Talk:Mahathir bin Mohamad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Mahathir bin Mohamad was the Malaysian collaboration of the month for January 2008.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Malaysian WikiProject

Contents

[edit] Revisionism At Work?

Would someone please verify, with indisputable evidence, that the image "260px-Tunku_abdul_rahman31.jpg" as being an actual taken photograph? The image seems to be a doctored one i.e. a composite of two photos being merged together. The image of Tunku and Dr. M holding hands, especially during Tunku's twilight years does not seem to resonate with my knowledge of the relationship between this two personalities.

It is little known, except to those in the know or those whom are familiar with M'sian politics, that Dr. M was a bitter critic of Tunku when the latter was P.M. Suffice to say, Tunku gave to him 'lock, stock, and two smoking barrels' by 'expelling' him from UMNO, among other things. Even to the end of his days, Tunku, may God bless his soul, remained a political opponent of Dr. M.

Seems to me there is revisionist out there who's attempting to make Dr. M look good(?). Kind of reminds me of a book that is now being touted as being first(!) published in 1971 instead of BEFORE 1969(!!!). And I thought only Communists had the luxury of accusing others for being 'revisionists'.

Babyrina2 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add, during the Tunku's time and until Mahathir become Prime Minister, there were two group, the royalty and normal citizen. This two group were fighting for power, most Prime Minister before Mahathir has royalty blood. The royalty lost they grip on power when Tungku Razeligh fail to win the party election for president which was won by Mahathir.

Tunku Abdul Rahman could not be said as to be more popular then Mahathir. Mahathir achieve to reduce the royalty power during his tenure, including by changging the constitution law that alow the court to punish royalty for any crime they made.

[edit] Early discussion

Does anyone know: Is bin capitizalized at the start of a sentence?-- Viajero 08:54 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

yes, it is usually cap'ed __earth 16:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
However it is rare you should use bin at the start of a sentence since it is rare you should refer to someone as bin. The bin Laden family is one exception but I'm not so sure whether Osama should be referred to as bin Laden Nil Einne 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • bin* means =son of=. as oppose to *binti*, which means =daughter of=. therefore, it is rare that a sentence or a name to begin with *bin* or *binti*. last name for a muslim are usually paternal, and a woman who marries still keeps it and not change to her husband's. thus it is better to refer to their first names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.12.50 (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think his "economic nationalism" is controversial or disputed. Rather his methods... --Viajero 09:01 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning 'BIN'

Hi there!

Just thought I'd try to help clear out any confusions concerning the word 'bin' that is usually found in Asians' (particularly Malays) names.

In a Malay name, the format are as follows: 1) AAA bin BBB or 2) CCC binti DDD

The first format is for a male while the 2nd one is for a female. Unlike Western names, most Asian names do not have any family names. The 'AAA' is the first name while the 'BBB' is the father's name. Same goes for the 'CCC' and 'DDD'. The word 'BIN' actually means 'son of' where as 'BINTI' means 'daughter of'.

So, when Malays such as myself goes off overseas, we often get confused because people tend to call us by our 'supposedly' surname. For example, my name is Anis binti Hamzah, but I would be called Ms. Binti Hamzah or Ms. Hamzah. It's quite funny though, coz the person is actually calling out 'daughter of Hamzah'.

I hope the brief explanation was helpful. Any inquiries about the Malays in general, can mail me at suzanis@graffiti.net

Thanks for the helpful explanation. Maybe this can added to one of the standard help pages. -- Viajero 06:27, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Just want to clarify a bit further. Actually, most Asian names DO have family surnames. These include people of Chinese descent (Singaporeans, Chinese Malaysians, etc), Thais, Burmese, Vietnamese, Koreans and Japanese. Example of a Chinese Malaysian name: Lee Ah Beng, Lee being the surname and Ah Beng being the first name (since east asian names have the surnames up front. His son's name could then be Lee Ah Chu.
Indian Malaysians (or Indians in general) only have their parent(s)' name after their first name, in a way similar to most Malays and Indonesians. Exceptions are Indians of upper caste background; they might have a inherited surname together with their parent(s)' name - such inherited surnames (which could be seen as a title) also exist for Malays of royal blood. Example of a Malay name: Mahmud Tengku Abdullah, where Mahmud is the first name, Tengku is a royal surname and Abdullah is the father's name. His son's name, should he choose to name his son Aziz, would be Aziz Tengku Mahmud. -- ChuaMan 08:07, 29 Aug 2006 (UTC)
I want to add a comment to this discussion also (although we're getting really off-topic now :)). It's good to avoid "first name" and "surname" when discussing international names, as they imply an ordering ("sur-" is a suffix meaning "at the end"). The terms "given name" and "family name" are generally better understood (given name is the name unique to you; family name is the name you "inherit"). It applies better to European and Chinese-style names than Malay (family name is a bit misleading for Malay names as it only continues for one generation), but is generally clearer than "first name" and "surname". Chovain 01:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

After due consideration, I have moved the following quotes here:

On October 16, 2003, he said in a speech to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them," which prompted condemnations from the EU, USA, Israel, and Australia, among others, and the Malaysian opposition party Democratic Action Party. Condemnation from Australia was especially rare, as that nation has ignored Mahathir's rhetoric in the past.
"We cannot fight them (the Jews) through brawn alone, we must use our brains also," said in an speech to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference on October 16.
"Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing." (same speech?cf Neturei Karta)

I read the entire speech [1] and feel that to use his words in this way in the article to quote them out of context. (To be sure, his choice of words was not felicitous.) If anyone feels strongly otherwise, let's discuss it here. -- Viajero 18:07, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have also read the speech in full, and I would say that it is anti-Semitic. He plainly used the Jews as the bogeyman, so to speak, and knowledge and science as not the end rather the means of destroying the Jews. Remember, the "Jews rules the world" myth had been used by Hitler in the Holocaust, Stalin in the Gulags, along with other Arab dictatorships, especially Iraq in the 50s to justify pogroms, exile and/or genocide. -- rajanr
And that's so different from Dubya's antisemitism, using Arabs as bogeymen. Besides, the apology for the EU poll[2] proves Mahathir's not all wrong.
Concerns about Bush should be discussed on the Bush page. Not everything is about Bush or America. The discussion here is about Mahathir and his view of Jewish people. Do you have any thoughts you would like to share on that matter?--Malbear 12:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also think that it shouldn't be said that the isseue was largely ignored in malaysia...because let's face it, any news out of america is big news everywhere else in the world.

[edit] Query

Hi Andrew,

I am curious as to why you deleted this text:

This statement alarmed Malaysian moderates who fear that Malaysia's British-based common law is being degraded and sharia will be extended to Malaysia's non-Muslim population, notably the large population of ethnic Chinese.

It was expressed by a member of Malaysia's Indian minority. I derived it from here: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172597745.html

You added this text yesterday:

Nonetheless, largely due to the economic development of the country, which by and large has benefited all races, he leaves behind a

peaceful and confident Malaysia.

Yet media reports suggest that certain inter-ethnic tensions remain and I think it would important to report this, if it is indeed the case. I mean, two northern provinces are now already governed by sharia!

I look forward to your comments. Thanks, -- Viajero 08:55, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Honorific

Hi again Andrew,

In conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), I have unbolded dato' seri (I also added Mahathir bin Mohamad as an example). People may not immediately know that it is an Malay honorific, but they will after they read the article ;-).

