Widely regarded as a champion of the developing world, Mahathir Mohamed's remarks often fuelled widespread consternation in the West. Gamal Nkrumah reviews the legacy of Malaysia's outgoing prime minister Hard as it is to believe, Malaysia has a new leader: Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Mahathir Mohamed, the man who dominated his country's politics for the past 22 years, is no longer at the helm, bringing an end to an era in Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific region. Asia's longest-serving democratically elected leader was a vociferous defender of the rights and interests of the developing countries of the South. Mahathir has left an indelible mark on his country's economic, social and political development, and for better or worse, his imprint will doubtless not fade for many years to come. Mahathir stepped down 31 October, and told reporters "I think I should be retiring to give other people a chance to do better." The Jakarta Post noted that Mahathir "has shown that it is politically feasible for a non-Western country to manage an orderly succession." The press in East Asian countries gave glowing reviews of Mahathir's legacy, in sharp contrast to the scathing criticism in Western papers, many of whom made it explicitly clear that they were happy to see his passage. The New York Times called Mahathir "Malaysia's autocratic moderniser" and noted his "crude outbursts", and "use of tirades -- often anti-Western and anti- Semitic". The Asian media speculated on Mahathir's post-leadership plans, whether retirement or otherwise. "This newspaper which on occasion had incurred the wrath of his government has little doubt he will not simply fade away in Langkawi to write his memories," mused The Singapore Business Times. Mahathir, 78, who has hardly mellowed in his old age, recently commented that Europeans "are very greedy and like to take forcibly the territories and rights of other people". He went on, "The culture and values which [the Europeans] will force us to accept will be hedonism, unlimited quest for pleasure, the satisfaction of base desires -- particularly sexual desires. Our way of life must be the same as their way of life. Asian values do not exist to them." This week, Mahathir again reiterated his belief that Jews ruled the world by proxy. He obviously has no qualms about speaking his mind and is highly appreciated and respected by many in the developing world for his outspoken criticism of the West and its lackeys. There is nothing like a successful, articulate and charismatic leader in the South to inspire millions of people around the globe who are yearning for a new international economic order. In recent years, he has been severely critical of Australia, which has strained relations with its northern neighbours by its enthusiastic backing of the America-led "war on terror" and Prime Minister John Howard's eagerness to play "deputy sheriff" for the US in Asia. "Australia stands out like a sore thumb trying to impose its European values in Asia, as if it is the good old days when people can shoot aborigines without caring about human rights," Mahathir said. Such statements didn't endear him to Western governments or press, although Mahathir brushed aside the Western media's hostility. Mahathir objected to the West's treatment of Muslims as potential terrorists. In Malaysia, however, Mahathir had no tolerance for Islamist militants and spoke out against the "teaching of the politics of hatred". Discarding all deference to diplomatic niceties, Mahathir openly called the United States a "cowardly and imperialist" bully following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. "They have made a mistake in Iraq. Now in Iraq, instead of feeling happy and saying thanks to the liberators, they are killing the liberators," he remarked. "If innocent people who died in the attack on Afghanistan and those who have been dying from lack of food and medical care in Iraq are considered 'collaterals', are the 3,000 who died in New York and the 200 in Bali also just 'collaterals' whose deaths are necessary for operations to succeed?" That independence of mind and spirit, of anti-Western defiance, was defended vigorously by his many admirers in Malaysia and throughout the developing world. "His voice is very much our voice. We are proud of him. Malaysia is lucky to have had such a leader," said Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Indonesian minister of mines and energy. Yusgiantoro spoke for many in Africa, the Arab world and Asia. Mahathir came to power not long after the violent race riots of 1969. He was strongly identified with the policy of positive racial discrimination in favour of the indigenous Malay who make up some 60 per cent of the Malaysian population. The programme was modelled on the affirmative action policy of the US, and granted the Bumiputra (sons of the soil) special rights and privileges in education and employment opportunities. Scholarships were granted for Malays to study abroad, and jobs were also reserved for Malays in government-associated firms. Many ethnic Chinese -- who made up a third of the Malaysian population at independence, but now number just under a quarter -- felt alienated by Mahathir's moves. Mahathir felt, however, that social justice demanded such an affirmative action policy. Under Mahathir's guiding hand, Malaysia successfully diversified its economy from one based on the export of primary commodities like palm oil, rubber, tin, petroleum and natural gas to a high-tech export-oriented economy best known for its production and export of Dell laptop computers and Intel high-end processors. Malaysia emerged as a beacon of hope for impoverished countries in Africa and Asia dependent on foreign aid and the export of cash crops. The economy has