It has been rumoured – don’t know if it is true – that when asked his race when he entered uni in singapore – TDM wrote ‘Indian’ in the application form.

Ironically he rose to political prominance on the race platform and maintained support by leveraging on it. The legacy he left Malaysians is a country polarised and divided.

Never mind the country is trying rise above and transcend communal voting, as evinced in the last elections, yet to him, race card was a tried fomula of success then and there is no reason why it is not now, which is why he is turning to it once again.

It is as if he has this supercilious condescension towards many of his countrymen that they could not rise above the tribal passions of race – that race appeal is primordial, revolves around fear of others, and therefore will always work to galvanise support when it is resorted to.

Of course his latest rhetoric on race contradicts the very notion of Bangsa Malaysia postulated by him but when has consistency been his strong point???

Just a few excamples :

· he endorsed AB as successor only to condemn his own anointed person;

· he couldn’t remember much during the Lingam Commission Hearings but only to now say that he wants his day in court to disclose how judges who implicate him now lobbied for judicial appointments then;

· he branded US a rogue nation supporting Israel in terrorising innocents and gleefully availed the service of a disgraced Jew lobbyist Jack Abramoff to get a photo op with President George Bush;

· his critique of the west appeared contradictory and inconsistent with his government’s economic rapport with the west;

· he condemned speculative activities of hedge fund traders and yet under his watch Bank Negara incurred multi-billion ringgit loss from speculative ventures of massive purchases of sterling before the sterling’s collapse in September 1992;

Indeed the only trait consistent is opportunistic inconsistency by often contradictory appeals and messages to different constituencies in different languages for different purposes.

Now in politics it may well be petty to be consistent all the time. But inconsistencies ought to serve a consistent purpose – the well being of the constituency/nation that supported the leader in whom the trust of well being is reposed, and this is where one draws the line.

The blatant disregard for the effects of playing the race card on the well being and unity of the nation and its peoples struggling to transcend racial stereotypes – just to serve a personal and narrow political agenda of ousting his anointed successor – is selfish.

Malaysia can do without selfish Leaders or Ex Leaders.

It is best that Mahathir and all those who believe in his political style structured around hegemonistic racial platform leave UMNO so that the rest that remain can form with Pakatan Rakyat the ruling coalition.

(1) “Every time Umnoputras fight among themselves for power and greed, the nation suffers. (2) “ And one man is always right in the vortex of Umno’s power struggle – Mahathir.” – boh-liao
Statement (2) is true, statement (1) , not so after Political Tsunami of 8th March 2008 with Paktan Rakyat waiting at the gates!

It would be a good thing if ½ of UMNO joins the Tun – and PR & the rest that don’t follow can stitch the deal to govern with two thirds majority but alas it is hard to see how this may be when conceivably most [but for perhaps only a handful] will not follow the Tun as he hopes would happen. After he left power he could not even get the sufficient support to be appointed delegate of his own constituency Kubang Pasu.

In the end, in this war against present incumbent, more likely the father of modern development and defender against hedge fund marauders will be deserted by those whom he count on for support and like a defeated leader in war, without arsenal and ammunition and soldiers, still scheming and plotting on how to prevail over circumstances but without success, still proud but sad and without peace, wondering whether Malaysian History, when it is capable to be objectively written, will judge him and his legacy fairly – whether he had brought the country in 22 years of authoritarian rule to historic achievement or largely ruins.

Judging from the comments in this blog and others, the situation does not look good for him.

I guess this is Karma.

TDM expects UMNO to split whenever he could not get his way. When he was challenged by Ku Li in 1987, UMNO was split into two separate entities….Then the split when he threw out Anwar, and now again, just because he is not hapy with Pak Lah’s stewardship…..

And yet strangely everytime he caused UMNO to convulse, he always justifed it in the interest of the party and love for it!
Well one can fool some people some time but not all the people all the time. The pattern shows that what he inclines to and personal interest are more important than the party’s interest or unity.

Malaysiakini quoted him as saying “Our objective to quit is to force Abdullah to step down. Once he has quit his positions, then we all shall return to revitalise the party” – yeah with him as leader again or kingmaker. High hopes!

I think he misread the situation badly.

They are only supported his voice against Pak Lah for their own ambition to ascend UMNO hierarchy. It was not to bring him back after Pak Lah’s exit. He is delusional if he thinks that the majority will support him to the extent of forcing incumbent to quit.

Even if the numbers joining him were sufficient to bring down the present government, he has miscalculated what external factor (Anwar & Pakatan Rakyat) could do to change the equation.

PR could stitch a deal with the side Mahathir opposes to rule.

Somebody should advise ex premier that (1) it is seditious to raise discontent and excite disaffection amongst subjects (of whom UMNO members are) against a lawfully constituted and elected government just because it happens to be led by a prime minister one anointed but subsequently regrets and withdraws support. (2) It is also seditious to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia by raising race issues recently even if the ultimate intent is related to (1), to raise discontent and excite disaffection for the purpose of undermining that successor….And yet whatever he says is not seditious but Karpals “legal opinion” on limitations of sovereign’s power within a constitutional monarch framework of parliamentary representative government – fit for an ordinary discussion in a constitutional law class – has been alleged to be seditious, with police reports lodged! What is Malaysia coming to???

He is wrong. No one dares touch him for so long as he retains moral authority and legal propriety but if by his own persistent actions he forfeits this authority and propriety, he will be in for a surprise.