As for the Dr, we tend not to use this and other titles for English-language articles. See for example Albert Schweitzer or Henry Kissinger.

Hi, For Malaysian society, honorific or title is very important and most people "bought" it rather than "achieved". It represents social class and come very useful to climb the society and economic status. It has became tool to get easy loan or land or business opportunities.


-- Viajero 09:18, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] mv one line from article here

I have moved the following line here:

It has, however been put to better uses recently; it has been used against dangerous groups of Islamic militants and terror groups.

It is rather POV. -- Viajero 14:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Surely we can find a better picture of Mahathir than the pathetic one that is there. Any volunteers? -- Malbear 12:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 2004 photograph is dire and does Dr M a disservice, whatever your opinion of him. However, having two pictures at the top is excessive.Quiensabe 21:29, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I've reinstated my unfortunately not the best but GFDL image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SMS0418_Mahathir_c.jpg , while waiting for a better GFDL/Free image of Dr M. --sabre23t 11:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added:Medical school

"This eventually became the Medical Faculty of the University of Malaya. It eventually became the Medical Faculty of the National University of Singapore (bearing the original name). Thus Mahathir is an alumnus of both universities."

Was always unclear as to why both schools refered to him as alumnus. --Malbear 13:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To do:Adopted

"they have seven children Marina, Mirzan, Melinda, Mokhzani, Mukhriz, Maizura, and Mazhar and ten grandchildren." I believe a long time ago there was a whole long string of articles about themadopting children. Are all 7 listed there biological children or are some adopted?--Malbear 13:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mahathir has 3 natural sons, 2 natural daughters and 2 adopted children --ChuaMan 8:45, 29 Aug 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed:unproven cronyism

"While officially not proven, it is generally accepted that the vast majority of government members and entrepreneurs unjustly enriched themselves under Mahathir's rule, with his tacit approval."

This statement needs a citation of some sort else it is just a "surat layang" by any other name.


[edit] Citation Requested: IMF and soros endorsement

"As the Malaysian economy recovered, the IMF and George Soros released statements saying that Mahathir's policies had indeed been the right ones"

Can someone find a cite for this? Personally I doubt they came right out and said it clearly but stranger things have happened.

According to [Asia Times ]: ...Perhaps the most surprising endorsement of capital controls came from the International Monetary Fund, which had stridently opposed the action last year. IMF Board members broadly agreed that the regime of capital controls - which was intended by the authorities to be temporary - had produced more positive results than many observers had initially expected, according to a summary of a July board meeting released September 8....

Please see: http://pgoh13.free.fr/mahathir_IMF.html Quote: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said Malaysia's approach to peg the ringgit in dealing with the Asian financial crisis was the correct move. "With hindsight, we have to recognise the good performance of the economy. Mahathir was right," said the fund's managing director Horst Koehler, referring to the decision in September 1998 by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the aftermath of the currency crash.

Hmmmm. Those two sources say very different things. One just says that the IMF says that a certain policy has produiced "more positive results than many observers had initially expected." The other credits the IMF with going much further than that, saying that what Mahathir did was right, not just "better than expected"! his conflict of sources makes the situation even more interesting than it had been. And we've so far left the portion of the original statement that named Soros out of our accounts. User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 21:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Embelish please:Fiscal policies

"Perhaps the prudent fiscal and monetary policies have ensured that the Malaysian economy, while not growing as spectacularly as before, is well balanced and not built on questionable fundamentals. "

Can someone fill in some details and examples. Without them this is just cheerleading.

[edit] Re-write: Doom and gloom

"Long term structural considerations, such as the uncompetitiveness of Malaysian firms, the failure of Malaysian industry to move up the value chain in the face of increasing costs and competition from other countries in the region (most notably China) as well as lack of results in R&D, still cloud the horizon, and Malaysia's long term prospects appear to be deeply uncertain if not bleak."

Can someone re-write this?


[edit] Recommend removal: Anwar

"In separate trials, Anwar was sentenced to six years in prison for corruption and nine years prison for sodomy, to be served concurrently. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the trials.[3] [4]

The Anwar crisis sparked unprecedented massive protests by Malaysians, of all ethnic groups, and many of Anwar's supporters from UMNO regrouped around the intellectual-Muslim "Parti Keadilan Nasional" (National Justice Party). Despite faring well for a new party in the 1999 elections, the party foundered in the 2004 elections, with Anwar's wife, Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail left as the only Keadilan member of parliament. "

This can be viewed on the Anwar page and is relevant there. I fail to see the relevance here?

I think it displays how Mahathir's actions in removing Anwar changed the political scene in Malaysia. It could be summarised a little bit more, though. Johnleemk | Talk 13:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is one sided and does not even attempt to tell the whole story. This whole page should be re-titled "How Mahathir's opponents view him."

[edit] Recomend removal: PAS

"Despite this, PAS only captured the state of Terengganu in the 1999 elections, and failed to retain it in the next election. This was largely seen to be due to PAS' fundamentalist Islamic policies, as they had introduced Islamic sharia laws into Terengganu and their other stronghold, Kelantan. These laws included banning various forms of entertainment, and mandatory wearing of the hijab for women, regardless of religion. Many political analysts felt that this had prevented PAS from making major gains, keeping the reins of power firmly in Mahathir's hands, as the non-Malay voters were turned off by the perceived religious fundamentalism of PAS."

What the heck does PAS election thing have to do with Mahathir anyway?

I think it shows how the electorate chose Mahathir over PAS, although I do think it could use some summarising. Johnleemk | Talk 13:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed: Ministry allocation

Health and transport has always been MCA and Works has always been MIC. Finance was an aberation as originally it was held by Tan Siew Sin who was removed since he refused to allow deficit spending. In a country where Courts Mammoth can become the biggest furniture store by offering "tanpa cengkeram" anyone disallowing deficit spending will surely see the door in finance. Good man, bad politician, tough break. Although it can also be argued that there has always been a debate amongst Economists Keynesian and otherwise, on whether or not deficit spending is good or bad under different circumstances.

[edit] Altered: Scholarships

"Malay scholarships are another major problem as these are more often given to the children of the well connected and affluent Malays at the expense of the children of poor Malay farmers/settlers/fishermen."

To

"Public scholarships are another issue of contention as there is a perception that these are given to the children of those who are connected and affluent giving the perception that these awards are not based on merit. Those who believe that scholarships should be given based on need would rather see it go to poor people who are often stereotyped as farmers/settlers/fishermen. However, none of these scholarships claim to be given on a basis of need."

1) There are no Malay scholarships. If the Malay community wishes to set up a scholarship fund (like Mendaki in Singapore) then they are welcome to give it to only Malays. Sort of like how the Hokkien association only gives "academic prizes" to Hokkien people etc. The issues is that these are "public scholarships" funded by the taxes of the rakyat.

2) We do not know if they are "more often" given to such people. (Unless you have a cite or a figure). We do however know that they are perceived to be given to such people. Example 100 people get scholarships, one is datuks son, there is perception that scholarships are given to those who are not "needy".

[edit] Request Cite: NS

"At the instigation of Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak (now Deputy Prime Minister)"

I am inclined (70%) to believe this is true but without a cite I will bet dollars to bananas that someone will come along and challenge it...

