Category: Current Events

Colin Powell has admitted to reporters flying with him that, well… there may not have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

And just like that, Powell’s grand pre-war Security Council presentation—packed with “proof” and “irrefutable evidence”—comes crashing down faster than a house of cards in a wind tunnel.

One can only imagine the hours spent meticulously crafting that PowerPoint masterpiece, not to mention the tireless efforts of the “creative” intelligence team tasked with drawing connections between Iraq, WMDs, and Al-Qaeda—all of which resulted in a presentation fit for Hollywood. Specifically, the kind of Imminent-Threat-Coming-So-Hero-Briefs-The-Council-But-Council-Won’t-Listen scene we’ve seen a thousand times before.

We all remember those chilling moments when Powell, in his most serious “trust me, I’m a credible statesman” tone, presented “intercepted” Iraqi radio transmissions featuring faceless, evil Eye-Rack-EE commanders ordering their soldiers to hide weapons before the arrival of UN inspectors.

We were also shown grainy satellite images of what we were told were missiles, factories and makeshift WMD labs, lovingly annotated by intelligence analysts in a game of color-by-numbers for warmongers.

And now?

Turns out, all of it was built on lies, half-truths, and creative storytelling.

Adding insult to injury, David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (the team tasked with actually finding these so-called WMDs), resigned—which, if we were in a movie, would be the part where the scientist dramatically removes his government badge and walks out.

As his parting shot, Kay flatly stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Amazingly, just days before, President Bush had quoted Kay’s report, cherry-picking and recontextualizing his words into the vague claim that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction program activities.”

(What does that even mean? No one knows. But hey, it’s in the State of the Union address, so it must be true!).

And so, the infamous WMD “smoking gun” may turn out to be as real as a mirage in the Iraqi desert—except this one cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

When I first became aware of the world around me—somewhere around the age of five—the Prime Minister of Malaysia had always been Datuk Hussein Onn. One of his most distinctive features was his recognizable parrot-nosed side profile, made famous by Lat in his Scenes from Malaysian Life collection, which even included a step-by-step guide on how to draw all three Malaysian Prime Ministers (up until then).

When Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister and Hussein Onn retired (later becoming Tun), my worldview was shaken. To me, Hussein Onn was a quiet and unassuming figure. He seemed like the kind of leader who would remain calm even under immense pressure. His laid-back and peaceful aura, in my young mind, was what Malaysia itself represented.

But my initial impression of Mahathir wasn’t really my own—it was second-hand, a collection of opinions I had absorbed from the adults around me. Growing up in a liberal but Chinese household, there was suspicion about a Malay ultra taking the reins of government. Some relatives worried that Chinese businesses, education, and way of life would be significantly affected.

Naturally, I was concerned.

Then one day, a Chinese classmate told me, quite confidently, that Mahathir would be good for the country. I disagreed. Our animated debate quickly attracted a crowd of students—Malay, Chinese, and Indian alike—who joined in the discussion. Primary school political debates are probably the most politically incorrect forums imaginable, with children often parroting whatever their parents say at home. But in many ways, they also reveal the underlying sentiments of society.

From that discussion, one thing was clear: no one knew what to expect. And that pretty much defined Mahathir’s tenure—people never quite knew what he would do next, but they knew that whatever it was, it would be big.

Mahathir and His Obsession with Time

The first opinion I formed about Mahathir on my own was that he was fascinated with time.

Why did I think that? Well, first, he took an hour away from Malaysia—moving our clocks ahead of Thailand and Singapore so that East and West Malaysia could share the same time zone. Next, he introduced punch cards in government offices, a system that later trickled down to private organizations.

I still remember the impact of those changes. Growing up, RTM used to publish TV schedules with exact timings, down to the second. A show like The Six Million Dollar Man might be scheduled for 8:07 PM on a Wednesday—43 minutes after a cartoon. The problem? RTM could never keep up with its own scheduling, and shows always aired either early or late. After Mahathir’s push for better time management, RTM adjusted its schedules to round numbers (though actually adhering to them remains a work in progress).

Looking East and Buying British Last

Then came one of Mahathir’s boldest moves: the “Look East” policy.

At the time, most nations looked West—to the United States or the USSR—for economic models, investments, and aid. But Mahathir challenged Malaysians to emulate Asian success stories instead, particularly Japan and South Korea. This was a radical shift, especially considering the colonial admiration many Malaysians still had for the British. To make his point even clearer, he spearheaded the “Buy British Last” campaign.

Privatization and Malaysia, Inc.

Then came the era of privatization, along with those Filem Negara short films about Malaysia, Inc..

I remember watching these films (I watched a lot of TV back then) on a lazy Friday afternoon, struggling to understand the message. At one point, I even wondered, Are they turning Malaysia into a corporation? Does this mean we all get salaries from the government?

But while some of Mahathir’s economic policies were met with skepticism (and plenty of complaints—Malaysians do love to complain), they persisted. And as a result, Malaysia transformed in ways we never could have imagined.

