The summary of the book , Malaysian Maverick – Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times, from Malaysiakini is as follows:
According to Barry Wain, author of the soon-to-be launched ‘Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times’, direct financial losses amounted to about RM50 billion.
This doubled once the invisible costs, such as unrecorded write-offs, were taken into account. The RM100 billion total loss was equivalent to US$40 billion at then prevailing exchange rates.
Barry, who is a former editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal, says most of the scams, which included a government attempt to manipulate the international tin price and gambling by Bank Negara on global currency markets, occurred in the 1980s.
‘Malaysian Maverick’ is the first independent, full-length study of Mahathir, who retired in 2003 after more than two decades as premier. The book will be published globally next week by Palgrave Macmillan.
Wain writes that the Mahathir administration, which took office in 1981 with the slogan, “clean, efficient, trustworthy”, was almost immediately embroiled in financial scandals that “exploded with startling regularity”.
By the early 1990s, he says, cynics remarked that it had been “a good decade for bad behaviour, or a bad decade for good behaviour”.
Secret military deal with US
The book also reveals that:
- Mahathir, despite his nationalistic rants, signed a secret security agreement with the United States in 1984 that gave the Americans access to a jungle warfare training school in Johor and allowed them to set up a small-ship repair facility at Lumut and a plant in Kuala Lumpur to repair C-130 Hercules transport aircraft.
- Mahathir used a secret fund of his ruling Umno to turn the party into a vast conglomerate with investments that spanned almost the entire economy.
- Mahathir’s Umno financed its new Putra World Trade Centre headquarters in Kuala Lumpur partly with taxpayers money, by forcing state-owned banks to write off at least RM140 million in interest on Umno loans.
Wain, who is now a writer-in-residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, however credits Mahathir with engineering the country’s economic transformation, deepening industrialisation and expanding Malaysia’s middle class.
But Mahathir had undermined state institutions, permitted the spread of corruption and failed to provide for Malaysia’s future leadership, he says.
Source: Malaysiakini
11 responses so far ↓
1 Gregore Lopez // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm
For those who want a flavour of UMNO/BN’s long corruption list, this article is useful.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2165&Itemid=199
2 Susie Wong // Nov 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Thank you for disseminating findings and providing an excellent information from which to build a better understanding of Southeast Asia politics. As I attempt to analyze contemporary Southeast Asia politics I find it more difficult than analyzing any developed country politics. I would like to share a few foundational questions.
1. Is mega-corruption uniquely Southeast Asian phenomenon?
Except Singapore, it seems everyone else faces the same challenges of having leaders with extraordinary wealth: Mahathir, Suharto, Marcos, Phumipon.
2. Is the imbalance of power between leader and civil society the cause of that phenomenon?
3. Why have the U. S. and the U. K. been ignoring of this problem when change and reform are necessary in the age of information technology and globalization?
4. The Philippines has managed to solve the problem by putting term limit for its presidency. Indonesia chooses direct election and term limit as the solution. How could Thailand be able to get out of this serious problem given network monarchy has been in power for over 60 years? Can Malaysian opposition party get a fair chance?
3 Frank G Anderson // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Hmmmm….vested interests at heart and not exactly the gentleman he portrayed to the public.
Deja vu…
4 Susie Wong // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I think the leader characteristics as well as the State structure are important factors to the modernization process. I see Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen as a modern man, he stands up to his principle and national interests. So does the Indonesian President Yudhoyono. They are moving their countries forward and people respect them.
The opposite example would be Aphisit who majority of Thais did not choose. As a result, Aphisit has to wear bullet proof shirt, uses bullet proof car, cannot visit Thailand’s countryside. With Aphisit, Thailand is in political chaos across the land, military tension with neighboring country, economy in decline, crime rates increase, Southern insurgent problem worsen.
With this contrasting example, I am sure Malaysia as well as other Southeast Asian countries see the important of legitimacy, promoting more genuine and competitive elections and political processes. In developed countries, politically active civil society is encouraged. It is not possible to just have economic growth without strengthening the Rule of Law, respect of human rights, and active civil society. In the age of interdependence economy, the economic structure of Southeast Asian countries needs political reform for a more transparent and accountable governance.