grown almost nonstop in the past two decades, and weathered the Asian financial crisis better than most other Southeast Asian nations. Today, in spite of Mahathir's anti-Western tirades, tourism is the second largest foreign exchange earner, with both Asian and Western tourists flocking to the country's pristine beaches and cosmopolitan cities. Malaysia sees itself as part of a larger body of nations. It is an active member of several regional and international organisations, including the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the 116-nation Non-Aligned Movement, the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. A country of less than 25 million people, Malaysia is widely regarded as an economic and political heavyweight in regional and international matters. There are, however, voices inside and outside Malaysia who question Mahathir's role and means in creating Malaysia's economic success. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a professor of applied economics at the University of Malaysia, is perhaps the most prominent critic. Jomo told Al-Ahram Weekly that even though Malaysia under Mahathir did not rush to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency credit facilities, as did some other Asian tigers, "It is very clear that much of the massive damage to the economy in the second half of 1997 was almost entirely Mahathir's doing." He also decries Mahathir's hypocritical denunciation of globalisation at a time when Malaysia's "dependence on trade has increased to well over 200 per cent of gross domestic product", roughly double from when Mahathir took over. Yet Jomo concedes that the Malaysian recovery from economic turbulence was undoubtedly stronger and faster than that in Thailand or Indonesia -- countries which, in their desperation, scrambled for help from the IMF and swallowed its dictates whole. "Malaysia simply never had to go to the IMF, and no one in Malaysia was proposing such a move. Prudential regulations introduced earlier had limited foreign borrowings, especially short-term credit," Jomo said. "Undoubtedly, Mahathir's Malaysia spent a great deal and worked faster at bank re-capitalisation and corporate restructuring. Malaysia also benefited from higher petroleum and palm oil prices," Jomo added. Mahathir was often portrayed in the West as a menace to Western interests. He was accused of running the country as if it was his personal fiefdom. The West looked to Anwar Ibrahim, a one-time right-hand man of Mahathir and a hand-picked political heir apparent "to save Malaysia from Mahathir", as Jomo put it. Matters came to a head as the Asian financial crisis intensified. "In the second quarter of 1998, Anwar's supporters began importing the slogans of Indonesia's reformasi movement against corruption, nepotism and cronyism," Jomo commented. They were especially critical of the wealth allegedly amassed by Mahathir's sons. Anwar's fate was sealed in late June 1998, and he became an instant favourite with the West after his unceremonious sacking and highly publicised prosecution on corruption and sodomy charges. Mahathir lashed out at his former deputy, saying "You cannot go around sodomising people," in a campaign to tarnish his image and ruin his reputation. But Anwar Ibrahim fought back from his prison cell. He fired a parting shot at his ex-boss, accusing him of ignoring public governance standards and racking up huge debts. " [Mahathir's] selfish penchant for mega-projects has now ballooned to a staggering public debt of $47 billion," Anwar was quoted as saying. Parallels were quickly drawn between Mahathir and Suharto. "In mid-May 1998 in Cairo, Suharto cancelled his planned trip with Mahathir to Khartoum, Sudan, to return home after three Trisakti University students were killed. Less than a week later, the old Indonesian military dictator suddenly resigned after 32 years in power. As Americans would say, this must have 'freaked out' Dr M," Jomo explained. Mahathir's attacks on Jews and the West were "nothing but pure and utter sensationalism primarily to deflect attention from the rot in his own backyard," Anwar has said. Other Malaysians were beginning to show signs of boredom with his anti-Western rhetoric. "It would be too simplistic to attribute the IMF's mess-up to a US or Western imperialist conspiracy," Jomo argues. While dismissing Mahathir's grandiose Western conspiracy theories, Jomo nevertheless concedes that there is a curious coincidence of interests reflected in the "the dogmatic neo- liberal Washington consensus", especially taking into account the "blocking of the so-called Asian Monetary Fund -- a regional emergency credit facility -- and the self- congratulatory smug Western triumphalism, blaming the crisis on East Asian values and corporate governance, to be found in the early 1998 speeches of Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Michel Camdessus." Jomo argues that Malaysia under Mahathir has become more involved than ever in the very globalisation process that Mahathir was quick to castigate. "Malaysia," Jomo said, "was only second to Singapore in relying on foreign direct investment (FDI) for capital formation, which has meant our domestic industrial and technological capabilities remain limited, unlike Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, where FDI never exceeded two per cent until very recently." "This, and many other Malaysian realities at the end of the Mahathir era," he argues, "must have come as a shock to those for whom dependency theory explained the world economy, or who were viscerally against globalisation." Jomo ended on a thought-provoking note. "Unfortunately, many people do not go beyond the rhetoric, and actually believe that Malaysia is a shining example of independent development for the rest of the world."
