A Doctor in The House: A Memoir of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (96 page)

I have great admiration for the Chinese leaders. They were smarter than the Russians. While the Russians tried to change both their political and economic systems at the same time, the Chinese retained their powerful centralised government while reforming only their economic system. They have managed to create a hybrid capitalist/socialist economy where the state owns and controls most of the big businesses but private entrepreneurs may still exploit opportunities and prosper. The superiority of the Chinese approach over that of the Russians is obvious. Despite the politics of central planning, the Chinese people of today are on average richer than the Russians in purchasing power terms. As earlier with the Japanese, the changes in China made themselves felt worldwide through their low-priced quality products and the country’s huge purchases of raw materials and petroleum and vast numbers of Chinese outbound tourists. Malaysia is also seeing an increase in the number of Chinese tourists while our trade with China has grown. We still export electronics to China together with palm oil, gas and fabricated steel products, and we remain China’s biggest trading partner among the Southeast Asian nations.

In East Asia however, North Korea is the odd man out. I went to North Korea when I was Deputy Prime Minister and it was one of the more memorable official visits I ever made. On our arrival on the first day, we were told that the Great Leader Kim Il-sung was concerned for our health. He sent a doctor to examine Hasmah and I. We consented at first but as the examinations got more thorough, we objected. In the end they acceded to our request that we should not be medically examined.

The second memorable thing was that at the official lunch, my wife was asked to make a speech in response to President Kim’s toast to us. The Great Leader had earlier spoken in Korean and soon after that, the First Lady went to Hasmah and told her, “It’s your turn.” Hasmah said to me later that it was the most frightening moment of her life. In the silence that followed, she tried to catch my eye but I looked everywhere but at her. In the end, she got up from her chair and toasted with a glass of water saying, “Good wishes and good relationships” before sitting down abruptly. When we returned to Malaysia, Hasmah called the National Institute of Public Administraton (INTAN)
[8]
 and told them to start teaching Ministers’ wives how to toast their host or guest .
 

Internally, North Korea has not yet been able to transform itself sufficiently to take advantage of a changing world. North Korea had the same capacity as South Korea and, during the Japanese Occupation, it was North Korea that was industrialised. But today, South Korea is way ahead of the North, proving that when the leadership adopts the wrong strategy, the best of countries will fail. However, changes on the international stage in 2007 and 2008 have offered some hope that North Korea may gradually come in from the cold.

ENDNOTES

[
1
] The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, created in 1947, was the result of the failure to establish the International Trade Organization, which was meant to regulate international trade as part of a global recovery plan after World War II.
 

[
2
] Established in 1995, the World Trade Organization manages the liberalisation of international trade.
 

[
3
] The European Community is a predecessor of the European Union. It is now one of the three pillars of the Union and oversees economic, social and environmental policies.
 

[
4
] The North American Free Trade Agreement promotes trade among the three signatory countries and has been in effect since 1 January 1994.
 

[
5
] In 2006, East Timor, now Timor-Leste,was engulfed by a conflict that started as infighting among military factions. The violence eventually spread throughout the country and led to the resignation of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri.
 

[
6
] APEC was established in 1989 to promote the economic growth of the Asia-Pacific region.
 

[
7
] Sukarno was formally deposed in 1968.
 

[
8
] INTAN oversees training programmes for all government departments in Malaysia.
 

When he was Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein had decided that Malaysia would have relations with all countries, irrespective of differences in ideology or systems of government. My administration also believed in the idea of “prosper thy neighbour”. This was not born out of altruism but was practical good sense—we realised that the best way to help ourselves was to help others. By doing so you don’t simply generate gratitude and goodwill, you also create partners and friends.

It was on this basis that the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was created in 1967 with Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. During my term in office, Brunei joined the association in 1984, Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999. When we had begun to think about expanding ASEAN in the early 1990s, there was a lingering fear of the Domino Theory,
[1]
 a notion the Americans had invented to frighten us and get us to support their war against Vietnam. After America’s humiliating defeat at Vietnamese hands, however, we did not fall to the communists as they had predicted we would. But old ideas die hard.
 

In the end there was little objection to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos joining ASEAN, even though they had not renounced communism. Cambodia had seen the Khmer Rouge kill two million of its people and is today still recovering from this violent legacy. When I visited the country after Samdech Hun Sen established a government together with Prince Ranarridh, the capital city of Phnom Penh was still deserted. Most of the inhabitants had been killed and those who returned had problems reclaiming their houses. Laos, which was ruled by the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party, was landlocked and very poor. Despite its history of prolonged struggle for power by various factions, Laos was able to resolve its problems and we welcomed its admission into ASEAN.

Unified Vietnam continued to uphold communist ideology and practices. When I first visited Hanoi there were only bicycles on the road and the people were lean and muscular. Vietnam was eager to develop itself and invited foreign investments, and by joining ASEAN it was able to learn to expand its economy. Today Vietnam is the fastest-growing Southeast Asian nation, and even the Americans are investing there.

Malaysia, however, was especially keen to see Myanmar join the association because we believed that including the country in ASEAN might influence the thinking of its military government. We did not believe that enforced isolation from the dynamic Southeast Asian mainstream would change them. The US and Europe did not agree—whether in Myanmar or Iraq, they believed in applying pressure through sanctions to force people to rise against their governments. I have seen an actual revolt caused by sanctions happen only in South Africa; elsewhere, sanctions only hurt the people without affecting the ruling elite.

