How can Mahatir Wash the Reformace Blood Stain by Employing realm of spin-doctoring of Tom Plate

Tom Plate at Book Launch

Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad is not a PR exercise, says Tom Plate at Book Launch on February 22, 2011

 Untuk merampas kembali beberapa negeri yang dikuasai Pakatan Rakyat, selain mempastikan Putrajaya masih dalam genggaman, maka jentera Umno-BN tentunya ligat mencari dan mengusahakan jalan keluar.

Usaha meraih sokongan dan simpati melalui kerja-kerja propaganda secara terbuka tidak dapat menyembunyikan komplot atau konspirasi lebih besar, yang terselindung daripada pengetahuan umum, malah sukar untuk dihidu.

Sejak merdeka, Umno gagal membuktikan keupayaannya untuk memenangi pilihan raya  secara “anak jantan”. Segala kemudahan dan perkakas kerajaan diperalatkan, manakala kekuatan pembangkang dilumpuhkan melalui pelbagai tindakan kekerasan dan penggunaan undang-undang.

Jarang hujah saingan politiknya disanggah dengan argumen. Mereka berlindung di sebalik akta zalim seperti ISA, di samping mengamalkan rasuah politik dan menimbulkan budaya takut.

Apabila BN menghadapi kejutan dalam pilihan raya 1999, ekoran era Reformasi, apabila majoriti pengundi Melayu menunjukkan penentangan terbuka kepada Dr Mahathir Mohamad, ramai menyifatkan Umno bagai lembu nazak selepas disembelih, hanya menunggu maut menjemput. Saya cuba melihat di sebaliknya. Umno masih berkuasa penuh.Ia masih memegang majoriti dua pertiga. Kemudahan kerajaan termasuk institusi penting demokrasi, khususnya Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR), terbuka untuk diperalatkannya.

Masakan Mahathir hanya menunggu takdir melihat Umno dibungkus sejarah dan beliau terlucut jawatan perdana menteri. Secara licik, perancangan dilakukan penuh strategik. Senarai pendaftaran pemilih dan proses persempadan semula kawasan Parlimen dijadikan tumpuan. Untuk mendapat kerjasama SPR dan Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) misalnya bagi mewujudkan “pengundi hantu”, adalah perkara mudah.

Pembangkang hanya mampu melahirkan rasa terkejut dengan penambahan mendadak jumlah pendaftaran pengundi baru di kawasan tertentu, khususnya Terengganu, tanpa menyedari ia satu grand design merampas balik negeri yang kaya dengan minyak itu.

PRU12 lebih buruk berbanding 1999. Mustahil strategis Umno (termasuk Apco) duduk diam atau “biasa-biasa sahaja” menghadapi PRU13 nanti.

Benar, Najib cuba menjana pelbagai bentuk transformasi, namun di belakang tabir, saya yakin banyak “perancangan kotor” yang sedang berjalan secara cukup sulit. Dibimbangi kita hanya tersedar selepas pelan licik itu berjaya disempurnakan dalam pilihan raya nanti.

Pendedahan wartawan Saidah Hairan tentang operasi pertukaran alamat penduduk Sabah – yang mendapat kerjasama sepenuhnya pejabat JPN di Shah Alam – untuk mengundi di Selangor mungkin cebisan kecil daripada konspirasi lebih besar yang masih belum dapat dibongkar. Saidah berada di lokasi kejadian dan sempat berbual-bual dengan mereka yang terlibat.

Umno Selangor yang diterajui Najib Razak sendiri sedang meniti laluan “hidup atau mati”. Apa jua akan dilakukannya bagi memastikan Umno dapat merampas Selangor dalam PRU13 sebelum kekuatan Pakatan Rakyat terasas lebih kukuh di negeri paling maju itu.

Ramai syak bahawa ada operasi lebih besar berkaitan senarai daftar pemilih, juga melibatkan kerjasama erat JPN dan SPR. Ia bukan sekadar mengagihkan pengundi ke lokasi lebih strategik berdasarkan kepentingan politik Umno, tetapi juga membabitkan warga asing yang mungkin diberikan  kad pengenalan untuk kegunaan di hari mengundi. Proses penyamaran identiti dan mengundi lebih sekali bukan perkara baru di Malaysia.

