A Doctor in The House: A Memoir of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (63 page)

The world heaved a sigh of relief when the European Russians could no longer sustain the confrontation. The Eastern bloc crumbled and the USSR itself disintegrated into independent states. The Cold War ended.

The Americans exulted and declared that it was the end of history. The democratic capitalist free market had triumphed. There would be eternal peace as the Western Europeans headed by the United States established a new order for the whole world to be enforced by the United States of America with its mighty military capacity.

Then suddenly the world realised that a new and more powerful European monster had risen from the “ashes” of the Cold War. This monster wanted to impose its will on the whole world. This time there would be no other power to restrain or check it in any way.

This power resides with the United States of America but it is essentially ethnic European in origin and character. It is the same old European imperialism manifesting itself in a new form. Its objective is still dominance over the whole world.

Its onslaught against the non-Europeans would encompass all areas of human activity, from politics to the economy and to social systems. Everything prescribed by Washington must be accepted and practised by all the world.

It was not so very long ago that European countries were ruled by dictators. The last to go were those of Portugal and Spain. Except for Greece, the European countries had all adopted democracy as their political and administrative system. Now it was the turn of the non-European countries: accept and practise democracy or face the might of the European powers. That the Europeans themselves took more than 200 years to adopt and adapt to the democratic system is no reason why other countries should take that long. They must become democratic now, immediately. They would be helped by the Europeans through whatever means available.

The recalcitrant countries found themselves attacked by specially-trained and financed rebel guerrillas seeking to overthrow their governments. Frequently civil wars would break out, and over prolonged periods these wars would bring death and destruction to the countries involved.

Excuses are then found to justify European military invasion of these countries. In the name of democracy and freedom they bring even more suffering to the people. But still the attempt to bring down recalcitrant governments and install puppet regimes goes on. Millions are killed, millions more wounded and maimed, and whole countries devastated in the name of democracy and freedom.

In other cases, leaders were assassinated in order to force a regime change. Sanctions against countries would deprive the innocent inhabitants of food and medicine. Children would die of malnutrition and lack of medical treatment. But, said one American Secretary of State, it was worth it.

Their love for war is terrible. Huge sums of money would be spent by them on inventing, developing and perfecting ever more powerful weapons and killing machines. The ultimate is the nuclear bomb. Tens of thousands of these weapons were produced and stored for future wars. A small number of these nuclear bombs and warheads would be enough to destroy the whole world and wipe out the human race. Still the development, production and storage of these and other weapons would go on. That nuclear weapons cannot be rendered harmless does not matter. The human race has to live with the fear of being wiped out by nuclear war either by accident or deliberately.

The art and science of war would be constantly upgraded and improved. It was the Europeans who first clothed their soldiers in uniforms, equipped them with ever more lethal weapons, organised them in patrols and squads, battalions and brigades and army corps. Their soldiers were drilled into perfect killing machines which would be ready to fight anyone they were ordered to. Theirs was not to reason why: theirs was to do or die. That is their motto.

Their naval and air forces are similarly organised to execute their missions precisely and unthinkingly. They are currently thinking of war in outer space and are organising their forces for this eventuality.

The European military forces which were launched against their enemies through the ages were so successful that all the countries of the world adopted the organisation, the training and the weapons used by the Europeans.

When the Europeans introduced Special Forces, the Commandos, whose training includes creeping up to an unsuspecting enemy and slitting his throat with a knife to avoid making noise, the rest of the world followed suit.

Much as I deplore their belligerence, the Europeans are geniuses at planning, organising and implementing. They are very systematic. They develop detailed blueprints for the construction of everything they wish to produce. Using the blueprints they, and others now, can produce the same thing as accurately as the planner at great speed and in huge quantities. Mass production is a European invention.

By contrast, the Balinese build beautiful and perfect houses without any plan. They achieve excellent results. But anyone else wanting to build the same building will have to be apprenticed to the original builder. This limits the spread of the skills to others. Truly the European way is best. No one learns architecture from the Balinese. Everyone has adopted the European system.

The blueprints can be used in the design of the smallest engineering product to an aircraft or a ship of any size.

Methods and systems are the Europeans’ gift to the world. Because of this the administration of large corporations and populations is made possible. By the same token, the destruction on a massive scale of people and economies is also possible.

The contributions of the Europeans to modern civilisation are enormous. In fact, modern human society is largely organised and administered through European methods and systems.

Before the coming of the Europeans, the administrative systems of the nations of the world were by absolute monarchies in form and practice. The monarch owned everything. All revenue and all sources of revenue including natural resources belonged to the monarch. The bureaucracy was dedicated to serving and upholding the monarchy and the enforcement of law and order to protect and sustain the monarch.

The laws were usually not codified and their administration was arbitrary, usually at the pleasure of the monarch. In some cases the ruler actually presided over royal courts to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused person. Not guided by written laws, the judgments were often made according to whim. Punishments were usually harsh: death or indefinite imprisonment. There was no appeal and the death sentence would be carried out immediately.

Muslim monarchs would sometimes provide courts where judges would apply Muslim laws. But the laws were not properly codified. There were books on Muslim laws written by Muslim jurists, but they served only as guides. In most Muslim countries the laws were not legislated systematically.

The system of courts presided over by judges who based their judgments on written laws was introduced largely by Europeans. Initially the courts were just as bad as those found prior to the introduction of the rule of law. But gradually the Europeans improved the standard of judgments and miscarriages of justice happened less and less frequently.

As with other European practices and systems, the rest of the world has adopted, if not the whole legal and judicial system, at least elements of it.