[edit] Summarising

I'm beginning to think we're overloading this article with irrelevant information. A lot of the material here would fit in better with National Service in Malaysia or the various election articles. We ought to summarise these longwinded details and condense them. Much of the information fits in better elsewhere.

True we could start a new page with the same title as a proposed mandatory course in local unis (thankfully never implemented) - "The thoughts of Dr. Mahathir" :) [this is a loooooong article. Why did I ever try to start eating this elephant]

[edit] Removed:Australia into Asean

"Mahathir's government is also widely perceived as putting efforts to exclude Australia from South East Asian intergovernmental agreements, such as ASEAN."

Tried googling since this rings false. No record of Australia ever wanting to join ASEAN. If anything the asian perception is that Australia is too "white", hence the Hanson concerns. It is part of Asia (regionally) yet tries to be part of Europe. Anyway please find a cite for this...--Malbear 14:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re-organize: Stance on terror

"He has, however, taken a very strong stance for the war on terror, cooperating with neighbours Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia in flushing out terrorist insurgencies, while at the same time cracking down ruthlessly on suspected militants back home."

Someone move this where appropriate because it doesn't say a thing about Mahathir and Australia (the section).

[edit] Quotations from Mahathir

Mahathir is the master of the juicy quote, so please add in anything you can attribute to Wikiquote — esp. if somebody can find the full text of the famous "Jews rule the world by proxy" quote. Jpatokal 06:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "full text" meaning the whole speech? That would be worth an external link. --Christofurio 20:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

"The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews. It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think." Purple Rose 11:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

I think that the NPOV tag on this article is appropriate. The article seems to be, to a certain extent, a soapbox for Mahathir's critics, and does not reflect the fact that he is widely respected throughout the Third World for his successful challenges to the policies of the IMF. Consequently, he became a special target of rage for the Anglo-American financial interests and the news media they control, which have vigorously supported and promoted his various opponents, not wishing to confront him directly themselves. --HK 14:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag. If anyone has specific issues with this article, they need to list them here. Viajero | Talk 21:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to ask where User:Herschelkrustofsky gets the interpretation of events that he lists. Is there a source? -Willmcw 22:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] affirmative action statement

With regards to comparing the US to Malaysia's affirmative action policies, there *is* a substantial black middle class in the USA [5]. The fact that the economically deprived subgroup is a minority group is also radically different to the Malaysian situation, where it is/was the ethnic minority Chinese who are economically powerful. Hence, I'll remove the comparison with the USA--01:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

I am surprised that there is mention of only one instance of Mahatir's anti-semitism. Throughout his time as Prime Minister he made many offensive and anti-semitic statements. This should at least be noted in the intro. He was not just anti-Israel, but rather quite racist against jews. Xtra 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Funny because he doesn't talk about Jews everyday or every week neither every month. It was just that one "Jews rule the world by proxy" speech. __earth 18:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well there were his well-known 1997 remarks, attributing the currency collapse to the Jews, but they've been added to the record.--Rostov 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction. He attributed the collapse to George Soros and other speculators, not Jew as a whole. __earth (Talk) 04:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote I added explicitly named Jews, not simply Soros alone. It belongs in here. It was newsworthy and much-noted at the time. Please explain why you wanted to delete an actual quote from the man - one I've been able to verify through Lexis-Nexis. --Rostov 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it because there were no citation the first time you added the quote. Since you have added it now, then there's nothing to disagree of. __earth (Talk) 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Cool. --Rostov 14:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid Weasel Terms

I have removed a number of editorial comments, attributed to anonymous "critics" in violation of WP:AWT. If such "critics" actually exist, they should be identified appropriately in a section entitled "criticism," which is the standard format for biographical articles. I would ask Xtra and Willmcw to avoid inserting their POV in this article, and the use of Weasel Terms is symptomatic of that. I also removed "American individualism" as a counterpole to Asian values -- there is no school of economics called "American individualism." It's a novel, POV usage, and unless there is a specific source for it, it should go. Asian values are clearly in opposition to laissez-faire capitalism. --HK 07:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

One reference (plenty more if you realy want) "The right to remain outspoken" South China Morning Post, November 22, 2004, Behind The News; Pg. 16. Now stop with the POV reverts. Xtra 09:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have inserted no POV into this article. Check my edits HK. My edits are have not at any stage been POV insertion. However, removing even handed comment is POV. Xtra 09:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue in WP:AWT is not whether the comment is "even-handed," but whether it is verifiable (see also WP:V.) If you provide a source, then the reader may evaluate the comment in terms of where it originates. In this case, I have done your work for you: "The right to remain outspoken" is based on an interview with Anwar Ibrahim, and the "cronyism" comments come from author Kerry Collison, who served in the Australian Air Force with a high security clearence and was subsequently involved in spooky activities in Indonesia, suggestive of intelligence work (see [6].) He also authors books alleging a variety of conspiracies by Muslims against the West. If you think that Collison is a suitable source for Wikipedia, then by all means quote him (with attribution), but I wouldn't put his views in the introduction to the article. I also request that you edit in a civil and responsible manner, rather than simply reverting; for example, you re-inserted the business about "Asian values vs. American individualism" without providing any explanation. If that goes in again, you should explain why, preferably by providing a verifiable source. --HK 16:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Cronyism" charges:
  • After decades of subservience, Anwar Ibrahim did the unthinkable and spoke out against the corrupt Mahathir bin Mohamad, the mismanagement of the economy, the cronyism, the corruption.
www.heureka.clara.net/sunrise/anwar.htm
  • When critics complain about Malaysia's brand of crony capitalism,...[7]
  • ...the hopes of those who want a more liberal, less crony-ridden Malaysia.[8]
  • That gives it the leeway to pursue the pro-business policies that over years have drawn foreign direct investment as well as allegations of cronyism.[9]
And so on. -Willmcw 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with creating a "criticism" section, where the criticisms are properly attributed. However, putting the criticism anonymously in the intro creates the impression that these criticisms are universally shared, an explicit violation of WP:AWT. Also note that neither Xtra nor Willmcw have responded to my request that some justification be offered for "Asian values vs. American Individualism," a specious and incompetent argument. --HK 03:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Under your arbitration ruling HK, you are not permited to repetedly delete text from articles to push your POV. I ask you to stop or I will be forced to take this matter up with an admin. Xtra 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