Usaha membersihkan proses pilihan raya di negara ini masih meniti jalan-jalan penuh krikil ... Harakah mengalu-alukan informasi tentang konspirasi Umno ini jika anda mempunyai bahan bukti atau sumber cerita yang boleh kami lanjutkan.

II. Mahathir, Menteri Dalam Negeri yang paling lemah kuasanya?

Dr Mahathir Mohamad, 17 Feb lalu, berkata beliau sebenarnya mahu memansuhkan ISA ketika memegang tampuk pemerintahan negara selama 22 tahun. Bagaimanapun, dakwanya, usaha itu gagal kerana Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) menolak cadangan tersebut.

“ISA harus digunakan ikut keperluan tapi bila saya jadi perdana menteri saya mahu ia dimansuhkan tetapi polis menentang. Bila saya cadangkan usul itu, ia ditolak,” katanya  pada Forum Cabaran Semasa Demokrasi dan Perlembagaan ke Arah Pencapaian Wawasan 2020 di bangunan Parlimen. Sebelum ini, merujuk  Ops Lalang 1987 yang melibatkan lebih 100 orang tokoh masyarakat dan penggantungan empat akhbar, Mahathir juga menyalahkan pihak polis.

Saya pelik mengapa Mahathir perlu menimbulkan isu ini dengan nada berbeda. Apakah Mahathir mahu menulis semula sejarah daripada kacamatanya sendiri, walaupun terpaksa melakukan pendustaan terang-terangan? Mungkinkah rasa bersalah bekas Perdana Menteri ini membuatkan beliau resah-gelisah sehingga sanggup berbicara apa sahaj menurut sedap hatinya?

Regim Mahathir memang penuh babak-babak kontroversial. Beliau diasak pelbagai masalah, sama ada dari dalam Umno, dengan raja-raja, pihak peguam, kesatuan sekerja, ulamak, hakim dan lama sebelum itu, dengan mahasiswa. Tidak sedikit korban yang gugur ekoran pertembungan itu.

Paling menjolok mata, partinya sendiri, Umno, diharamkan atas kehendak beliau. Kebebasan institusi kehakiman musnah; tiga hakim Mahkamah Agung termasuk Ketua Hakim Negara dipecat melalui proses tribunal yang mengelirukan.

Khususnya selepas pemilihan presiden Umno 1987, yang menyaksikan beliau hampir tumpas kepada Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Mahathir bertindak keras mengetatkan lagi akta zalim seperti Akta Polis, Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan dan ISA. Elok ditekankan di sini, Mahathir juga sepanjang pemerintahannya melakukan siri pindaan perlembagaan bagi membataskan kuasa hakim dan mahkamah, sebaliknya memperuntukkan lebih kuasa kepada eksekutif, iaitu dirinya sendiri.

Saya masih ingat situasi cemas yang sengaja diwujudkan sekitar pertengahan 1987 membawa kepada hari gelita, 27 Oktober 1987.

Kedudukan Mahathir memang terancam. Sentimen perkauman berkaitan isu sekolah Cina sengaja diapi-apikan. Anehnya, tokoh-tokoh politik Umno dan MCA yang galak menimbulkan rasa gelisah ketika itu, termasuk Najib Razak, tidak pula dikurung. Pimpinan PAS pula yang ditahan, antaranya Mohamad Sabu, Khalid Samad, Halim Arshat dan Mahfuz Omar.

Mahathir boleh saja mendapat sokongan bekas Ketua Polis Negara, Abd Hamid Omar atas dakwaannya bahawa inisiatif penahanan dimulakan oleh polis tetapi saya tidak mempercayainya, sekali gus beranggapan ia satu lagi “jenaka terbaik” Mahathir. Gerak itu mesti bermula dan dirancang oleh orang politik yang berkepentingan. Tiada pihak paling mendapat manfaat daripada Ops Lalang itu melainkan Mahathir.

