Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s latest attempt to whip up fear over Malaysia’s trade negotiations is not about sovereignty or national interest - it is yet another repetition of a political script he has relied on for more than four decades. When Mahathir is not at the centre of power, he manufactures a crisis, declares the country is under threat, and positions himself as the only gatekeeper capable of saving Malaysia. The country has seen this too many times to take it seriously.
His sudden alarmism over “traps” and “foreign control” is especially hollow considering his own record. During his premiership, Malaysia entered into numerous deals and partnerships that were opaque, risky, or ultimately unsuccessful - many of which the public is still paying for. From the crooked “Buy British Last” policy that collapsed within a year, to the troubled Perwaja Steel project that suffered billions in losses, to the shipping and automotive ventures like MISC and Proton that required repeated government intervention, Mahathir was no stranger to deals that overpromised and underdelivered. Yet he never described those missteps as betrayals of sovereignty.
His international economic manoeuvres also weren’t without controversy. The currency controls of 1998, while partially stabilising, also scared off investors for years and damaged Malaysia’s reputation for predictability. The Malaysia–Japan “Look East” labour and education frameworks were framed as strategic, yet delivered uneven results and required major restructuring later. His administration’s push for heavy industries with foreign partners, from steel to cement to shipbuilding, often lacked transparency and long-term viability. These were not examples of foreign “traps” - they were examples of Mahathir’s own overreach.
And yet today, he demands absolute scrutiny of others while ignoring his own history of questionable deals, failed ventures, and costly experiments. The selective outrage is impossible to ignore.
Mahathir’s behaviour follows a pattern that has defined his political life. When Abdullah Badawi did not govern the way he wanted, he attacked him until he stepped down. When Najib Razak did not bend to his demands, Mahathir dismantled UMNO from the outside. When Pakatan Harapan collapsed under his watch, he blamed everyone except himself, despite being the central figure in that implosion. And when his own party rejected him, he simply created new ones - each time hoping to reclaim power.
Today, he repeats the script: gather NGOs, declare a national crisis, assign sinister motives to routine policies, and demand resignations. It is not a defence of Malaysia - it is a defence of his relevance.
The world has evolved, but Mahathir’s worldview has not. Modern trade frameworks are driven by digital flows, cross-border value chains, and regional integration. Yet Mahathir still interprets everything through a Cold War lens, where every negotiation is a plot and every agreement is colonisation. This thinking is outdated and damaging.
Malaysia has lived through enough turbulence caused by Mahathir’s confrontational style, from institutional fractures to economic policies that favoured cronies, centralised power, and created long-lasting instability. Each episode followed the same pattern: Mahathir claims to protect Malaysia while doing the opposite.
Malaysia deserves leaders who look forward, not relics who recycle the same decades-old tactics to stay in the spotlight. Mahathir’s script has expired - and the country should no longer allow itself to be pulled back into it.
His sudden alarmism over “traps” and “foreign control” is especially hollow considering his own record. During his premiership, Malaysia entered into numerous deals and partnerships that were opaque, risky, or ultimately unsuccessful - many of which the public is still paying for. From the crooked “Buy British Last” policy that collapsed within a year, to the troubled Perwaja Steel project that suffered billions in losses, to the shipping and automotive ventures like MISC and Proton that required repeated government intervention, Mahathir was no stranger to deals that overpromised and underdelivered. Yet he never described those missteps as betrayals of sovereignty.
His international economic manoeuvres also weren’t without controversy. The currency controls of 1998, while partially stabilising, also scared off investors for years and damaged Malaysia’s reputation for predictability. The Malaysia–Japan “Look East” labour and education frameworks were framed as strategic, yet delivered uneven results and required major restructuring later. His administration’s push for heavy industries with foreign partners, from steel to cement to shipbuilding, often lacked transparency and long-term viability. These were not examples of foreign “traps” - they were examples of Mahathir’s own overreach.
And yet today, he demands absolute scrutiny of others while ignoring his own history of questionable deals, failed ventures, and costly experiments. The selective outrage is impossible to ignore.
Mahathir’s behaviour follows a pattern that has defined his political life. When Abdullah Badawi did not govern the way he wanted, he attacked him until he stepped down. When Najib Razak did not bend to his demands, Mahathir dismantled UMNO from the outside. When Pakatan Harapan collapsed under his watch, he blamed everyone except himself, despite being the central figure in that implosion. And when his own party rejected him, he simply created new ones - each time hoping to reclaim power.
Today, he repeats the script: gather NGOs, declare a national crisis, assign sinister motives to routine policies, and demand resignations. It is not a defence of Malaysia - it is a defence of his relevance.
The world has evolved, but Mahathir’s worldview has not. Modern trade frameworks are driven by digital flows, cross-border value chains, and regional integration. Yet Mahathir still interprets everything through a Cold War lens, where every negotiation is a plot and every agreement is colonisation. This thinking is outdated and damaging.
Malaysia has lived through enough turbulence caused by Mahathir’s confrontational style, from institutional fractures to economic policies that favoured cronies, centralised power, and created long-lasting instability. Each episode followed the same pattern: Mahathir claims to protect Malaysia while doing the opposite.
Malaysia deserves leaders who look forward, not relics who recycle the same decades-old tactics to stay in the spotlight. Mahathir’s script has expired - and the country should no longer allow itself to be pulled back into it.
Comments
Post a Comment