• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

80 Minutes with Dr M

chittychitty

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
835
Points
43
From my viewpoint across the Causeway, I’d been fascinated by the narrative around Mahathir during the election: a nonagenarian returned to the frontlines of political battle, going head-to-head with a former protege to rescue Malaysia from the clutches of corruption and greed. Once described as a dictator and an authoritarian, Mahathir suddenly became the face of Malaysia’s democratic struggle. (And also an impressive troll.)

I’d read about the #UndiRosak social media campaign, which called on Malaysians to spoil their votes to protest the lack of meaningful political change. I could kind of see their point. I’ve heard Mahathir described as “Melayu Lee Kuan Yew” more than once; as a young Singaporean heavily invested in my country’s politics, how would I have felt if Singapore’s opposition parties had embraced the man who had eroded press freedoms, cracked down on civil society and fostered the climate of fear that we’re still struggling to escape today? Would I have seen it as necessary political strategy, or a compromise of core principles? Would I have supported a Lee Kuan Yew-led coalition, or boycotted it to fight for something truly different? Or would that have just been a naive wish for purity in politics?

I hadn’t arrived at an answer by the time 9 May rolled around, or even by the time Mahathir was sworn in as prime minister for the second time. I hoped that this rare opportunity to observe the man up close would help me figure it out—I wanted to find out, if I could, if this was really a new Mahathir for a new Malaysia.

Our meeting was scheduled for 4pm on 30 August; we were told we’d have 40 minutes. We met at the Perdana Leadership Foundation, an organisation set up to, among other things, be a “premier resource centre for the policies, strategies and initiatives adopted under Malaysia's various Prime Ministers which may be used and adapted by other developing nations.” Portraits and photos of previous Malaysian prime ministers hung around the spacious lobby. (No Najib, though.)

kt50rQL.png


We ended up going in a little late, but staying for a lot longer. We’d been told that it would be “free for all”—the prime minister was prepared to field our questions. We sat in the reception area of his huge office, but the mood was fairly relaxed. He spoke openly; the conversation meandered from Malaysia-Singapore relations and immigration processing times at the Causeway to democracy, political reform, human rights and LGBT equality.

More at
80 Minutes with Dr M
 
From my viewpoint across the Causeway, I’d been fascinated by the narrative around Mahathir during the election: a nonagenarian returned to the frontlines of political battle, going head-to-head with a former protege to rescue Malaysia from the clutches of corruption and greed. Once described as a dictator and an authoritarian, Mahathir suddenly became the face of Malaysia’s democratic struggle. (And also an impressive troll.)

I’d read about the #UndiRosak social media campaign, which called on Malaysians to spoil their votes to protest the lack of meaningful political change. I could kind of see their point. I’ve heard Mahathir described as “Melayu Lee Kuan Yew” more than once; as a young Singaporean heavily invested in my country’s politics, how would I have felt if Singapore’s opposition parties had embraced the man who had eroded press freedoms, cracked down on civil society and fostered the climate of fear that we’re still struggling to escape today? Would I have seen it as necessary political strategy, or a compromise of core principles? Would I have supported a Lee Kuan Yew-led coalition, or boycotted it to fight for something truly different? Or would that have just been a naive wish for purity in politics?

I hadn’t arrived at an answer by the time 9 May rolled around, or even by the time Mahathir was sworn in as prime minister for the second time. I hoped that this rare opportunity to observe the man up close would help me figure it out—I wanted to find out, if I could, if this was really a new Mahathir for a new Malaysia.

Our meeting was scheduled for 4pm on 30 August; we were told we’d have 40 minutes. We met at the Perdana Leadership Foundation, an organisation set up to, among other things, be a “premier resource centre for the policies, strategies and initiatives adopted under Malaysia's various Prime Ministers which may be used and adapted by other developing nations.” Portraits and photos of previous Malaysian prime ministers hung around the spacious lobby. (No Najib, though.)

kt50rQL.png


We ended up going in a little late, but staying for a lot longer. We’d been told that it would be “free for all”—the prime minister was prepared to field our questions. We sat in the reception area of his huge office, but the mood was fairly relaxed. He spoke openly; the conversation meandered from Malaysia-Singapore relations and immigration processing times at the Causeway to democracy, political reform, human rights and LGBT equality.

More at
80 Minutes with Dr M

More prolific foreskin spam!
 
India, Indonesia, philippines changed leaders nobody say anything. Malaysia change leader, like a miracle just happened.the whole world talking about it.
 
Back
Top