Memang semasa mula menjadi PM, Mahathir membebaskan beberapa orang tahanan ISA. Najib juga meneladaninya. Tetapi apabila berdepan krisis, berikutan dasar dan pendekatan pemerintahannya yang menimbulkan banyak penentangan, Mahathir “akan menggunakan sebesar-besar senjata walaupun untuk memusnahkan musuh yang kecil”.

Okey, kita terimalah dulu lawak Mahathir itu. Bersopan sungguh Mahathir dalam kerjanya, ya? Sentiasa mengutamakan pandangan pihak lain walaupun bercanggah dengan dirinya. Soalnya, kalaupun ISA tidak dapat dimansuhkan, mengapa pula Mahathir sentiasa memperketatkan akta itu dari masa ke semasa walaupun ancaman komunis bersenjata yang menjadi punca penggubalan ISA sudah berakhir? Berbanding tiga PM sebelumnya, Ops Lalang membabitkan paling ramai penahanan tokoh masyarakat berprofil tinggi.

Mengapa apabila berdepan permohonan habeas corpus Lim Kit Siang, salah seorang tahanan ISA 1987, dan Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang terpaksa melepaskannya, maka dengan segera dan tergesa-gesa Mahathir melakukan pindaan akta berkenaan apabila kes ditangguhkan. Hari ini pindaan dibahaskan di Dewan Rakyat, esok dibawa ke Dewan Negara dan kemudiannya pantas diwartakan. Apabila kes Kit Siang disambung perbicaraan, peluang beliau dibebaskan tertutup rapat disebabkan hakim telah menggunakan akta yang baru dipinda itu!

Begitu juga dengan kes penangkapan Karpal Singh, di bawah Ops Lalang. Pada 9 Mac 1988, Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh membebaskannya disebabkan fakta pertuduhan pihak polis didapati tidak benar. Karpal didakwa member ucapan berbaur hasutan di satu lokasi sedangkan beliau berada di tempat lain ketika itu. Hanya beberapa jam selepas dibebaskan mahkamah, Karpal ditangkap semula. Pihak Peguam Negara kemudiannya membuat rayuan kepada Mahkamah Agung atas keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.

“Jangan dok merapu lagilah Mahathir,” SMS seorang kawan.

III. Gerak politik Ikhwan semasa Revolusi 1952 tersasar?

Ikhwan Muslimin – walaupun selepas ditekan dan dianiayai selama lebih 60 tahun – diakui gerakan paling tersusun, kuat dan berpengaruh di Mesir. Kini, selepas Hosni Mubarak tersungkur, bukan saja warga Mesir menanti langkah dan kebijaksanaan pemimpin Ikhwan, malah dunia sedang memerhatikannya penuh minat. Revolusi rakyat yang turut menganugerahkan ramai syuhada itu membawa harapan cukup besar bagi memastikan proses pembaharuan berjalan lancar.

Semasa saya mencari-cari catatan pengalaman demonstran di Medan Tahrir (disebabkan rasa kagum dengan kecekalan dan kehebatan mereka bertahan selama hampir 20 hari), saya disuakan dengan analisis menarik pakar Timur Tengah, Dr Mohammad Redzuan Othman tentang Ikhwan. Bagaimanapun perkembangan yang disorotnya itu bukan situasi terkini, tetapi bedah-siasat kegagalan Ikhwan dalam konflik politik di Mesir, antara tahun 1948-1954. Umumnya, artikel itu seperti menonjolkan banyak kelemahan Ikhwan tetapi saya berasakan ia penting untuk melihat sejauhmana pemimpinnya kini dapat memanfaatkan iktibar masa lalu, berdepan realiti kritikal hari ini.

Ikhwan ketika itu muncul sebagai organisasi yang paling mendapat sambutan rakyat dengan keahlian dua juta. Hinggakan apabila meletus perang di Palestin, Ikhwan merupakan satu-satunya organisasi yang berjaya menghantar sukarelawan terlatih untuk menentang Israel. Pasukan ini mendapat sanjungan kerana keberanian dan kehebatannya.

Bagaimanapun, dengan pengalaman dan pemilikan senjata, Ikhwan terdedah kepada risiko besar terutama disebabkan tindakan segelintir anggotanya yang melakukan keganasan politik, di luar pengetahuan dan kawalan Hasan Al-Banna.