In 2001 we invited Senior General Than Shwe, the chairman of Myanmar’s ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), to Malaysia. We wanted to show him how democracy worked. I explained that he did not have to fear that it would deprive him of his power. In fact, it might even be a way for him to gain popular support if he formed a political party and the leaders visited rural areas and talked to the people. He followed my advice and later told me that the village people had indeed responded well and become much more open and approachable. But Than Shwe remained nervous about democracy. He tentatively appointed General Khin Nyunt as Prime Minister and the latter proved to be more relaxed and open to ideas about development and service to the people. Unfortunately, the senior generals were not happy with Khin Nyunt’s accommodating ways. They charged him with corruption, branded him a traitor and placed him under house arrest. It was a very disappointing development.

Myanmar again seems to be isolating itself. I tried on several occasions to see Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy who has spent years under house arrest, but the Myanmar Government refused permission. I wanted to touch base with her and had written to her, but although she had replied, we did not get very far. I thought that she herself needed to relax and be more flexible, for being too rigid and demanding would rub the leaders the wrong way. Tan Sri Razali Ismail, who was appointed by the United Nations to intercede with Myanmar, did not get very far either. The military leaders appeared unwilling to give up even a small part of their power. When an election saw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party winning, they modified the results. I believe they had seen how dictators who gave up power ended up being persecuted, so the SPDC’s members were not willing to trust their fate to the people in democratic elections. In Bangladesh, South Korea and Indonesia, as soon as the autocratic leaders consented to democracy, they were charged with all kinds of misdeeds and thrown into jail. One was even sentenced to death. President Suharto was harassed and threatened, and only his ill health and the strength of his former party prevented him from being jailed.

Including these countries within ASEAN would bring greater stability to the region, and it also made good economic sense because it would enlarge the regional market. Together, we have about half a billion people in ASEAN. Even if our per capita income is small, it is still a considerable market. Intra-ASEAN trade was encouraged and it grew very fast. Malaysia’s own trade with other ASEAN countries is very big and was already growing even before the preferential trading agreement, the ASEAN Free Trade Area or AFTA, was introduced. Now the pace of its growth is accelerating even more.

In managing ASEAN affairs and participating in ASEAN meetings, Malaysia and the Philippines had to come together. The Philippines’ claim to Sabah had remained a stumbling block but both countries avoided open discussions about this claim. In 1995, Fidel Ramos brought the two countries closer together by visiting Malaysia soon after becoming President and ignoring his country’s previous policy of avoiding direct bilateral contact. For my part, I readily approved his proposed visit to Malaysia. We now have diplomatic relations but the Sabah claim has always seemed incapable of being resolved.

The most lukewarm member of ASEAN was Singapore. I was familiar with Singapore’s attitude towards cooperating with its neighbours from the time I was a Minister of Education and involved with the Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organisation (SEAMEO). It was thought that by exchanging information and experiences and by setting up educational facilities open to all member countries, we might avoid costly duplication. Malaysia was allocated the Mathematics and Science Centre while Singapore had the English Language Centre, both of which were intended for training teachers. Singapore made money from the fees charged since the English Language Centre was much in demand.

The Ministers met every year in a different member-country. I remember the meeting in the Philippines, held in the mountain resort of Baguio. That year Dr Sjarif Thajeb, the Minister of Education and Culture of Indonesia, was in the chair. A decision was made to increase subscription to the organisation and everyone agreed except Singapore. Bapak Sjarif adjourned the meeting because he wanted to talk personally to the Singapore delegates. Under the new agreement Singapore had to pay an additional USD10,000. Others had to pay more, yet they readily agreed. But Singapore threatened to leave the organisation, and Bapak Sjarif was only able to dissuade them from walking out with great difficulty. USD10,000 was a trifling sum for Singapore, which even then was the most prosperous Southeast Asian country, yet for that sum it was willing to dissociate itself from its neighbours.

But that is Singapore. It counts every cent that it has to pay for anything. It was always trying to reduce its commitments to any organisation, so its lukewarm support for ASEAN did not surprise me. Of course, when Malaysia proposed the East Asia Economic Group, Singapore was again its most unenthusiastic supporter.

Among the groupings of developing countries, ASEAN was the most successful. It had regular dialogues with the developed countries, which were often attended by heads of government. It was able to negotiate on trade and other matters with the major economies of the world. The countries of ASEAN proved themselves capable of growing into good trading nations and were favoured by foreign investors. Attracted by its success, countries outside Southeast Asia were interested in joining. Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste were observers at ASEAN meetings, and at one time, Sri Lanka was keen to join.

ASEAN brought all 10 Southeast Asian countries together despite American and European pressure to keep Myanmar out. After it was admitted, attempts continued to be made to persuade ASEAN to expel Myanmar. After the World Trade Organization failed to make progress, an ASEAN Free Trade Area was proposed and accepted by the ASEAN countries. Trade among ASEAN countries would be promoted by reductions in import duty to five per cent. This meant that all the member countries had to lose tax revenue from import duties. Only Singapore would lose nothing. It was already a free port.

Because of its free port status, foreign goods were always cheaper in Singapore than in the Peninsula, and Malaysians flocked there to buy duty-free goods and smuggle them into Malaysia. Since Singapore did not tax imports, there was no tax that might be reduced or abolished so as to benefit any free-trade agreement partner. Entering into free-trade agreements with any country was therefore easy for Singapore. Singapore-made goods might enter the FTA-partner country with reduced tax or no tax, and in return, Singapore did not have to give anything that was not already available to others who exported their goods to the island-republic. Yet Singapore’s FTA with the US was held up as a model to the other ASEAN countries. But should they follow suit they, unlike Singapore, would have to offer something substantial in return.