MAHATHIR FEEDS FALLACIES TO STUDENTS
If you are not happy to see what you consider as corruption, cronyism, abuse of power, wasteful mega projects etc, then adhere strictly to the democratic system by casting your votes in an election (once every 5 years), and refrain from doing anything else to oppose the government."
Before analysing into this speech, it is pertinent to take note of the backdrops to it.
The above speech was delivered in a symposium called "Reaffirming the Idealism of Undergraduates in the New Millennium", and it took place in the University of Malaya (the premier university in this Country) where the Tunku Canselor Hall was gutted down only a few days ago (Mahathir was originally scheduled to make his speech in this Hall). The symposium was sponsored by Mahathir's close political associate, a former Chief Minister of Melaka State, who was toppled in a scandal involving corruption and statutory rape.
Due to strong student opposition to Mahathir's visit and to this symposium, and amidst speculation of arson to the burnt Hall, security was stepped up with the presence of some 200 policemen in the campus. And the audience was bolstered with hordes of young supporters from Mahathir's own political party, from UMNO Youth and Puteri UMNO.
Coming back to the speech, it is ironical that the main thrust of Mahathir's speech should be the antithesis to the very ideal that the title of the symposium evokes the idealism of university students.
University is the highest seat of learning where academic excellence is pursued. And the subjects include philosophy, religion and politics, among others. For knowledge to flourish to the maximum, university must be made a sanctuary of learning, so to speak, where there is autonomy and an atmosphere of freedom (save those infringing the laws) to pursue knowledge, to think and to express oneself. It must be free from exploitation from either the political or commercial sector of our society.
In advanced societies, such as those in US, Switzerland or Australia, university is a place of tranquility for learning, with absence of political agitation. However, in poorer countries where the political and social system is defective and a hindrance to the realization of the potentials of its people and its resources, then the university assumes a significant role in the political progress of the country. It is often the hotbed where political ideologies are conceived and perfected, and where agitation for political changes is initiated.
In the case of corrupt totalitarian governments where the people have lost their freedom as well as the means to express their political will, university students with lofty political ideals often pioneer vocal and public demonstration to clamour for reforms. These movements often gather so much momentum that unpopular regimes are eventually toppled. Eminent examples are: several former military dictators of South Korea and Thailand, the Shah of Iran, former Presidents Marcos and Estrada of Philippines and Suharto of Indonesia.
There is nothing wrong with students taking interests in politics. In fact, in a developing country of relatively low educational level, where the political system is found badly wanting and the government fallen to corruption and decadence, university is the premier place to hatch ideas and initiate moves for reforms, for therein lies some of the best brains, the most idealistic, and hopefully the bravest to spearhead changes. Professors and students, who devote their energy and make sacrifice to save their country, after attending to their primary duties to the academics, are examples of patriotism of the highest order. It is through this kind of patriotism that China was saved from loosing its sovereignty to foreign aggressors in its recent history, the first time through toppling the weakling Manchu Dynasty at the turn of the last century, and the second time through defeating the corrupt Kuomintang regime after World War II.
A case nearer to our shore is Singapore. It was the political idealism and the courageous self-sacrifice put up by the Chinese school students in Singapore in the 1950s that gave PAP the backbone to overcome the colonialists and other adversaries, to emerge victorious, and subsequently to succeed in building a successful independent state.
In pursuing their interests in politics, university professors and students would be failing their obligations to the nation only if they allow such interests in politics to adversely affect their academic pursuits. This need not be the case, if proper self-discipline and prudent priority and time allocation is maintained. Precedence abounds of eminent leaders who attribute their success to the political nurturing and development that take place in their student days. In fact, the contrary is true that, in a badly governed developing country, the absence of political idealism in the institutions of higher learning bodes ill for the future of that country, for the cream of the country's youth has fallen to mediocrity, denying the country the promise of inspiring leadership.
It is a well known fact that the vast majority of university students in this Country detest Mahathir for his unjust persecution of Anwar Ibrahim and for trampling democracy and mismanaging the Country; hence the necessity to stage manage this symposium by importing hordes of party members from UMNO to this supposedly an undergraduate affair (in itself an ironical retort to Mahathir's own cry to keep politics out of the campus).