HK removed the text on "cronyism" because it was unsourced. I found several sources but he reverted th material anyway. As for "Asian Values", it is more than simply an economic policy and I've removed the comparison to supposedly American values, which was a false dichotomy. -Willmcw 03:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What I am requesting is that the sources be provided in the article. That is the point of WP:AWT -- to prevent the use of propagandistic techniques, i.e., the implication that a view is widely held, without revealing just who it is that holds the view. For example, taking a look at the sources provided by Willmcw, they are all from either Western financial writers -- who maybe, just maybe, have a bias against Mahathir for his successful stand against the IMF -- or from supporters of Anwar Ibrahim, who is seen by many Malaysians as a cat's paw for Western financiers. A possible exception is http://www.kiat.net/; I took a look at that one, and wasn't sure exactly what to make of it. It looks like a blog of sorts.
It seems straightforward to me. Most readers don't go to the talk page for clarification of the article, so please source the criticism in the article.
Otherwise, thanks for removing the false dichotomy, but kindly remove "authoritarian" from "state-led capitalism" -- it is POV. "State-led capitalism" -- properly called Dirigisme -- is no more "authoritarian" than the "financier-led" or "IMF-led" capitalism preferred by the laissez-faire advocates. --HK 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
"Asian values" include support for authoritarian governments. "Dirigisme" is a separate, French-derived concept. I don't understand your issue about sourcing the cronyism allegation in the article. I've added the sources there. What more do you want? -Willmcw 18:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Leave "authoritarian" in the sentence about critics. Your footnotes are fine. If you wanted to be really up-front, you might say "Western Critics." Wikipedia as a whole tends to be extremely Anglocentric, and editors simply take for granted that the only viewpoints that count are in the English-language press.
However, I request that you remove "authoritarian" from the sentence about "Asian values." The article, Asian values, which I presume is your source, says that proponents of Asian values "tend to support Asian-style authoritarian governments," which I think is itself POV and should be re-worked. The U.S. and British governments are being viewed with alarm all over the world for pursuing a policy of preventive war, torture and over-zealous internal security measures, but the last time I checked, I don't see references in Wikipedia to "Western-style authoritarian governments."
Regarding your objection to Dirigisme (dirigism in English, a standard economics term,) it is just as much of a "French-derived concept" as its opposite, laissez-faire, to which you have apparently no objection. English-speakers are generally familiar only with the latter concept, nowadays. --HK 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My point about Dirigisme being French is that it isn't Asian. We're talking about two separate, though overlapping, ideas. You may think that support for authoritarian governments in the Asian Values concept is POV, but NPOV requires that we include all POVs, so I don't understand your point. You'd have a tough time proving that no one things Asian Values includes support for authoritarian systems. Regarding "laissez faire", please check my edits again. Regarding "Western Critics" - I don't know that all of Ibrahaim's supporters are westerners. Mohamad has critics in Asia and in his own country. -Willmcw 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, An essay on Asian values by Nobel Ecomics Prize winner Amartya Sen, "Human Rights and Asian Values"[10] that explicitly talks about its support of authoritarianism (though not in reference to Mahathir bin Mohamad). -Willmcw 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does require that we include all POVs -- wouldn't it be great if that were actually put into practice? -- but also requires that the POVs be sourced and verifiable. If a POV is simple baldly asserted as fact, i.e., "State-directed or dirigist economies are authoritarian," the reader is being asked to assume that the idea is universally accepted, which it is not.

Try to imagine this controversy as seen through the eyes of a non-WASP, the sort of non-WASP who would be unlikely to ever get published in the New Republic. The Western press employs a sort of Orwellian double-speak, where when the IMF is demanding genocidal reductions in the living standards of a Third World nation, they call it reform, where the looting of vulnerable economies is called free trade and sometimes even democracy, and where the practice of attempting to defend one's economy via Protectionism is always characterized as authoritarian. --HK 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We have sources that define "Asian values" as supporting authoritarianism. Since those sources are in the Asian values article I don't see a need to repeat them here. Dirigisme doesn't seem to have anything to do with political authoriatarianism. Let's keep the two separate. As for cronyism, we shoulnd't go into the details of attributions in an intro. It might be appropriate to have a paragraph detailing the allegations further down. -Willmcw 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If the sentence "He has been a very aggressive proponent of "Asian values" a form of authoritarian state-led capitalism" were modified to become "He has been a very aggressive proponent of "Asian values," a form of allegedly authoritarian state-led capitalism," I would consider that to be sufficiently NPOV and would move to unprotect. --HK 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Asian values is not a form of capitalism. Please read out article on the topic. If you wish, and have source to support it, we might say that he also supports state-led capitalism, but those two concepts should not be confused.-Willmcw 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely. The article is unprotected now, and I'll amend the sentence to say simply that he has been a very agressive proponent of Asian values. If that is not satisfactory to you, hopefully we can discuss it further and resolve it in a civil manner. --HK 14:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Please work this out. Use dispute resolution if need be. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected this page - please do not resort to revert wars if you still don't see eye to eye over everything. If there is a dispute, try one of the established dispute resolution procedures. Thanks. Izehar 12:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

Attn. 68.48.23.45: the issue of whether Dr. Mahathir is an anti-semite is disputed. It is a matter of opinion, not verifiable fact, and therefore we must use language that reflects that. I changed your formulation to "Mahathir is regarded by many as an anti-semite." I hope that is satisfactory to you, but if it is not, you should discuss it on this page before reverting. --HK 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Economic policies preferred by some Western factions

  • Ibrahim was the preeminent Malaysian spokesperson for the economic policies preferred by some Western factions, as represented by Gore.

What is meant by this sentence? Which policies are these? -Will Beback 08:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed in some detail at the article Anwar Ibrahim. --HK 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The only sentence in that article which mentions Gore concerns his condemnation of the sodomy trial. There's no mention of any economic policies which he supports. -Will Beback 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added a cite which I hope perhaps may put your mind at ease. --HK 21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback, please stop playing games. Your "summary" of what is in the article is completely POV; for example, the article says that "Not surprisingly, sections of Malaysian business reacted with hostility to Anwar as he began to implement the demands of the IMF at the end of last year for budget cutbacks, tough financial measures and the abolition of huge state-backed infrastructure projects. Anwar was sacked the day after Mahathir announced tight monetary and capital controls aimed at halting speculation in Malaysian stocks and currency, and easing credit restrictions for Malaysian businesses, many of which were teetering on the brink of collapse. ...many people are understandably sceptical about the "market reforms" championed by Anwar. After all, "the gale of creative destruction" has already produced a social disaster in countries like Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea and elsewhere, throwing millions out of work and into poverty virtually overnight." You assert that "Ibrahim was the preeminent Malaysian spokesperson for economic reform intended to root out cronyism and corruption," which evidently is your opinion, not that of the cited article. I am removing it as original research. I would also suggest that if you are itching for a POV battle over whether Ibrahim was the White Knight of Malaysian politics, do it at his article, not this one. --HK 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like my description of Ibrahim's economic proposals then please write your own, as I requested before, and please indicate which "Western factions" are being referred to. -Will Beback 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Western factions include the IMF and the government of the U.S. I think that it is neither necessary nor desirable to characterize Ibrahim's economic proposals; it opens a whole pandora's box of POV, because for the IMF, the creditor institutions, and the speculators, "reform" means acquiescence to their demands, which from their point of view is a very good thing, whereas from the point of view of those who must dwell in third world countries, "reform" is a euphemism for plunder. Perhaps you want to argue this point, but I don't think that this article is an appropriate venue. I believe that the present formulation is adequate and neutral. --HK 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim's proposals are already discussed in various places, such:

  • Anwar and his supporters tried to turn corruption and nepotism into major political issues, with Mahathir and his associates as the target, and this unleashed the wrath of the government. Many observers saw the engineering of Anwar's dismissal as the result of the triumph of the secular corporate nationalist old guard over the younger "green" or Islamist faction within UMNO, created after the popular Islamic youth leader, Anwar, had been brought into the government by Mahathir.