Berpunca daripada insiden “keganasan”, Ikhwan diharamkan, dan 32 anggotanya ditangkap bersama sejumlah senjata. Al-Banna menegaskankan senjata itu untuk menentang Israel dan kewujudannya diketahui pemerintah. Pembunuhan Perdana Menteri, Nokrasyi Pasya, memburukkan lagi imej Ikhwan. Selepas  Al-Banna ditembak syahid pada 1949, Ikhwan bukan saja sukar menjadi pengganti sedinamik beliau, malah menghadapi masalah perebutan kuasa, yang mengakibatkan pengaruhnya semakin lemah.

Hasan Al-Hudaibi, bagi  pimpinan Ikhwan tertentu, bukan pengganti terbaik kerana dikira masih baru dalam jamaah dan bukan dari kalangan pengasas; perlantikannya mencetuskan perpecahan dalaman. Beliau berlatarbelakang perundangan, seorang yang bersikap sederhana, tenang dan lemah-lembut.

Mesir pula mencatat sejarah apabila Raja Farouk digulingkan dalam Revolusi Julai 1952, yang digerakkan sekumpulan pegawai tentera, Free Officers (diketuai Mohamed Neguib dan Gamal Abdul Nasser). Secara tidak langsung kemarahan rakyat kepada raja turut disumbangkan oleh Ikhwan. Free Officers dianggarkan hanya dianggotai 50 pegawai tentera, dengan hubungan yang longgar dan spontan. Menyedari Ikhwan mempunyai pengaruh besar di kalangan rakyat serta mantap organisasinya, Free Officers sedaya upaya cuba mewujudkan kerjasama dan persefahaman, terutama di peringkat awal.

Sebagai tanda persahabatan, Free Officers memenuhi tuntutan Ikhwan, antaranya membuka kembali kes pembunuhan Al-Banna, membebaskan anggota yang ditahan, pembubaran polis rahsia dan pelantikan seorang penyokongnya, Kolonel Rashad Muhanna sebagai salah seorang menteri kabinet dalam kerajaan sementara. Ikhwan nampak berpuas hati dan memberikan sokongan, tetapi pada masa sama Free Officers memperkukuhkan dominasinya dalam politik Mesir bagi membolot kuasa, selain berhasrat melakukan komplot jahat memusnahkan Ikhwan. Pada 14 Oktober 1952, Rashad MUhanna digugurkan daripada Majlis Revolusi disebabkan beliau lantang bersuara supaya dilaksanakan Perlembagaan Islam di Mesir.

Semasa Free Officers memperkukuhkan kedudukannya, Ikhwan pula dilanda krisis demi krisis. Dalam mesyuarat majlis syira pada 9 Disember 1953, beberapa tokoh penting Ikhwan dipecat keanggotaannya, seperti Muhammad Al-Ghazali dan Sayyid Sabiq. Nasser menyedari kewujudan krisis dalaman itu  dan beliau mengambil kesempatan melaga-lagakan pemimpin Ikhwan.

Regim tentera juga berjaya menyusup masuk. Perancangan rapi diatur bagi mengharamkan Ikhwan, dan hanya selepas satu setengah tahun sahaja selepas revolusi, ia diharamkan, manakala 450 anggotanya ditangkap termasuk semua ahli majlis syura dan Mursyidul Amnya, Hasan Al-Hudaibi.

Susulan itu, pada 26 Oktober 1954, “drama” pembunuhan Nasser dilakonkan apabila beberapa das tembakan dilepaskan ketika beliau memulakan ucapannya di Iskandariah. Penembaknya dikatakan seorang anggota pertubuhan bersenjata Ikhwan. Tiada yang cedera, cuma beberapa mentol lampu sahaja pecah. Nasser meneruskan ucapan dan menonjolkan imejnya sebagai manusia yang mendapat perlindungan Allah daripada angkara “pengkhianat”. Peristiwa itu digunakan regim tentera untuk menghapuskan Ikhwan. Sebelum subuh 27 Oktober 1954, lebih 7,000 penyokong dan pemimpin Ikhwan ditangkap. Tujuh pemimpinnya dihukum gantung dan tujuh lagi dipenjarakan seumur hidup.