The politically enlightened stand taken by the university students is commendable, considering the ruling party's monopolistic grip on the mass media to spread false propaganda to deceive the people of the truth. This independence of thought of the students speaks well of their ability to conduct analytical and critical thinking, helped to some extent by the availability of alternative information through the Internet.
Mahathir's speech is obviously intended to talk the students into abandoning their opposition to him. However, his facts and logic are strewn with fallacies, which are elaborated as follows.
1. Mahathir describes the students' opposition to him as attempts to destroy the Country with violent means.
This allegation is outrageous.
Firstly, the students have so far only participated in peaceful assembly, which is perfectly constitutional; and any violence arising there from always originate from the police, riot squads or other para-military personnel, and never from the students or public participants.
Secondly, if Mahathir should resign or his government buckles under the pressure of public opinion, it does not follow that the country and its heritage will be destroyed as alleged by Mahathir. In fact, such an event is a blessing to the country, for we will then be getting rid of a corrupt (self-confessed) and retrogressive and inefficient leadership, which will be replaced by a leadership with higher integrity and caliber. Talking about the Country's heritage, it is Mahathir himself who has destroyed this Country's heritage, as before his reign, in the times of Hussein Onn, Razak and the Tunku, money politics and cronyism were unheard of, corruption was rare, and our judiciary was held in the highest respect throughout the Common Wealth and around the world, in contrast to our present predicament when Malaysia is synonymous with money politics and cronyism and our judiciary universally held in ridicule and contempt, particularly following the infamous trials of Anwar.
2. Mahathir attributes the present political and economic turmoil in Indonesian to the students making street demonstrations, and warns that the same will happen to Malaysia if the students here also stage street demonstration.
Firstly, Indonesia's present misfortune is not caused by the students, but by decades of corrupt and autocratic rule by former President Suharto. Under Suharto's long misrule, corruption has become so ingrained in every strata of Indonesian society that it will take more than a few years to build up a creditable administration to put the country on the path of healthy growth, if a clean and able leadership emerges to take the whelm. Contrary to Mahathir's suggestion, the Indonesian students have made a positive contribution to their country by helping to topple a corrupt dictatorship. What transpired after the fall of Suharto is a process of transition from corrupt autocracy to democracy, by its nature a difficult job even in a small and simple society, and in the case of Indonesia, it is an awesome task fraught with challenges and uncertainties, considering the vastness and diversities of its territories, peoples and cultures, and the poor administrative institutions it has inherited from the previous ruler.
Secondly, Malaysia differs vastly from Indonesia. Peaceful demonstration by Malaysian university students protesting the wrongdoings of government would only help to put the country on the right path by pressuring the government to rectify its mistakes and awakening the public to such misdeeds. Contrary to Mahathir's claims, it would be the indifference by the students and the public to the rampant corruption and abuse of power that will put Malaysia on the slide towards an Indonesian style chaos.
Granted that Mahathir is entitled to say that the students may not be always right in their criticism of the government. However, in that event, the Government can easily overcome the problem by giving the true picture to the students and the public. Since the Government is in absolute control of all the mass media, such student protests should pose no challenge to them, if the government is honest and right. However, if it has committed serious crimes against the state, such as the government leadership being involved in an unlawful conviction of a former deputy prime minister through a political conspiracy, or massive corruption and abuse of power, then it would be natural for the government leadership to feel panic at the slightest indication of public protest, for fear that the truth may emerge and public protests may spread to an unmanageable level.
Mahathir's hysterical labeling of peaceful student demonstrations as violence to destroy the country is a symptom of the latter category.
3. To students' complaints of corruption, cronyism, abuse of power and wasteful mega projects, Mahathir's advice is that they should be patient and wait for their turn to rule, or alternatively, adhere to the democratic system which is they should not do anything to oppose the government other than casting their votes in an election (once every 5 years) to effect the change they want.
Mahathir's interpretation of democracy as merely the right to vote in an election, but not the right to oppose in between elections, is a laughable nonsense.
His exhortation to students to watch idly while the Nation slips from one crisis of confidence to another so that he can continue his misrule in peace is sheer wishful thinking.
In this hour of intense competition, thrown up in the fast pace ICT revolution and imminent market liberalization, not a day is to be lost in steering the Country onto a new course geared towards meeting these challenges.
Kim Quek.