The Cantankerous Dr. Mahathir Strikes Again

Occasionally an item of news appears that makes me stop and think about how the present engages with the past. It can be a comment from a politician, an announcement from a government department, or an observation by a journalist that arrests the mind for a while and stands out from the dross that unfortunately characterises much of the so-called current events commentary. And the reason why is that it connects to something you had previously thought was important to you in one way or another. A key theme of Palace of Ghosts is the way the past connects to the present. So, I am always on the lookout for those connections, however unlikely their provenance.

One of my pleasures in life is waiting for, then reading, the next episode of ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, age 96, ranting about something or other. I do find it a little amusing. Rants that are often disguised as a reasoned observation or philosophical musings, but which simultaneously cast aside any semblance of accuracy or expressed without the burden of facts. Such reads are excellent entertainment. Fortunately, most people just brush aside such expressions by a man whose outlook is clouded by chauvinism and a fantastical view of history: “here we go again” as the Straits Times jovially remarks. Such remarks are, however, occasionally interesting when they touch upon the region’s history and, by extension, some different peoples' perspectives.

I use the term "chauvinism" carefully: Malay politicians are indignant that their “Bumiputra” policy is “fair” and that promoting the rights of ethnic Malays over and above those of other ethnicities is somehow reasonable. They seem blinded to what it really is and many of their public pronouncements are tainted with such chauvinism. In a part of the world that for centuries has been home to a variety of races and skin tones, and which represent a significant share of the total population, it would be reasonable to expect international outrage if one race excluded the others from participation in politics and other discriminatory practises, solely because of their ethnicity. Indeed, for 4 decades in the 20th century South Africa was ostracised by the international community for doing exactly this. In Malaysia, as a matter of government policy non-Malays, ethnic Indian and Chinese in particular, are discriminated against in many ways. The ruling Malays claim that other ethnic groups are indeed protected, but the fact is they are only so at their discretion.  The international community barely bats an eyelid. I have many Malaysian Chinese and Indian colleagues and friends who have described a life of discrimination growing up in Malaysia.

So when a headline in the Straits Times article reads “Ex-PM Mahathir says Malaysia should claim Singapore and Riau Islands” you can feel Malay political chauvinism trampling all over history.

Mahathir said that Singapore and the Riau islands should be given back to Malaysia, because these places were Malay lands. He added that the Malay peninsula did not belong to Malays because they were poor and questioned who the Malay Peninsula would belong to in the future. Of course the word “Malay” can mean a person who is from the country of Malaysia, the Austronesian language group of Malay, or as a catch-all term that refers to the people who speak one of numerous related languages or dialects of it. On this latter point some linguists argue that these related languages can be found as far west as Madagascar and as far east as the islands of Polynesia. It is the rantings of a man who for some reason does not know, or who pretends not to know, or who maybe just enjoys stirring up trouble.

So, let’s just ignore the points about who "owns" the Malay peninsula now and in the future: such speculation is simply nonsensical and reeks of a sense of victimhood orchestrated for the benefit of Malay political opportunists. Also let’s ignore the perhaps purposeful deployment of ambiguity in his use of the word "Malay" as a way of diffusing responsibility should he be challenged on his claim sometime in the future.

Mahathir’s musings on Singapore and Riau presumably are making reference to the Johor-Riau Sultanate which at one time or another included: the land which is, more or less, the now Malaysian state of Johor though which for most of the period of the Sultanate’s existence really only included the coastline and river banks; chunks of land in what are now the Sumatran provinces of Riau and South Sumatra in the Republic of Indonesia; the island of Singapore and the 60 or so islands in its immediate vicinity; and the 2,000 islands that make up the Riau archipelago part of the aforementioned province of Riau. This political entity existed for many centuries before the existence of the modern state of Malaysia and its politicians in Kuala Lumpur. 

Mahathir seems to be saying that an area of sea and land which hosted an ancient political entity and was populated by a distinct ethnic group should be “returned” to a political entity which did not exist at the time, and has only existed since 1963. Moreover, that a group of self-serving Malay politicians (meaning politicians from the state of Malaysia) has the right to claim a domain that was inhabited by a distinct ethnic group that they now claim as their own because they are “Malay”. The politicians seem to be adopting the same habit as their hated colonial overlords, the British, by categorising all people with brown skin as “Malay”.

The not-very-attractive city of Kuala Lumpur is probably the youngest capital city in all of Southeast Asia. The nation-state of Malaysia was a creation of the British. For much of its existence the epicentre of the Sultanate lay not in Johor, nor in Singapore, but among the Riau islands to the south. In the years prior to its collapse, it was ruled not by Malays, nor even the local sea people the Orang Laut, but by the Bugis, a people who originally came from Celebes located in what is now central Indonesia. Even in 1819, according to some accounts, the Bugis outnumbered the Malays on the island of Singapore.

The chauvinistic government of Malaysia has enough on its hands with its deeply ingrained corrupt politics and jailed leaders. It would be a catastrophe to impose its toxic brand of government beyond its own recently created, and gifted boundaries, of the Malay peninsula and disconnected provinces on the ancient island of Borneo which historically have little to do with the Malay peninsula. God forbid that they should ever have any say over Singapore or Riau, especially on the basis of some non-existent justification that they were in some way part of the infant state of Malaysia.

Another article appeared in the Malay press in June 2022 with the headline “Johor can quit Malaysia if rights are breached, Sultan warns Putrajaya”. Now we’re talking! Unlike Mahathir’s rant, there is a significant historical basis for such sentiment coming from the Sultan of Johor. The idea of a resurrection of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate is a theme that arises from time to time in Palace of Ghosts. The combination of Johor, Singapore and the Riau islands into a single entity in a modern context is a fantastical notion, but it has more historical basis than the current set of boundaries of todays’ nation-states in the region (Brunei excluded!).

Dr Mahathir: gotta love the way he makes stuff up, and can’t wait for his next stand-up act.

Historical instances of racial prejudice are occasionally exposed in the story of Palace of Ghosts. While it is relevant to make such references, I try to tell a story which transcends such prejudices and looks at the bigger picture, the passage of time and how and why events unfolded. There are undoubtedly episodes where racial prejudice played a part, but the saddest thing when considering how the present engages with the past is when we see something like Malay chauvinism today trying to claim both a history and a future that doesn’t belong to them, and thereby repeating the mistakes of their colonial predecessors.