Redzuan merumuskan, Ikhwan membuat beberapa perhitungan politik yang boleh dipertikai. Walaupun mempunyai pengaruh dan kekuatan tetapi Ikhwan tidak menggunakan kesempatan apabila sampai masanya dan kesempatan ini disebut pihak lain. Mereka tidak menggunakan tawar-menawar politik yang berkesan di peringkat awal ketika Free Officers masih lemah. Inggeris juga melakukan sabotaj dalam perundingan dengan Ikhwan (sehingga dituduh membelot kepada negara) dan ini memberi tekanan lagi kepadanya. Kewibawaan Nasser, terutamadari segi imiginasi politiknya yang baik, berjaya menyingkirkan semua saingannya. Nasser bukan saja membunuh ramai pemimpin Ikhwan, malah memaksa mereka melarikan diri sehingga ke Eropah.

Kini, masa berubah. Gerak politik Ikhwan selepas Revolusi Rakyat Medan Tahrir tentu juga berbeda. – harakahdaily.net

The author of the latest book on former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad today insisted that his book is not a public relations exercise as some have suggested.

Tom Plate (left), author of ‘Doctor M: Operation Malaysia; Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad’ defended the book as an attempt to understand Mahathir’s psyche rather than to judge his decisions.

“This is not a whitewash. Not a public relations exercise,” said Plate during the book launch today.

“I wrote a book that I wanted to write. It’s an appreciation, not a nomination; it’s a critical appreciation.

“It is about understanding the thinking behind the decisions and not the decisions…(Whether the decisions Mahathir made were right) is for you to decide,” he said.

Launched at the Perdana Leadership Foundation, Putrajaya today, the book has been slammed by some critics who felt that it was apologetic of the transgressions committed by Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister.

For example author and former journalist Kee Thuan Chye in his book review for Malaysiakini even said that Plate was “fawning”, and that the former prime minister was “airbrushed like a hero”.

Opposition leaders, especially those who had denied ever meeting Mahathir prior to their arrests during Operation Lalang crackdown as the former premier has claimed in Plate’s book, have also accused Mahathir of trying to rewrite history.

‘Who hasn’t made mistakes?’

As if responding to his critics, Plate today said, “In assessing a man’s life you have to weigh it…is there anyone in the audience who hasn’t made mistakes?

“Look at the economic development. The standing up for Malaysia. This was not somebody who’d be a pussycat,” he said. The American career journalist added that Mahathir, whom he also described as “more entertaining than a travelling circus”, displayed incredible gumption with the “cool” Buy British Last campaign, less than a year into his premiership.

The book, Plate stressed, is a journalist’s perspective and not a biography. “I told Mahathir I wasn’t out to get him but I was not out to make him a saint. I was trying to understand,” he later told reporters.

In the book, Plate describes the elder statesman as a “soft authoritarian” and notes that Mahathir  who takes home a pension of USD 3,000 a month is “not greedy” and is gratified by his achievements.

He also credits Mahathir’s leadership for stability in Malaysia and for the lack of terrorist attacks on the country, which Plate says bucks the trend of other Muslim-majority countries.

Interestingly, Plate in the book also does not correct the former PM when in their conversations Mahathir mistakenly says that no Jewish people died in the World Trade Centre attacks in 2001, but instead expresses relief when his subject choses not to elaborate on the matter.

Dr Mahathir skips launch

Plate’s book is now tops on the Malaysian non-fiction best seller list, while special editions of the book which are autographed by Plate and Mahathir are selling for RM10,000 each. Four have since been sold, and all proceeds of the sale of the special editions will be donated to four charities chosen by book launch sponsor Fraser n Neave (F&N) Holdings Berhad and Mahathir himself.

Speaking to reporters later, F&N chief executive officer Jordan Ng Jui Sia said that the book is a “good appreciation of the things that Mahathir stand for and the things he had said.”

