Who really sowed the seeds of racism?

'The current state of affairs in Malaysia is because of Mahathir's 22 years of rule. Who is a better administrator, Lee or Mahathir?'

Sep 15, 2010

Dr M: Genesis of racialism began with PAP

Yeoh Sock Hin: Dr Mahathir Mohamad may give his side of the story, but this is not what I gathered when we read Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs on the difficult years when he had to deal with politicians from Malaya and also on the racial strife that happened. Of course each of them is entitled to their own opinion.

So how then shall we assess who is right? I look at who is able to manage better, who has better attributes to ensure less corruption and abuse of power and who is able to anticipate problems and taking steps pre-emptively to resolve the problems. On all these accounts, I consider Lee and Singapore performing and doing much better.

Singapore may be smaller, but the problems they faced were definitely more complex, urgent and protracted. If Malaysian politicians were to manage Singapore from day one, I think Singapore would be a city slum today.

We can accuse LKY for being dictatorial. We shall let history be the final judge whether what he did was justifiable. I believe history will be on his side, not Mahathir's.

Tell the Truth: Mahthir should be ashamed of himself for trying to blame Lee for the racial tensions in our nation. Please look at yourself before blaming others. If there is one racist, you are the worst of them all. Shame on you at this age to blame others for the mess made in race relations in the country.

If not for your bumiputera status implementation, we would not have a racial divide today. You will go to your grave and the people will remember you for this sin of racialism. And imagine, you are still doing it even though you are out of government. Please retire for good lest divine judgment comes upon you.

Pemerhati: There are some similarities between Mahathir and Lee. Both were dictatorial, they suppressed the opposition by using and abusing the government agencies that they controlled and both have exhibited their racism through their statements. Lee was criticised by a Malaysian Chinese writer in Aliran when he made a racist statement in the 1980s about the importance of maintaining the ethnic Chinese population at 80 percent in Singapore.

The similarity ends there. Malaysia under Mahathir became extremely corrupt and the top people stole hundreds of billion ringgit of the people's money and the important state institutions were destroyed. The people remain poor and get low-quality service from the degraded institutions.

Singapore, unlike Malaysia became squeaky clean, embraced meritocracy and treated all its citizens fairly and equally. The people get first class service from its excellent civil institutions manned by the best people and their per capita income is five times that of the Malaysians.

Phra Ong Chao: In a way, Mahathir is saying that Kuan Yew is such a genius and he himself is not so competent because he is in effect saying that Kuan Yew managed to sow the seeds of racism some 50 years ago and Mahathir had failed to kill off this problem started by Kuan Yew despite being Malaysia's prime minister for two decades.

And while Kuan Yew's seeds of racism grew and grew in Malaysia, his own country became one of the most successful countries in the world. Mahathir must admire Kuan Yew a lot judging from his comments.

When both Mahathir and Kuan Yew were in power, it seemed as if both were great leaders at home and abroad. After their retirement however, Mahathir has been reduced to a petty racist who makes illogical and hate-filled comments for the sake of making them while Kuan Yew has continued to make intelligent and world-class comments.

Pietiring: In the early 2000, my company sent me to Singapore for a training. Leaving Changi airport, I conveniently got seated in a limo. Though being different in colour, brown against him yellow, I felt very much welcomed in his limo. After some time, the limo pulled into heavy traffic so I did not hesitate to break the ice by asking how is life in Singapore.

The reply did not surprise me: 'I'm very happy living in this city. I own this limo which provides enough earning for my family, the goverment allocates an apartment for my family and my two kids are doing well in their schools'.

Before he dropped me at my hotel in Orchard Road, he even suggested a few eateries where Malay food was served. The roads were very wide and almost full with pedestrians against trees decorated with sparkling lights. Nobody feared another. It was safe and there was nothing to fear. I guess many other things can be learnt from this city-state; my salute to the old Lee Kuan Yew.

Paul Warren: Mahathir keeps repeating, 'Singapore was a country where the majority of the Chinese citizens control 95 percent of the economy while its minorities are poor'. But is any Singaporean denied the opportunity to advance? Educationally? Career-wise? Professionally or in business? Bloody hell, no! Over here, only the bumiputera may say that they are not denied, indeed they are given a leg up. But then again you got to separate the wheat from the chaff. Umno Malays are quite different from the rest of the Malays.

Zulkefli Ibrahim: I believe what Mahathir says. If Lee is not around, the racism issue will not be an issue and Singapore will still be in Malaysia. All these fellas who know how to criticise do not know history and will always be a slave to a foreigner, even one in Singapore! What a pity. They are so messed up and don't know how to appreciate what is there in Malaysia and the unique situation we are in.

If Lee led Malaysia, we will not even be near where we are now. It will be a little China as what Singapore is now. No identity but just shout 'I am Singaporean'. What is 'Singaporean'?

Ruben: Both Lee and Mahathir are very similar in having brilliant minds, bold visions, the need to be ruthless when required and both are very successful and respected. The biggest diffrence is that Lee actually became a much better person with age, still very much concerned about Singapore's future as a whole irrespective of race and creed, gaining more and more respect both as the true elder statesman, groomed a successor and has a soft side to him e.g. ttaking care of his wife.

