'A bundle of contradictions'

The burning issue in Kuala Lumpur was Anwar’s trial. He was once Mahathir’s protégé but later became an ungrateful ward and later an arch-enemy. There were rumors the current trial was only a repeat of the first in the 1990s. It was unfair not to hear Mahathir’s side. So I sought an interview even when I was told I would not get it.

Although he has retired, Mahathir seldom gives interviews and spends most of his time in Perdana L’Ship Foundation in Putrajaya that also serves as an archive for other former Malaysian prime ministers’ papers. He was leaving for abroad and had to cope with a very tight schedule that day. So it came as a surprise when I got a text from his secretary that I could come at noontime and he would squeeze me in even for a short time.

That was great. I had admired the man from a distance and more closely now that I visit Kuala Lumpur every now and then. I marvel at the country’s splendid infrastructure. It is a pleasant place to live in — good roads, efficient affordable electricity, working internet connections, lots of greenery and of course, the twin towers of Petronas as a fitting monument to a job well done.

From a distance, it had seemed that he did all this without ever having to be subservient to the West. As he put it “we are a country who earns its own living”. Obviously, an interview was not enough to reveal more of the man.

So it was good to know more about the man I interviewed from a new book, Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times, by former Asian Wall Street Journal editor Barry Wain.

Wain writes about Mahathir’s ability to work both sides of the street.

“While he displayed “public antipathy on general principles at the Americans his jungle was crawling with US troops quietly training for jungle warfare.”

But he adds the success of both Malaysia and Singapore are flawed:

“Singapore in its mixture of technological and social prowess and draconian ruthlessness against an independent press or opposition, Malaysia with its iconic twin towers and its other attributes colored by a deepening culture of corruption that has continued well beyond his reign, which ended in 2003.”

“While Mahathir has been a public figure in Malaysia for half a century and well known abroad for almost as long, he has presented himself as a bundle of contradictions.”

Mahathir was respected and derided because of his “all-consuming desire to turn Malaysia into a modern, industrialized nation”.

*      *      *

An appreciation of what President GMA has done for our own country can take off from that: Mahathir did not care for popularity. What he wanted was a thriving country able to lift the poor by giving them jobs and generally enable them to have better lives. He did it with all the punishment that such determination brings. He was accused of corruption, nepotism and cronyism by the Western press but never for incompetence.

The other newspaper in a series of old, hackneyed attacks acknowledges as much about President GMA although it puts the words in the mouth of a “palace aide.”

“She is good, but she will never be popular,” said the Palace aide.

“Deep inside, existentially, she knows she doesn’t deserve to be there. (Since it is deep inside, how did he know that, whoever it is who said it?)

My brief is against critics who make popularity the standard of good governance. It is the biggest stumbling block against the progress of our country and why we cannot move forward. I think President GMA knows that. Still she hopes one way or another, what she has done for the country would be acknowledged in the end, not by the critics and oppositionists, but by ordinary Filipinos. That I think is why she is going all out to make people know — visiting offices, schools, speaking to local authorities and organizations. She had wanted a fair media who would write about both her virtues and faults.

There is an accomplishment report of her administration in the last nine years from 2001-2009. This appeared in paid ads in newspapers because there were none willing to take it on as editorial. Although EIU Unit, the business information arm of The Economist Group cited the Philippines as the “best in the world in terms of its microfinance environment.” It also rose in the league of trading nations in 2009 according to the latest World Bank logistics survey.

But she may have to wait a while longer to be appreciated by Filipinos barraged by unrelenting media attacks against her. To those who would open their minds, her government would stand out in history for two things, infrastructure development and sustained economic growth. That does not mean she was impervious to accusations of corruption from “relatives in jueteng protection”, the fertilizer scam, or the NBN-ZTE deal that never was.

Like Mahathir, she too is a paradox, a “bundle of contradictions” but in the end she ought to be measured by what she has accomplished.

I live in the South and exhilarated each time I see the work being done in the SLEX that was run aground for years. I’m sure many commuters feel the same way. Once finished it would be possible to go from Alabang to Makati in 10-15 minutes. It will go all the way to Batangas Port City and would accelerate the delivery of goods. Those who use the NLEX say the same thing — it is a breeze to go up to Subic or Clark with the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway.

Ironically, President GMA may owe it to her critics for hounding her, prodding her, cajoling her, and throwing every insult they can at her.

That egged her to become the president with the most accomplishments.

She has also the come-uppance against other leaders in Asia that while they did it in authoritarian societies she governed in an open society and without the help of oligarch-owned media. That is a near impossible task. The downside is she could not do as much as they did.

We now face the problem of stability and continuity. Again I refer to Mahathir who had both the vision and the time (17 years) to see it through in Malaysia. Not so with President GMA or any president after Marcos hemmed in by a flawed Constitution that cannot be amended.