Mahathir himself was, however, absent. It is understood that he had chosen not to attend to let Plate enjoy the limelight.

Anwar Ibrahim disputes his former political mentor, Dr. Mahathir on ISA

by Debra Chong @www.themalaysianinsider.com

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has disputed Tun Hanif Omar’s claim that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had wanted to scrap the Internal Security Act (ISA), saying today the former prime minister had never discussed it openly or in party meetings.

The country’s longest-serving national police chief had claimed today that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar had wanted the ISA abolished but the police had objected to the proposal.

“Mahathir has never supported any amendments or to scrap the ISA when I was there, whether openly or at party meetings. Tun Hanif Omar may have had some meetings in private with Mahathir but I am not aware of that fact,” Anwar told reporters during a break in his ongoing Sodomy II trial at the Kuala Lumpur High Court here.

Dr Mahathir had also claimed today that he had wanted to abolish the ISA when serving as prime minister but had faced opposition from the police.

The 1960 security law allows for detention without trial and a 1989 amendment under Dr Mahathir’s rule removed the option for judicial review, granting the home minister absolute discretion to extend or reduce detention time.

Hanif, who served as the police chief for 20 years until 1994, said the issue was first raised by Anwar at a security briefing prior to his retirement from the service. “Anwar said we should abolish ISA, Dr Mahathir said OK,” recounted Hanif at a forum on parliamentary democracy here.

He said he later urged the two leaders to reconsider their plans, and suggested they merely review the security law.

Opposition Leader Anwar said today he raised the issue at a National Security Council meeting after he entered government in 1982. He claimed to have mooted a proposal to scrap the ISA but it was rejected by the Attorney-General and Hanif, who was the IGP then.

The Permatang Pauh MP added that he tried to resurrect it in the 1990s when he became deputy prime minister. “If we can’t scrap it, why not revise it to amend some provisions to allow for appeal purposes? If you check the Hansard, it should show that when I was DPM I had said that we are willing to study and amend the ISA but it was not taken up because it had to be taken up by the home minister,” he said, referring to Dr Mahathir, who held the portfolio at the time.

Dr Mahathir also recently blamed the police for a mass ISA arrest in 1987, which led to the detention of then-Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, his son Lim Guan Eng and 104 others.

Hanif recently sought to exculpate Dr Mahathir over the crackdown, known as Operasi Lalang, saying it was done to avoid a racial riot in Kuala Lumpur.

Anwar himself has been arrested under the ISA twice, the first in 1974 soon after Hanif was appointed IGP. His second ISA arrest was in 1998 following his sacking as deputy prime minister by Dr Mahathir

By Kee Thuan Chye

 

BOOK REVIEW Gush and glibness spread through Tom Plate's 'Doctor M: Operation Malaysia - Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad' like irksome background noise. And rather than show us the former prime minister of Malaysia for what he is, Plate tells us how to picture him.

One of the most fawning comments Plate (left) makes about Mahathir, whom he generously plugs as a “soft authoritarian”, is that “the best doctors are almost always soft authoritarians. They make you take the medicine that's good for you, whether you like it or not.”

That's hard to swallow, and not just because it's a gross generalisation.

The American career journalist's book of his interviews with Mahathir is essentially gung-ho journalism as entertainment - with the non-self-effacing interviewer appearing as a commentator as well (sometimes as a stand-up comic, too), and the subject airbrushed to look like a hero.

To be sure, we get glimpses into the subject's dark side, but only enough to give the required colouring.

Plate hails Mahathir during his 22 years in office as “arguably the world's single most important practising Muslim national political leader”. In typical hyperbolic fashion, he dubs Mahathir “the ultimate anti-al-Qaeda” (my italics).

“Jews may think he is their enemy, and maybe they are right. But in my view they have got it wrong - tragically wrong.”

That's the main thesis of his book, and he goes all out to affirm it. He is amazed - and impressed - that during Mahathir's rule, Islamic terrorism erupted in many parts of the world whereas Malaysia was totally free of violence. That, for him, accounts for Mahathir's prowess as an Islamic leader to be lauded by the world.