So there's no need to be coy about his reform proposals. Let's just say his reform proposals were supported by Gore. Either name the "Western factions" or leave them out. -Will Beback 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, you seem determined to introduce your POV, which seems to be that Ibrahim was campaigning for Truth, Justice and the American Way (actually, the latter category may be correct.) You must realize that all of this is disputed, and if you try to make the article into an endorsement of Ibrahim (and a de facto condemnation of Mahathir,) it is going to result in endless dispute. We will all be better off if you would accept neutral language. --HK 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that since the topic is so contentious that we remove the reference to his policies. It is a distraction from the intent of the paragraph, which is on Gore's criticism of Mahathir. -Will Beback 01:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing the reference to economic policy creates the highly misleading impression that the issue between Mahathir and Ibrahim, and the basis for Gores's intervention, was sodomy. That is clearly not the case. It is possible to note that there was a conflict over economic policy, in which Gore took Ibrahim's side, without announcing that one side was the good guys and the other, the bad guys. Your edits, proclaiming that Ibrahim was "fighting corruption and cronyism," or advocating "reform," were not helpful; I personally think that Ibrahim was selling Malaysia out to foreign predators, but I have refrained from tilting the article toward that POV. I urge you to show similar restraint. I think that this section, at present, is sufficiently neutral, but if you disagree, I would recommend a RfC. --HK 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed western into IMF and some policies into rate hikes. I hope that helps in disfussing the this little disagreement. But I disagree about Anwar being painted as one of the good guys. He was as corrupt as the other. He obviously had the most to gain with the IMF demanded "reforms". __earth (Talk) 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with this point of view, I think the article should just point out that some people consider Anwar to have been the good guy here and others accuse him of being motivated for the wrong reasons (with a source cited, of course). Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Has everyone here read the article? We're not talking about the lengthy mentions of Anwar in the article:
  • In 1998, attention around the globe was focused on Malaysia when the government brought sodomy and abuse of power charges against the former finance minister and deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar and his supporters tried to turn corruption and nepotism into major political issues, with Mahathir and his associates as the target, and this unleashed the wrath of the government. Many observers saw the engineering of Anwar's dismissal as the result of the triumph of the secular corporate nationalist old guard over the younger "green" or Islamist faction within UMNO, created after the popular Islamic youth leader, Anwar, had been brought into the government by Mahathir. In separate trials, Anwar was sentenced to six years in prison for corruption and nine years prison for sodomy, to be served concurrently. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the trials. [11] [12] The Anwar crisis sparked protests by some Malaysians, of all ethnic groups, and some of Anwar's supporters from UMNO regrouped around the intellectual-Muslim "Parti Keadilan Nasional" (National Justice Party). Failing to garner widespread support from Malaysians, "Parti keAdilan could only win only 2 parlimentary seats in the 1999 elections. In the subsequent 2004 elections, the party was nearly wiped out, with Wan Azizah, the wife of Anwar, winning one seat by the narrowest of margins, mainly based on sympathetic votes, and thereon ceased to be relevant.
The dispute here is about how, or whether, to mention Anwar again in reference to Gore's criticism under the section covering foreign relations with the United States, Mahathir bin Mohamad#United States:
  • Al Gore had been criticizing the charges made by Mahathir against Mahathir's former deputy Anwar Ibrahim, charges of sodomy and abuse of power. Ibrahim was the preeminent Malaysian spokesperson for the economic policies preferred by the IMF, which included interest rate hikes, among others. An article in Malaysia Today commented that "Gore's comments constituted a none-too-subtle attack on Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and more generally on governments, including Japan, that resist US demands for further market reforms." [13] Gore's endorsement for the reformasi (reformation,) asking for (among other things) the ouster of Mahathir, was anathema to Mahathir, and he remarked that "I've never seen anybody so rude." This also summed up the Malaysian expectation that one who is a guest should not show such discourtesy to the host.
In that context, the second sentence the one about the IMF that I have highlighted, is a distraction. -Will Beback 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert

Many of the additions by Terrancommander are not factually accurate or in compliance with Wikipedia policy. We cannot speculate on Mahathir's motives for considering himself a "full Malay" without a source; it is original research otherwise. There is no policy requiring a Malay to be PM. The issue of Mahathir's relationship with his alma mater and Singapore appears to be a novel interpretation of events under our original research policy; could we have a source, please? "It must be noted" sounds biased, so I reworded it. The bridge was not vetoed by a "Malaysian majority". The government cancelled the project, citing opposition from the people. If anything, Mahathir appears to believe the majority supports him, since he is calling for a referendum on the bridge. The "deep down" is a "racist" remark was uncalled for and is clearly biased. The same goes for the "rude" and "Islamic radical" comments. Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Many of my sources derive from public speeches made by Mahathir himself, as well as from the newspapers (of which are copyrighted material), and I have no idea how to include these in. Perhaps you could help me to? The "full Malay" comes from Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography entitled "The Singapore Story", where it must be noted that Mahathir actually gave a good impression of himself to the public, praising the West and Singapore. It is also public knowledge that Malaysia has certain biased rules (e.g. all tourist guides in the country must be Malaysian). It is also mentioned in "The Singapore Story" that the leader of the 1960s MCA worked so hard, then realised that he could not be Prime Minister, for he was not a Malay. His attitude changed on being Prime Minister, however... If he is not a radical, there is no reason for him to say such things about Israel, which has done nothing wrong to him or his family personally. Why does he not speak up for countries like Cyprus, which was wrongly invaded by Turkey (similar to US invasions)? Simple. Turkey has a main Muslim majority of 50%, so he would support the invasion. It also occurs to me that Mahathir bears a certain resemblance to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes racist comments and other comments without considering. Hope you can tell me how to further improve articles! :) --Terrancommander 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Also with many criticisms about the Malaysian government, the West and Israel over many small issues, I think we must agree that Mahathir is not an angel. As the first discussion note here says, it really seems that someone is trying to put him in a better light. Nowhere in the backgorund does it mention of Mahathir's rocky relations, only in small parts like "foreign relations". I'll try my best to find evidence. --Terrancommander 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If there are many sources, then provide it. __earth (Talk) 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can. Only problem is, you got to pay to access that news website. So the link is as good as a broken one. What I meant was, find free, accessible sources. I know BBC is free, but it isn't a Malaysian news agency, they can't be reporting what goes on everyday in Malaysia regarding Mahathir right? --Terrancommander 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So, can you or can you not? __earth (Talk) 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Terran, I haven't looked at your additions but whether or not your sources derive from Mahathir's speeches is largely irrelevant. If you are present an intepretation of Mahathir based on his speechs that is original research. It might help if to read the policy on original research. If you can find a reliable source who has provided such an intepretation, you can include it as someone's POV but you cannot include your POV. Were you to write up your POV and have it published somewhere and were it to be considered a reliable source, we might choose to reference it. But please DO NOT reference anything you yourself have written, although it would probably be acceptable to most editors if you were to suggest it for inclusion in the talk page if you clearly identify yourself as the author.
On the issue of sources, pay news websites (do you mean Malaysiakini?) are usually accepted if they are considered reliable and add something significant to the article. Also, while I've only done a quick read through of the article, it seems resonable enough to me. Of course, it can be improved as with many articles. The fact that Mahathir is not an angel is irrelevant. It is our job to provide a NPOV account of him, including criticisms and purpoted achievements not to tell the reader that Mahathir is not an angel. You might want to talk a look at the George W. Bush article (not excellent but I feel it's resonably neutral) and featured articles under politics Wikipedia:Featured articles#Politics and government to get an idea of what we should aim to achieve. I should add that given that you clearly have a strong POV about Mahathir please be careful when making changes.
I should add that's I find it strange you would suggest Mahathir must be a radical because Israel didn't affect him or his family. Many people are disguised by Israel's actions and policies, the fact that Israel has not affected our direct families (of course some would say all of humanity is our family) is not totally relevant. Finally when it comes to Turkey and Cyprus, are you aware that Turkey's invasion was in 1974 long before Mahathir became PM? Have you read the Cyprus article? The Cyprus situation is rather complex and comparing it to the US invasion of Iraq is rather bizzare IMHO. I'm not saying Turkey's actions were justified of course.
Nil Einne 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of my sources derive from public speeches made by Mahathir himself, as well as from the newspapers (of which are copyrighted material), and I have no idea how to include these in. Perhaps you could help me to? Wikipedia:Citing sources. The "full Malay" comes from Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography entitled "The Singapore Story", where it must be noted that Mahathir actually gave a good impression of himself to the public, praising the West and Singapore. Then provide the specific page number. I've read that book, and I don't remember the quote. It is also public knowledge that Malaysia has certain biased rules (e.g. all tourist guides in the country must be Malaysian). The point is that you were attempting to push a point of view by providing commentary on these policies. We aren't in the business of informing readers about our opinions; the best solution generally is to give the arguments of both sides and allow the reader to decide. It is also mentioned in "The Singapore Story" that the leader of the 1960s MCA worked so hard, then realised that he could not be Prime Minister, for he was not a Malay. Please learn the difference between de facto and de jure. De facto, no non-Malay can be PM; that is what was being referred to. (And even so, a number of people would dispute this claim, so stating this as fact is biased.) De jure, however, there is nothing preventing a non-Malay from being PM. Nothing at all. His attitude changed on being Prime Minister, however... If he is not a radical, there is no reason for him to say such things about Israel, which has done nothing wrong to him or his family personally. Why does he not speak up for countries like Cyprus, which was wrongly invaded by Turkey (similar to US invasions)? Simple. Turkey has a main Muslim majority of 50%, so he would support the invasion. It also occurs to me that Mahathir bears a certain resemblance to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes racist comments and other comments without considering. Our articles are not supposed to judge their topics. Perhaps you haven't heard of our neutral point of view policy? Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing singapore