Big Things, Big Ideas

Under Mahathir, big things kept happening.

• Malaysia started producing cars. The first model, the Proton Saga, was… well, aesthetically challenged. I still remember the cringeworthy TV commercial jingle:

“Pro-Ton SAAAA-GAAAA, ke-ja-ya-an Ma-lay-SIAAAA!”

Thankfully, Proton improved with each new model, and my first three cars were proudly Malaysian-made.

• Infrastructure development skyrocketed. I don’t recall a time when I wasn’t seeing the construction of a new overpass, bypass, or underpass. Malaysia was being tarmacked and wired up like never before. This not only connected the country but also connected Malaysia to the world. Even now, I still get chills every time I depart or arrive at KLIA—not from the air conditioning, but from the sheer grandeur of the place.

• The NEP was softened. While the New Economic Policy (Dasar Ekonomi Baru) remained a contentious issue for non-Bumiputera communities, Mahathir subtly shifted towards a more open capitalist economy. This led to the rise of a new class of tycoons and, more importantly, the Vision 2020 speech—his blueprint for a progressive, united, and economically robust Malaysia.

Where Mahathir Fell Short

That’s not to say I agreed with everything Mahathir did.

My biggest criticism? The Anwar Ibrahim debacle.

It remains one of the darkest stains on his leadership. He likely miscalculated the groundswell of support for Anwar, and his government’s heavy-handed approach sparked unprecedented public protests. The real reasons behind Anwar’s sacking may never be known—at least, not during Mahathir’s lifetime—but let’s just say I never bought the corrupt homosexual narrative.

Secondly, Mahathir had the power to accelerate liberalization—economically, politically, and socially—but he didn’t go far enough.

He could have implemented transparency reforms across government bureaucracy, just as he did with punch clocks and nametags. Small changes create big cultural shifts, and had he taken this step, corruption at all levels—ranging from petty bribes to major corporate scandals—could have been significantly curbed. Mahathir had the right moment and the right authority to plant that seed, but he didn’t.

Mahathir’s Lasting Legacy

Love him or hate him, Mahathir redefined Malaysia.

More than anything, he instilled in us a confidence we never had before—the belief that, if we work hard enough, we can achieve anything. His legacy, both good and bad, will always shape Malaysia.

And for that, I thank Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The Malaysia we know today would not exist without him.

There has been significant controversy, particularly in Malaysia and Israel, over recent statements made by our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, during the OIC meeting. The statement that drew the most ire—especially from Israelis and the broader international community—was his remark that “Jews rule the world.”

Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of it. But if someone were to say that the Chinese rule the world, I’d probably feel quite pleased—and smug. Maybe I’d even go out and test my newfound master-ruler attitude on the so-called peons who supposedly toil for my pleasure.

Or perhaps it wasn’t just that statement that caused the outrage. Maybe it was his assertion that “Jews get people to die for their causes.” Or the claim that “Jews rule the world by proxy.” I mean, the nerve of him—suggesting that a proxy is even necessary in the first place!

But on a more serious note, I think the whole “Jewish conspiracy” narrative has been around for far too long. And let’s be honest—if a conspiracy theory has endured this long, it’s probably because it contains some kernel of truth. Just like the “Who-Killed-JFK” conspiracy or the “U.S. Government-Covered-Up-UFOs” conspiracy.

To my Jewish friends who are offended, my advice: lighten up a little and consider the speech in context.

Mahathir’s address was delivered to an assembly of Islamic leaders, and in my view, it provocatively tackled key issues facing the global Muslim community. As is his usual style, he launched into a paternalistic tough-love lecture, criticizing certain Muslim behaviors—suicide bombings, tribal infighting, the rejection of technology and knowledge, and so on. Those familiar with his speeches at UMNO assemblies wouldn’t have found anything surprising. However, for some of the international delegates seated in the gleaming new convention center in Putrajaya, his words might have been jarring. The whole thing was a bit like watching Dr. Phil tear into Oprah’s guests—harsh, but arguably well-intentioned.

When viewed in context, the speech was actually berating Muslims for not following the example of Jewish success. Had a non-Muslim made the same argument, there would likely have been an uproar—perhaps even death threats—from extremist and fanatical groups. Ideally, though, Mahathir’s speech will prompt some leaders to rethink the long-standing Muslim-Jewish-Western conflicts and consider a new approach—one that seeks victory through peaceful means rather than confrontation.

From my perspective, peaceful protest is the way forward. History offers powerful lessons—particularly from India, a nation that has given the world two of its most renowned pacifists: Buddha and Gandhi. Not that I’m suggesting people convert to Buddhism—it’s not even strictly a religion—but they could certainly adopt the principle of using peace to overcome adversity. Now, if only India could apply the same philosophy to its relationship with Pakistan… but that, dear readers, is a discussion for another blog.

*Note: The quotes from Mahathir’s speech are not verbatim. They are recalled from memory, as the author did not have internet access while writing this blog.