It is the same with governments and administration. Most governmental and administrative systems used around the world are based more or less on the systems developed by the Europeans. The divisions into Ministries, each headed by a Minister, which in turn are divided into departments and other units headed by officers of increasingly lower grades, are also of European origin. The increasing levels of seniority are linked to increasing areas of responsibility until finally the Chief Minister or Prime Minister or Executive President presides over the whole government.

It is the same with businesses. Starting from privately-owned companies, where the organisation is headed by the owner or senior partner, business organisations have become more and more complex as they grow into ever larger corporations and conglomerates. To oversee the management would be the Board of Directors presided over by a Chairman or President. Running the company under a professional Chief Executive Officer would be a variety of officers, some, like the accountants, with special functions.

I have always admired European astuteness in devising systems and methods. It enables their administration or management to grow really big and still be able to make things happen the way the head desires.

There are many other systems invented by the Europeans to enable them to control their worldwide empires. They are not foolproof or perfect but are certainly better able to function than the personally-owned and managed businesses which developed in the non-European countries, especially in Asia where, should the founder-owner die, the whole business would collapse. European-style business organisations last long after their founders have died.

For all these contributions towards the management of the increasingly complex world of politics, economy and societal organisations, the world has certainly much to thank the Europeans. Nevertheless the Europeans have their weaknesses and it behoves the non-European world to know as much about the Europeans as possible to distinguish between what schemes, ideas and systems initiated by the Europeans should be followed and what should be rejected.

As a good example, the world should scrutinise the banking and financial systems which were the creations of the Europeans. We now know the systems are based on fraud. They have survived for a very long time. But finally, the balloon has burst and the whole fraud has been exposed.

The Europeans will undoubtedly invent another system or will modify the present system. Will this again be based on fraud? Knowing the Europeans better now, the world must look askance at whatever solution the Europeans come up with.

I had hesitated to include this chapter in my memoirs. It can be taken as confirmation that I am anti-European. It may hurt the feelings of my European friends. But I also feel that there is a great need for people to know the real Europeans, or at least Europeans as seen through Asian eyes. I also think that Europeans should know what non-Europeans really think about them. Examine all the great problems faced by the world in history and today, and we will find none that does not involve Europeans directly or indirectly.

For these reasons I think this chapter is truly necessary.

ENDNOTE

[
1
] “Europeans” is my shorthand for those commonly described today as “white Caucasians” and can be grouped together according to shared histories as well as broad similarities in culture, language and experience. I also include those of ethnic European origin who have colonised other countries, for example Americans, Australians and New Zealanders.
 

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim joined UMNO soon after I became Prime Minister in 1981. I was surprised that he wanted to join our party as his involvement with the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM),
[1]
 or the Muslim Youth Association of Malaysia, and his public statements, made him a natural ally of PAS.
 

But I thought that it was to his advantage to join UMNO because he would not make much headway in politics outside of the party. He would most likely have languished permanently in the Opposition, which would not have been what he wanted. On my part, I thought he would be useful to UMNO. For me the party came first, and as long as anyone could contribute to the party, even if the person disagreed with me, I would not stand in his way.

It is commonly believed that UMNO made the first move to recruit Anwar but this is not true. For a long time, UMNO had been a big and successful party and did not need to solicit for members. To join the party was a privilege. Over a period of several months, a number of people had come to tell me that Anwar was keen to join UMNO. So I agreed to meet him.

Our first meeting was at my office. That was the first real interaction we had with each other with no one else present. He wanted to join the party so he was most accommodating and did not behave in a way that would cause him to be rejected. When I asked why he wanted to be a part of UMNO, he said he now subscribed to the party’s struggle. He admitted that ABIM’s leadership was critical of his decision and wanted to know why he wanted to join UMNO. He had told them he wanted to convert UMNO to ABIM’s views and influence the Government from within. His agenda, he said, was to turn the Government into an Islamic one and joining the party was the most effective way of doing so. He was smart even then. He managed to convince ABIM, and so he made the transition without cutting off his ties with the association. Later I was to learn that he could even convince opposing parties that he agreed with them all.

His idea of changing the party from within did not worry me as I believed I could handle him. In any case, I felt that if he joined PAS instead he could have won in elections and would probably help it attract members away from UMNO. In other words, outside UMNO, he was potentially a thorn in our side. There was also a positive side to his joining us: as a youth leader with a fairly big following, he had many contacts among young leaders worldwide. His brand of Islam did not alienate him from youth leaders of other faiths, yet Muslim youth leaders and other Muslim activists seemed to think he was a great Muslim leader.

In Malaysia, his leadership of ABIM ensured him a good following and that could be to UMNO’s advantage. Among Malaysian Muslim groups, ABIM was unusual. It was active in helping young Muslims to pursue knowledge, spread the teachings of Islam and do charity. Although it was hardly friendly towards UMNO or the UMNO-led Government, it did not appear extreme. Anwar’s joining UMNO might soften ABIM’s stand against the Government or at least blunt it slightly.

With his Islamic credentials, I hoped Anwar would add credibility to UMNO’s claim to be a champion of Islam. Having made up my mind to accept him and finding no strong opposition among my colleagues, I arranged for him to sign the membership forms in my office. Anwar formally joined UMNO in 1982. I made a Press announcement from my office. My decision to use government premises for party business was criticised by Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon, the retired leader of Parti Keadilan Masyarakat Malaysia (the Malaysian Social Justice Party) or PEKEMAS.
[2]
 He was known nationwide as Mr Opposition. I responded by pointing out that it would be a charade if I were to go out of the office for the signing and then go back into my office to see Anwar, as I always saw visitors there, whether political or non-political.