Change?

I know some of you in recent times don't like, nay, in fact hate RPK when once you had adored him, wakakaka.

You said he has changed but isn't that his right of freedom of expression and free association, what more when he was down and out (and incarcerated), no one came to his immediate rescue.

Perhaps you have been the ones to change, from your previous adoration and idolisation of him to your current dislike if not hatred of him, wakakaka.

So indeed, why should RPK continue to seppuku-rise himself. He is completely at liberty to choose who he wants to support, slaughter and syiok-kan (wakakaka) in his posts.

Of course we can disagree with him because that's our choice, and I personally have at times disagree and at times agree with him, such is political life everywhere. But we can be civilised about it, can't we? I hope you'll change in this regard, wakakaka.

Anyway, his latest post is MAHATHIR HAS OUTLIVED HIS GOODWILL in which he discussed 'goodwill' and contrasted Mahathir's lack of grace and also lack of senior statesmanship qualities with others like Barack Obama and AAB. In a couple of paragraphs, RPK wrote:

Today, Mahathir no longer has any goodwill left. Even the good he may have done in his first ten years as Prime Minister in the 1980s is forgotten. What many remember are just the bad parts of his 22 years reign. And this was the period he decided to resign from Umno (last year), and form his new party (PPBM or Pribumi), and take over as the de facto Opposition Leader, and try to bring all the opposition parties under one roof (Pakatan Harapan) and so on.

Ten years ago in 2006 this may have worked. Back in 2006, when he decided to take on Abdullah, Mahathir’s goodwill was tremendous. In fact, it was so tremendous that when he told the Chinese, even those from Barisan Nasional, to vote opposition in 2008 they did (Mahathir’s Chinese Tsunami). And that was why five states and 82 parliament seats fell to the opposition. Mahathir now realises that what he did in 2006 and 2008 can no longer work today. But what Mahathir does not seem to realise is it no longer works because he no longer possesses the required goodwill to make it work.

I recall that time when even PAS deemed him as a 'national treasure', probably because he was whacking AAB and UMNO, wakakaka. And it needs to be noted that at that time, RPK arranged for some of the venues for Mahathir's roadshows against AAB, wakakaka again.

I dare say BN lost its 2/3 majority in 2008 because of Mahathir's campaign against AAB and UMNO, despite AAB winning a landslide election just one term ago (2004).

I am not sure whether to term Mahathir's vengeful rage in his anti-AAB anti-UMNO campaign as 'scorch-earth' tactics or 'dog in a manger' attitude or just bloody vindictiveness. I am more inclined towards the last, to wit, 'vindictiveness'.

Yes, Mahathir tends to be 'personal', and I suppose I would not be surprised to hear him say a la one Vietnam War prose, "I have to destroy UMNO to save it!", wakakaka.

Perhaps I ought to give my personal impression of him, which I did at RPK's blog.

Many like moi did NOT like but had once respected Mahathir. We carried that respect for him even after he retired.

It could be said he f**f-ed up a lot but he also achieved quite a lot, though much earlier (due to much goodwill for him then) we tended to remember his good points more than his bad ones, many and far more devastating as the latter have been (eg. virtual destruction of the independence of the judiciary, senate, and other hallowed institutions, and numerous financial follies).

Today we are less gracious and have began to question the role of oil in his performances. In other words, as a PM, maybe without the help of oil he would not be considered great at all. And now, memories of his failures start to stack up mightily against memories of his achievements.

We have changed as some of you have accused RPK of doing. It's a process called re-evaluation, re-view and reconsider, wakakaka. You see, we are re-thinking lah. But I suppose you prefer such words as 'turncoat', makan dedak, and whatever makes you syiok. 

Continuing - why are we now less kind to him today?

All over the civilised world, people including Malaysians generally do NOT like bullies, and Mahathir comes across as not only a bully but a very arrogant, abrasive, aggressive, unrepentant and destructive one.

When he was whacking the very man he chose as his successor, AAB (because of their sons' conflict or/and because AAB won't toe his 'imperialistic' orders), indeed bashing poor Pak Lah left and right and centre as well, we thought it was funny, not so much because we dislike AAB himself but because Mahathir convinced us AAB's s-i-l and cohorts from the infamous 4th Floor were running the country with impunity - OK, there was that - and that KJ had to be curtailed in his unrepresentative activities through the downfall of AAB.