It’s time Southeast Asian countries leave cronyism, network monarchy, patron client tie, corruption, etc. as things of the past.
5 Malaysian // Dec 3, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I’m surprised it’s only RM100B. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was actually more than USD100B. I think the author’s being conservative by not including wasteful projects that have brought no value to the country and served only to stroke his ego/lust for money.
Susie,
1. Is mega-corruption uniquely Southeast Asian phenomenon?
Uniquely SEA? I don’t think so. It’s happening all over the world where citizens refuse to see and think for themselves.
2. Is the imbalance of power between leader and civil society the cause of that phenomenon?
More like because many of the citizens are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption because they are getting scraps from the table. In essence, because most people are selfish. They don’t mind everyone else getting screwed as long as they get some benefits, not caring if that the country is well run, everybody benefits more.
3. Why have the U. S. and the U. K. been ignoring of this problem when change and reform are necessary in the age of information technology and globalization?
It’s a bit naive to think US and UK care about what’s happening in other countries. They have supported and put up some of the most corrupt regimes and despots in the world. They may pay lip service about corruption and discrimination, but they’ll do nothing about it as long as their interests are protected.
4. The Philippines has managed to solve the problem by putting term limit for its presidency. Indonesia chooses direct election and term limit as the solution. How could Thailand be able to get out of this serious problem given network monarchy has been in power for over 60 years? Can Malaysian opposition party get a fair chance?
It’ll be interesting to see if Philippines and Indonesia manage to reduce corruption. I won’t be surprised to see some new Presidents are just proxies of previous leaders.
6 Greg Lopez // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:09 pm
In response to Susie’s questions.
1. Is corruption endemic to Southeast Asia.
- Read Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report (various years) for a better understanding of corruption.
2. Philippines is still a very corrupt country and so is Indonesia (look at the TI rankings). The difference is – there seems to be a change in Indonesia i.e. the people have confidence that something is being done. The Philippines is a still a basket case. The Presidential term limits have had no impact. Without reforms (i.e. removing the power of the families that control Philippines), Philippines will remain a basket case.
3. Singapore – hmmm – no petty corruption – true but definitely a corrupt system that keeps in place the Lee family and its supporters in PAP.
Definitely, separation of power is an essential component in reducing corruption.
7 Susie Wong // Dec 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm
We are talking about countries under the U.K. and the U.S. sphere of influence (the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Siam, Singapore). If the U.S. and U.K. have no intention to change but to maintain status quo. I am skeptical if anything can be done.
What I am trying to say is that the issues we are discussing here is a political issue. Because maintaining the sphere of influence is more important than solving corruption issue in the U.S. and U. K . calculation or any great powers calculation. If the U.S. and U.K. want to maintain their clients in power, I think the issue like corruption would be tolerate. For example two days ago on Dec. 2nd, the worst design for the Thai new parliament won the competition because the board composition was all appointed by the network monarchy. It is an open corruption but the U.S. and U.K don’t care and average people can’t do anything. So I just wonder if academics is wasting their time to research on political issue without paying attention on putting pressure on the U.S. and U.K or building a mass movement to change it. In other words, great powers will cooperate on “non-political” issue such as transportation services, etc. but once the issue is “political” I don’t think you can rock the boat.
8 Greg Lopez // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:29 am
I am not able to follow your line of questions and arguments, Susie.
You are right that most of ASEAN are clientele of the U.S. and that the U.S. maintains regimes even if they are corrupt as long as they are supportive of U.S. policies. This may also explain why Australia is favourable towards the Thai monarchy, to Malaysia and even to Lee Kuan Yew.
But that does not mean that citizens should just lay back and accept corruption. Citizens must rise up against any corrupt government – no matter the odds.
9 Greg Lopez // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 am
Another review of the book.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2177&Itemid=199
10 Mahathir threatens to sue author // Dec 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[...] Malaysian strongman has issued a statement that he reserves the right to sue author Barry Wain, veteran opposition leader, Lim Kit Siang and online news portal Malaysiakini for allegedly [...]
11 Greg Lopez // Jan 20, 2010 at 2:04 am
Hal Hill’s (of ANU) review of Barry Wain’s book for the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/50079-malaysias-mercurial-mahathir-hal-hill-
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.