Some video of Mahathir joking about bombing singapore[14]--Paul E. Ester 04:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Relations - Australia

This sounds POV to me: The Australian penchant for telling its neighbours what to do is clearly a sticking point. and no references or citiations are provided. I'm going to get rid of it, unless there are some reasons not to. --Commking 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No response - it's done --Commking 09:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should have been removed as it lacked a citation but I think it's clear that there is the perception among many Malaysians, indeed I would say many SEAsians that Australia likes to tell its neighbours what to do. However the article already sufficiently addresses Mahathir's view of Australia IMHO and the related issue of the Malaysian public perception of Australia is best left for the Malaysia article or similar. Nil Einne 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nil. That's how SEAsians see the Australian government. __earth (Talk) 08:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A common perception in Malaysia I am sure. This is what their politicians have been telling their people via the media after all. I don't think you will find any Australians who have actually told Malaysia what to do? You'll only find local politicians saying such things. Here in Australia, the perception is that Dr. M was always eager to find something to bash Australia with - even if it wasn't true. No politician in Australia ever said that they wanted to be "part of Asia", but Dr. M still accused anyway (ironically; as if such a desire was a bad thing!). I remember him saying Australia had to be "more Asian" (whatever that meant) to get this; this thing Australia never wanted or asked for - The perception there among most people that being "more asian" is to have more corruption, gerrymander, authoritarianism etc. Even as he ruled the country during the crash of the ecomomy in the late 1990's, he explained it wasn't his fault, it was "speculators", rather than the government who should be blamed. During the boom times, it was of course his government that took the credit - not speculators. Such comments were usually aimed at a domestic audience, and never caused offence in Australia.
The people of Australia and Malaysia, view each other through a distorted vision provided by the Politicians, TV and Newspapers in their respective countries. Perceptions are one thing, realities are quite another.. --Commking 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Though I do agree politicians have something to do with it, notice that it's Southeast Asians in general, not just Malaysians. It's not something against the Australian people. It's the government. __earth (Talk) 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. Each time I go to SE Asia, I never experience any hostility from anyone. But it is ironic to me, that someone like Dr. M can make a speech and specifically tell Australia what do do (to be "more asian" for example), and the perception is the opposite? I'd really like someone to give me an example where Australia told a SE asian country "what to do". --Commking 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The recent spat with Indonesia is one. That oil concension with East Timor is two. Remember Howard's remark about forward forces (preemptive strike) that riled up even the Filipino? __earth (Talk) 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indonesia - do you mean the Papuan guys who jumped on a boat and claimed asylum in Australia? It was in fact Indonesia who was trying to tell Australia what to do with these guys. In the end, the Aust. government won't repeat such asylum grants - Indonesia got their way. As for the East Timor oil thing, that was a negotiated agreement - not dictated by Australia. And as for the pre-emptive strike comment (Was it John Howard or Alexander Downer, I don't recall), that was just plain dumb, not a "telling Asia what to do" event? --Commking 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps yes or perhaps not. Regardless, I feel that we are moving off tangent and I'm not sure how this discussion helps make the article better. __earth (Talk) 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This went off a topic some time ago! I enjoyed it nevertheless. Thank you. --Commking 10:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical spray

Someone should add info on the chemical spray incident Nil Einne 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Remarks

These were a startling omission. I think the record is served by including them. --Rostov 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more on mohamad's antisemitism

I must hand it to the contributor(s) of this wikipedia entry. This is truly an astonishing whitewash. Mohamad, throughout his years as P.M. of Malaysia, was on record attacking Jews and almost any action Israel took on the world stage (war-related or otherwise). His remarks helped make anti-Semitism respectable among "moderate" Muslims worldwide and throughout SE Asia. Wikipedia's downplaying of the issue makes this so-called e-encyclopedia more similar than it would like to admit to the EB, which for decades (centuries) downplayed anti-Semitism or allowed it to flourish in that oh-so-urbane and proper British manner; you know, "we despise the Jews but we don't want them to be exterminated, and we're circumspect about it, not like those beastly Germans." I find this entire bio of Mohamad shameful and despicable. If you can't find the source quotes you haven't looked very hard, which makes me question your skills as encyclopedists. This incidentally is my first post on anything Wikipedia-related. Sincerely, Mackb

Friday, August 18, 2006 The word “anti-Semite” is it’s self a loaded term and causes problems with POV. It has been stated early in this article that he is controversial and outspoken. That having been said I believe that the more fair approach to dealing with a very important leader in Malaysian history would to be to focus on what he said and did without labeling or attributing motive and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions and make their own value judgments. Without objection there are a few lines in this article that I would like to clean up for grammar and readability but I will not touch POV issues at this time except to make some recommendations in this discussion.