Any sensible Malaysian could have told him that this was simply because Mahathir created a culture of fear. He had the ISA and an excellent Special Branch that could nip any trouble in the bud. He did not tolerate public dissent and he muzzled the media.

Plate takes the line that “maybe this place doesn't have as many crazies as Indonesia, but it must have some” and asks Mahathir: “What was it about Dr M's management of Malaysia, his government's management of the Muslims? They were responsible citizens.”

Again, any sensible Malaysian could have told him it was because Mahathir gave paramountcy to Islam and Muslims. So why should Malaysian Muslims be disgruntled? And as for Islamic terrorists from outside, why would they target Malaysia, a brother Muslim country?

Protective of thesis

Plate is barking up the wrong tree. His thesis is flawed. But he appears ever protective of it.

There is even one occasion, as recounted in the book, when Plate seems more protective of his thesis than having the opportunity of portraying what Mahathir really is. This is over Mahathir's assertion that there were hardly any Jews in the World Trade Centre when 9/11 happened.

To himself, Plate admits that this “seemed a borderline scary assertion, factually inaccurate (in fact, there were hundreds of Jews among the fatalities)”. But he doesn't correct Mahathir.

Instead, he feels worried that Mahathir might say more, that he might endorse “the ludicrous hypothesis that the government of Israel had secretly orchestrated the 9/11 attacks”. And when Mahathir doesn't say more, Plate actually sighs “with enormous relief”.

“It became one of those rare times in our conversations that I was truly glad to see him pull up, for to doubt his maturity (not to mention his mental health) would not be healthy for the book. Or for my thesis that Mahathir's life and views are of profound relevance today.”

Plate notes that a few months later, “after we finished our series of conversations”, Mahathir “came out with a lulu” when he said if the US was capable of making the movie Avatar, it was capable of staging 9/11.

That, as Malaysians know, was one of the most laughable statements ever made by anyone, but Plate merely leaves it as a by-the-by. Obviously, pursuing it would have compromised his thesis.

He is generally gentle with Mahathir. He is seldom confrontational; he asks politely framed questions, and when an issue looks in danger of getting heated, he eases off.

Thus, when it comes to the issue of some of “Dr M's relatives (being) worth plenty, and that the good doctor himself has funds and shares stashed here and there (and especially in Japan) and everywhere”, he doesn't push it. He chooses instead to project Mahathir as the humble wage-earner who as PM made less than US$3,000 a month, “like a meagre US journalist's pension”.

Mahathir comes out looking like a saint who says he's not greedy and that his “real reward is achievement”.

When it comes to Malaysian issues, Plate often does not ask the right questions or press on with relevant follow-up ones.

Here's one question he could have asked Mahathir but did not when the latter said he was against detaining the 106 people during Operasi Lalang: “Why then did you, as Home Minister, sign the order to detain 40 of them for two years?”

When Plate asks, “Does the government of Malaysia have good control over ISA?” and Mahathir answers, “Yes”, he could have followed that up with: “Then why did the government detain an innocent journalist under the ISA in 2008 and even say, stupidly, that it was for her own protection?”

Alarmingly, Plate goes to the extent of justifying Mahathir's management style as “politically efficient corruption”. One would have thought corruption was corruption, but Plate prettifies it here: “Dr M kind of bribed the whole country to behave! … (it) produces something of value that cannot always be quantifiable: getting key elements of a society to buy into the system so as to attain political stability ... it may be the most politically efficient.”

This would normally belong in the realm of spin-doctoring, but in journalism these days, you never know!

In any case, Plate's book is not hard-talk, hard-core journalism stuff. It's written for a popular audience, and comes complete with hyperboles, corny bits (“If nothing else, the Proton was further evidence … of Dr M's protean will”) and naïve remarks by the author.

His chapter titles, modelled after the James Bond movies for the laughable reason that Mahathir is a man of action, are not only corny but also strained. A bad-taste example is 'Die Another Way?', the chapter on the 9/11 deaths.

On the whole, 'Dr M: Operation Malaysia' seems closer to cosmetic surgery than dissection. For a more substantial interview, without the pop and the corn and the showman-like sheen, you'd be better off reading 'Hard Truths'.