In response to Simon Martin's remarks on 'The Malay Dilemma II' ('Dr M returns to his roots as ruling party wavers', June 24), Umno president Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's speech in the Umno annual general meeting was in my humble opinion politically brilliant for the following reasons:
1) Umno's raison d' tre is protection of Malay rights. Over last 30 years, it has achieved these objectives by entrenching Malay rights in the Constitution and implementing the New Economic Policy/quota system. In hectoring Malays not to forget these achievements of the past, attention would be diverted from its present failures alleged by the opposition who at the same time would be cast as ingrates ( Kacang lupakan kulit , since PAS supporters and their children also benefitted from the affirmative action policies on higher education, formulated by the Barisan Nasional government).
2) Rebuking Malays for their attitudes of not putting to good use the economic and education opportunities afforded by the NEP not only absolves the government from the blame of not doing enough but also ensures the relevance of Umno to continue play the role of the 'protector' (to cajole, guide and devise programmes) to bridge the 'attitude-opportunities gap' to the benefit of its constituencies. This will ensure not only the Malays but also Umno would not vanish from the face of the earth.
3) To be able to juggle and hold in balance two opposing or contradictory positions is also testimony of Dr Mahathir's capability that lesser petty minds cannot reconcile with.
a) For examples, the opportunities and threats of globalisation. Dr Mahathir supports globalisation where it provides benefit - as in his support of the Multimedia Super Corridor project, his encouragement for the mastery of English, the language of the Internet, and open trade with our largest trading partner - and one of his administration's most strident critics - the United States.
At the same time he condemns the hedge fund traders and 'hot money' managers, and shunned the International Monetary Fund's prescription (by capital/currency controls) on grounds that they would be inimical to the affirmative action programme and national economic sovereignty. (This nationalistic and anti-foreign stance would be the implicit justification for privatisation and bailouts grounded on national economic sovereignty.)
Besides, his courage to take the unconventional route for the protection of national economic sovereignty in the face of international scepticism evinced high leadership quality. Again, nothing unites better than external threat. The vilification of the opposition running to Caucasians for moral or other support scores high nationalistic points.
b) Another example of juggling contradictory positions: Dr Mahathir berated his constituency for clinging on to cultural practices and being indifferent to business or strife that would not survive globalisation. Yet he made no criticisms of his administration's implementation of the NEP/quota system that provides disincentives to its beneficiaries to be self-reliant. In his closing speech, he demanded, as prevalent in feudal culture, obedience and loyalty (especially on selection and fielding of electoral candidates) to the leader.
4) The attack on PAS to presently declare in advance the type of laws and government it wished to set up, if its coalition wins, was also strategic. The uneasy alliance between DAP and PAS was forged under the Barisan Alternatif coalition from a common objective to dislodge the Barisan Nasional. Their ideological differences are so wide that had they discussed in details the structure of government and laws and formula of power sharing at this moment, they would probably be prised apart by these differences right now rather than after election victory. This shift of stance from defence to active attack of the opposition is also a moral booster and clarion call for Umno to be pro-active (not only to defend Kedah or Perlis against PAS, but dislodge the party from Kelantan and Terengganu).
In terms of political objectives, I would conclude that Dr Mahathir's speeches were a master -stroke. They would be even better if he had agreed to re-invent Umno based on Umno's brand of 'reformasi' (of late begun by a more independent judiciary led by Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, action against money politics, separation of family members and business tycoons from politics, Suhakam's check on abuse of power, etc.) rather than the Opposition's brand of reformasi associated with street demonstrations. The opposition should not have monopoly over the brand name of 'reformasi'.
Thank God Dr Mahathir is not stepping down so early. The road through the woods is long and I honestly think that there is still much to be done by a brilliant and politically savvy and strong leader such as he for our country.