But Mahathir did/does not know when to stop, seemingly full of venom. Even after AAB left office (no doubt in utter frustration at the unfairness of everything, considering he won a landslide election for BN in 2004, and that it was Mahathir's campaigning against BN which saw BN lost its 2/3 majority in 2008) Mahathir kept on insulting the poor man.

Why? Mahathir's viciousness and venom towards AAB were way beyond what his successor had earned for not following his imperial majesty's orders, even though AAB was within his right to act as a PM on his PM's discretion, and who was his predecessor to dictate policies for him.

Maybe there was something more, something really bad between them, perhaps something very personal, as if there was some real bad blood between KJ and Mahathir's son(s)?

Who knows what it was to merit such unrelenting vile venomous vindictiveness from Mahathir?

And when he insulted AAB frequently about the latter's sleepiness (which we subsequently learnt was caused by apnoea), we noted that AAB never did once spoke back, being the courteous Malay gentleman he has always been. What a contrast to Mahathir.

Today, in my review of AAB, I look at him with a far better impression, as I could see he was far more open, courteous and refine, and certainly more civilised in his resignation from office, not unlike Koh TK was when he handed Penang over to Lim Guan Eng.

Oh, BTW, both AAB and Koh are like me, Penang lang, wakakaka.

Anyway, that was when many of us wondered at Mahathir's unrelenting viciousness, his unforgiving merciless arrogance and his dog-in-manger destructiveness.

His dog-in-manger destructiveness? What's that?

Though it's natural we non-UMNO people don't like UMNO and hope for that party to lose, we wonder at this man, the founder of UMNO Baru, who once again (I stressed 'again) sets out to destroy UMNO Baru for his personal agenda.

If we praise him for his personal vindictiveness against his own party UMNO Baru (the party he founded), shouldn't we praise the Malacca DAP quartet, Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor, Hee Yit Fong, etc?

From then, we became more wary of him, less being political lemmings and more discerning political observers. That's when we better notice his 'real' character, for example, when he pompously and imperiously saying to the press that (in my own words as I can remember them) he did not choose his TWO successors well.

Which retired PM had TWO successors, other than a delusional imperialistic emperor who believed he was the power behind the (PM's) throne?

And 'twas sweet justice when his infamous 'Melayu mudah lupa' came back to haunt him on a number of occasions.

Indeed, Tawfik Ismail of G25 group, and son of the late Tun Dr Ismail, former DPM to Razak, reminded him that from the time he (Mahathir) was PM to the time he retired, all of his losses (counted to present day values), would be more than what was lost in 1MDB.

Tawfik said the meeting with Mahathir ended with their argument on that. Tawfik admitted that he did not hold Dr Mahathir in high regard and blamed the former Prime Minister and his policies for the current state Malaysia was in.

In Din Merican's blog: He said Dr Mahathir had undone the work of his father (Dr Ismail) and Malaysia’s founding fathers in his (Mahathir's) desire to cling to power.

Racial issues and Malaysia’s increasing “Islamisation” started with Dr Mahathir's political manoeuvres for his own political interests.

Tawfik said that those who came after Mahathir’s reign were only striking out on the path that he (Mahathir) had carved for himself.

And Tawfik's final jab at Mahathir was: “Najib may be the son of (Tun) Abdul Razak, but, politically, he is the son of (Dr) Mahathir.”

Just a slight digression here on Tawfik's dad, the late Tun Dr Ismail, Malaysia's 2nd DPM - Prior to Tun Dr Ismail's death he voiced his real concerns to some friends about Razak's intention to rehabilitate Dr Mahathir, wakakaka. Obviously Tun Ismail didn't like or trust Dr Mahathir and was said to prefer Musa Hitam.

Robert Kuok, who was a personal friend of Tun Dr Ismail, said:

“In my opinion, he was probably the most non-racial, non-racist Malay I have met in my life. And I have met a very wide range of Malays from all parts of Malaysia. Doc was a stickler for total fair play, for correctness; total anathema to him to be anything else. Every Malay colleague feared him because of this, including Mahathir."

Wakakaka.

To end this wee and rather sad (poignant) recount of a man who could have been a highly respected Malaysian senior statesman but who himself chose not to, for he much prefer to be the man to whom future PMs must report to for his approval of government policies.

Instead, he is now seen as a Raja Belakang Pusing (why! he even lacks the skill of Anwar to manmanlai, wakakaka).

On this sad depressing note I wish him and family all the best, and sincerely hope he realizes he ought to repent and retire by riding off into the sunset without further tragic silliness.