now, why did you pick AAB and now condemn him and ask him to quit.This needs no additional remarks from me.

.......................................................................................................