Whilst Mahathir for all his brilliance, visions and achievements was so caught up in his web of deceit in his later years of being the PM and started destroying all the good work that he had done through cronyism, racial threats and widespread corruption and wielding such arrogance to remove anthing in his path

He never had any intention of really grooming a successor but actually destroyed them. He comes across as a man so bitter with no interior peace at all.

Meranti Kepong: I have a great respect for Lee Kuan Yew who is considered as full of wisdom, often sought out by the West for political opinions and indeed, a world's statesman. Too bad that Mahathir doesn't see eye-to-eye with Lee and is hell-bent on mouthing nonsense against this great man of the age.

I urge all those who admire Lee's brilliant administration of Singapore which led it to be an economic powerhouse and an island-city of prosperity and stability to please read his popular two-volume memoirs. Therein are many gems of truths regarding Lee's relationship with Umno.

Hence, Lee's concept of a 'Malaysian Malaysia', if implemented, would prevent many dangerous pitfalls and the racial bickering going on in today's Malaysia. History will prove Lee Kuan Yew right and Mahathir wrong.

Swipenter: Why is Mahathir continuing to champion racism in Malaysia and earning himself the distinction of being the 'Father of Racism' whereas Lee did the opposite in Singapore? Looking at what Lee has achieved for Singapore and what Mahathir has achieved for Malaysia, the conclusion is glaringly obvious of who did a better job.

We can say that Lee's achievements are outstanding whereas Mahathir is mediocre and pales in comparison. Both of them had very similar styles of governing their respective countries but the main difference between them was their tolerance for corruption and race chauvinism. Someone is a real sore loser and has a very bad case of sour grapes.

Wira: Putting race politics aside, Mahathir is responsible for the corruption of Malaysian politics and government. Unfortunately, it is an irreversible process that permeates almost every segment of public service and institution in this country. Now compare this infamous achievement with Lee's incorruptible governing of Singapore.

Dingy: The current state of affairs in Malaysia is because of Mahathir's 22 years of rule. Who is a better administrator, Lee or Mahathir? Singapore is a well-planned city while KL is not. Singapore is a safe city but KL is not. Singapore's public transport is excellent, but KL's is not.

We have better natural resources and yet we are pathetic compared to our neighbours. Why? This is because Umno under Mahathir was busy looting the country. Every project that he approved was over-priced. That's the main reason why we are in this state of affairs. Don't blame Lee because under him, Singapore was better managed.

Aramsa: Mahathir may have got the facts partially right but he has obviously got the reasons all wrong. Why Lee advocated s 'Malaysian Malaysia' as compared to a 'Malay Malaysia' was obviously because Malaysia was not a homogeneous society but a multiracial society. And in order to have national identity and unity, the better option was for a Malaysian identity.

It is true that you can't change the colour of your skin but being a new nation which we called Malaysia during its formation, it is natural to have political differences over the direction in which the nation should be heading. Tun, you fought hard for the Malay race which you have been harping on as needing special support economically. But that was in the 1960s/70s and 80s.

Now, we are in the 21st century and you are still telling the Malays that they still lack the ability to stand on their own. Tun, why do you have to continue to belittle the Malays? The ideology that Lee advocated bore fruit in what Singapore is today (never mind the tyranny or what not).

David: The inferior intellect lashes out with blind fury, blaming the other party and never himself, as usual.

MW: I think it is unbecoming of Lee to comment about Malaysia the way he did, it's out of line and a bad reflection of an elder statesman. In this case, I don't blame Mahathir for feeling he has to respond. Having said that, however, Mahathir should really stop pointing fingers at others. He is Malaysia's longest serving PM, a whole generation grew up not knowing anyone else but Dr M at the helm.

This is the generation which he has driven apart through his policies about which he is still living in denial today. And I am not talking about racism here, I am talking about the gulf between the 'connected' of all races versus those who are not, ie, the ordinary citizens, of all races.

Vijay: I read a few minutes ago Lee's interview with the International Herald Tribune. Lest you think it was an interview devoted to savaging and condemning Mahathir and Malaysia, it was merely an 87-year-old man speaking of his mortality, his ill wife, and his family, sharing secrets of what kept him going and what stimulated his mind. He spoke of the challenges that he and his Singapore faced in the quest to make Singapore what it is today.

With perhaps much more than a tinge of pain and regret, he also mentioned the misguided direction taken by Malaysia, how its playing the racial card did not get it anywhere. Mahathir's response explicitly reveals the person - a sick bitter man unwilling to accept responsibility for the sins and crimes he wrought upon his own nation, envious that his nemesis is respected the world over as a stateman while he himself is regarded as nothing but a political has-been.

Incidentally, there is no mention at all in the interview of a 'failed state'. Or of Mahathir.

Ferdtan: Dr Mahathir, eat your heart out - Lee Kuan Yew gets interviewed by the New York Times, while you can only blog. Sorry, the world does not want to hear you for your opinion. Don't piggyback on Lee Kuan Yew's story to get a little attention for yourself - so pathetic.