Saturday Sept 16, 2006 The fact that Dr M uses the media effectively to point out the countless double-standards and hypocrisies prevalent in Europe is taken as an example of "anti-semitism". If Austria can have laws which prohibit criticism of one particular race of people, how is it considered "free speech" when public leaders using dubious 14th Century references criticise the respected leader of another world community? The Jewish community is possibly the only beneficiary of affirmative action on a global basis simply by using this "anti-semitism" stance. Nothing against them, they have had, as Dr M pointed out as reported in these web pages, 2000 years of learning to do that. But it is extremely hypocritical to try to eat the cake and have it too. I think this article on Dr M is pretty well-balanced and has reflected the story of a man in as much entirety as is possible, warts and all. Let us not try to muzzle Wikipedia editors with this misplaced protectionism.Reader58 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems more a testament to your own views about Jews than anything else. Austria's legal code attacks hate speech in general, and recognizes anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial as intrinsically hate speech. The principles behind these same codes offer protection to Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. These were the products of Austria's own experience, not anything done by Jews (very few of whom remain in Austria). Your anger about Benedict is ill-suited to the discussion here. --Rostov 18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia - Pauline Hanson

Pauline Hanson was a former member of the Liberal party, and while her One Nation party had no direct connection with John Howard's party, it was widely perceived in Australia and elsewhere to be tacitly condoned by Howard

Absolute crap. There has never been any indication that John Howard supported Pauline Hanson. The idea is absurd. References please, or it's going to get wiped. --Commking 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - at the very least, it's pov. I've changed it. I'd like to see a reference suggesting that Mahathir suggested Howard supported Hanson, too. Chovain 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

Today some edits occurred to this section in the article. There seems to be a dispute over whether or not Dr. M said this or that. As there are no references for any of this stuff, I am giving this oppurtunity for the anonymous contributor concerned to provide them. If not, I'll wipe it. --Commking 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, pish posh. Those quotations have been there for ages; your anonymous friend didn't add them, but merely removed some inappropriate attempts at rebuttal you'd added to the end. At that point, Chovain noticed that the quotations didn't appear to be referenced. Why, precisely, were you going to wipe them — rather than, e.g. looking for a reference? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for the line in question staying a little longer (in its current form). It doesn't seem implausible to me that he has said such things, but it will need to get a ref at some point. Anyone? (As an aside, let's keep WP:NPA and WP:AGF in mind in this discussion).
--Chovain 10:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This is why: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.
The comments are indeed poorly sourced - they are not sourced at all in fact. As the comments are also outrageously racist, they are also potentially libellous material. It is supposed to be removed immediately according to Wikipedia policy.. --Commking 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year format

Usually, it's AD, not ad. It needs to be capital. Moveover, CE is a better option since it's neutral. In anyway, you don't need to add AD behind every year because the context is very clear. See other biographical pages. __earth (Talk) 15:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No response? I'll change if there's no opposition. __earth (Talk) 07:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said that there is no response? '~'? Saudara Hafiz aka Earth, I do appreciate your consideration about that subject matter with your "helpful"-cum-good-faith edits over that Wiki-article but and however before should you tamper, alter, or even change anything particularly onto that "Garis Masa" thing, kindly please wait and be patient enough to allow myself to finish up the several last years of Mahathir's lifetime from the article's section of "Chronology". Only until then will I come here to discuss to you further on rationally, sensibly, and reasonably regarding of your views and opinions towards all of the year formats arising from that section right after or once I have done/completed with that Tun Mahathir's timeline-editing job. As for the time being, try not to do/interfere anything with that aforementioned section when the next time you arrive here again whilst I am currently trying out my best to carry on or continue with my unfinished/unaccomplished work on that stuff. Thank you. --onWheeZierPLot 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with __earth that the "ad" on each date is out of place. See WP:DATE for correct formatting of date years. "ad" can be useful when refering to various dates from both BC and AD, but AD is implied. The previous comment suggests that __earth 's edit prevented you from finishing the timeline editing. As it stands, this article uses a different year format to other similar articles. Is there some reason why "ad" is appropriate here? Alternatively, is there any reason why removal of the "ad" specifiers will affect your ongoing work? Chovain 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There was no response in more than a week. I waited long enough and moreover, Wikipedia is a collaborative work. At the same time, Wikipedia's policy clearly says there's no need for "ad". __earth (Talk) 12:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

I propose that this article be divided into several smaller sections, since it is quite long an unwieldy. Possibly, we could move most of the foreign policy material into a new article, Foreign Policy of the Mahathir administration.

The political machine section, however, I feel is much more directly relevant to the legacy of the Mahathir administration, so I feel it is more important to keep that section in this article as is.

Also, I think that the chronology section should be removed, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is currently what that section is. Perhaps some of the content could be incorporated into the rest of the article. 129.170.202.3 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first two parts. Perhaps the more important aspects of the chronology can be incorporated into the article. I hope that anyone who wish to do that do not delete important aspects of the chronology. Wai Hong 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If something's important enough to be in the chronology, the main article should have covered it as well, isn't it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public belief

I removed the following statement

However, the public holds the opinion that education standards were better off during the British colonial era a shocking indictment for a modern, newly industrialised country and the man who made it possible

It was unsourced and as a Malaysian I don't believe it's an accurate assesement of the public belief either Nil Einne 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I, however, support that statement. I am a Malaysian but I do not support the degenerating education levels in Malaysia. The contents of secondary education are getting simpler. Mastery and fluency of speech in English is getting worse. In the tertiary level, Malaysia's participation in research is not enough. Wai Hong 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We have to remember that no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. All assertion must be backed up with proper citation when challenged, regardless of what we believe on the issue of improved/worsening/stagnant standard of the education system. __earth (Talk) 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. In any case, Wai Hong appears to have misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that I don't agree that the education standards were better off during the British colonial era. I don't want to discuss my views. I was saying that I don't believe the statement is accurate. The statement claimed the 'public holds the opinion'. I'm sure there are some people who believe the standards of education are getting worse but this doesn't mean the the entire public believes the standards of education are getting worse Nil Einne 12:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suppressing Malaysia cultures interchange and development

Under Mahathir administration, there little cultural development compare to the economic progress. There is no significant literature writing/novel produce during Mahathir administration. Nor there is any form of cultural interchange between various race in Malaysia.

No many critics taking Mahathir from the angle of cultural development. More work must be done as this is the serious flaw of Mahathir, which is comparable with other political leader which suppress cultural development and lead to nation destruction.

--Sltan 12:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a strong reliable source, go ahead and add it. __earth (Talk) 12:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

Can we work towards getting rid of the POV tag on the article? What parts of the artictle are still considered POV? Chovain 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure.Wai Hong 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • My first impression after NOT reading the article is: a balanced article. I am contacting the editor for details. See: #NPOV dispute. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've removed the { { NPOV-section }} tag now.
    • I tried contacting HK but his/her talk page is protected.
    • I don't know whether the article is (N)POV, but if anyone feels the tag is required, please:
      1. specify the issues on this talk page
      2. link to that in the tag
      3. please choose an appropriate tag for either a single section or the entire article.
    • — Xiutwel (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have readded the {{POV}} tag, as well as an {{unreferenced}} tag. The 'Legacy' section is especially bad. - SpLoT // 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Will cite specifics in a while. - SpLoT // 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed {{fact}} tags at all locations needing some form of attribution. On another note, the article does not have specific references for specific points, which is why I did not indiscriminately use {{fact}} when I didn't doubt accuracy. Furthermore, the article at some parts goes out of point; for example, the bit about Anwar and PAS goes on and on without concentrating on Mahathir's role in the issue. Nearly an entire paragraph on the Anwar issue seems to have been copied from the Politics section to the United States Relations section. This same section describes the bilateral relations as both 'stormy' and 'strong'. The section on speculation is rather awkward as well. Lede is quite short too, but that can be done later on when (hopefully) this article gets to GA. The timeline is way too lengthy, and should be split. More pressingly, I have quoted each somewhat POV sentence to scrutinise here:

  1. It was Mahathir after all, who had groomed and placed him there as his deputy. This sounds very sympathetic towards Mahathir, as it makes Anwar sound unappreciative of Mahathir's efforts.
  2. Many observers also saw the engineering of Anwar's dismissal as the result of the triumph ... The use of the word 'engineering' makes the sentence sound as if Mahathir and all other parties have admitted that Anwar's sacking was set up. Did these 'observers' view it as such, or is it truly a set up?
  3. ... as Mahathir was only interested in their total loyalty. This can portray Mahathir as either foresaking the governance of Malaysia to achieve loyalty, or as a sensible man working to unite a party and/or a nation.
  4. After years of sending students abroad, Malaysian post-graduate and industrial research and development has still not shown any notable progress. Not needed criticism here; who is to decide if there has indeed been progress in education? Seems to express the author's views.
  5. These problems are usually small ones which crop up from personal matters, yet Mahathir always brings the Malaysian government into play ... Lack of specific examples, and a very categorical statement with 'usually' and 'always'. Very much like another unsourced criticism.
  6. The absurdity of the whole situation ... Again, who is to judge an issue as 'absurd'?
  7. Largely due to the economic development of the country, which by and large has benefited all races, Mahathir left behind a peaceful, prosperous, and self-confident Malaysia, for which he has been granted the soubriquet of Bapa Pemodenan (Father of Modernisation). Very shaky statement here, requiring either removal or plenty of sourcing.

Somehow, with this article, the many unsourced statements also lead to POV problems. - SpLoT // 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with all the criticisms, I have removed {{unreferenced}} because it is only meant for articles without 'any citations (there have been complaints about this misuse on the mailing list), which this article clearly has. Specific {{fact}} tags are preferred. Let's work to get this article back on track. Johnleemk | Talk 07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family section

we might need to add a section on his family. His children are quite well-known personalities in Malaysia. __earth (Talk) 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger: Galeria Sri Perdana

I propose to merge Galeria Sri Perdana into this article. Galeria Sri Perdana does not seem to be notable in itself, at least not by the current state of that article. Actually the relevant information in that article seems to be that Galeria Sri Perdana was the residence of Mahathir bin Mohamad. Thus I am proposing to merge the content into here. (In fact, if you support that, just go ahead and merge the articles.)

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the article into here, shortening it considerably. For reference, I include the original text of the Galeria Sri Perdana article below. --B. Wolterding 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galeria Sri Perdana

The Galeria Sri Perdana was the official residence of the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from 23 August 1983 to 18 October 1999. During this period, it was known as Sri Perdana. In keeping with the principle of heritage conservation, the original design and layout of the Sri Perdana has been preserved and Galeria Sri Perdana symbolises the nation's indebtedness to the Tun for 22 years of his dedicated and selfless service to the nation. On display are the: Main Lounge where many important official and family gatherings took place. The decorative design on the walls reflects the artistic tradition of the local Malay woodcarving; Wood Carving Room where the Tun took part in his favourite pastime. The woodcarving machine and appliances, as well as examples of the Tun's own work are displayed here; Theatre where up to 32 people can now view a documentary depicting a typical day in the life of the Prime Minister; Reading Room where a collection of reading and reference materials are kept. The Tun used this room when writing many of his speeches; Green House an idea insired by the Tun himself. It houses a variety of plants under controlled temperatures.

Jalan Damansara Kuala Lumpur: Open Tues-Sun 10am-5pm; Fri 10am-noon and 3pm-5:30pm.

Ref: KL Welcome Guide April 2006 p32

[edit] Birthdate?

Could anyone please explain the two different birthdates cited -December 20 and July 10? Which is correct? Most sources on the Internet says December 20.
Swedish Wiki user:Belairroad [15] June 6 2007 15:18 (CET)

Kindly refer to Mahathir_bin_Mohamad#Chronology __earth (Talk) 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. But I would be most grateful if anyone can explain the matter more thoroughly. Can anyone perhaps supply a reference that shows that July 10 is the ACTUAL birthdate.
Swedish Wiki user:Belairroad [16] June 6 2007 21:47 (CET)

[edit] Timeline?

Is this really necessary? I don't see many other political biographies with a timeline, and it takes up a whopping third of the article length on my screen. It also serves as somewhat of an excuse for shoddy writing, since people stick relevant information (e.g. his children, family, etc.) into the timeline instead of the article body. Johnleemk | Talk 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one wondering about this. It's very strange coming to the end of the article, and then finding the timeline. My immediate thought was, "perhaps this section should be moved to its own page." And sure enough, there's a box at the top of the page which says, "This page is 90 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article... "
I also think Johnleemk is most likely correct to suggest that the timeline section is probably acting as a magnet for bits and pieces of info that ought to be worked into the article -- much like having a trivia section. Cgingold 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cronyism allegations

Despite months to do so, no source was provided on the cronyism allegations. Wikipedia is not the place for opinion or baseless accusations. Graham Wellington 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which ones the article was referring to, but they are basically as commonly known in Malaysia as the fact that the earth goes around the sun. Consider that it is not that easy to find articles on Malaysian scandals going back one or two decades, when Mahathir was at his peak and allegations of cronyism in his administration were prevalent, unless you are particularly knowledgeable. Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section?

I don't think this is a good idea. Criticism sections are an easy way out of integrating the criticism into the article, and become a slipshod way of accumulating libel and other allegations in one lumped-up section. As it stands, the entire section really could go into the economic policy section. Criticism that is relevant to a particular section should go in there, and not be lumped into a general criticism section. I have rarely seen such sections which read well, particularly in political articles. Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I support integrating this section into other relevant parts of the article. kawaputratorque 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done so, and removed the timeline section as discussed earlier. I think we need to rethink the article's organisation before proceeding further - what makes most sense? The article's organisation has been developed haphazardly over time, which is to be expected since this is a wiki, but for it to be organised, we need to actively think about the organisation now. Otherwise the bad organisation will hamper our writing efforts, and we might actually work at cross-purposes if we each have different ideas about how the article should be structured. Johnleemk | Talk 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes i think we should. We could discuss a having a new section arrangement. Hopefully the simplest form as possible. Something like:
1) Early life
2) Entry into politic
3) Prime Ministership (includes foreign relations, controversies, etc)
4) Retirement
5) Health
6) etc
Also i think the timeline section could be recycled and integrated into other sections, if u think its useful. Unless some1 has those infos ready at hand kawaputratorque 08:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The timeline can be accessed here if anyone still needs it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vandalisme

this article contains 'pure' vandalisms! since when mahathir is an Indian?

plus the citations references also not reliable... Izzudin (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is known, i think, that Mahathir has Indian roots. But i agree that the citation is not reliable. And its not notable enough to be included in the lead section. However, i might be worth a mention somewhere else in the article (that he has indian roots). Not so sure about the name. kawaputratorque 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Mahathir's father was an Indian immigrant from Kerala; this is well-documented. Anyone with a proper biography of Mahathir's should be able to provide a reference for this. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Johnleemk, I expect that you have the source of your statement because you know about this. Just put the book's name and ISBN code, for example. Because you said that it is well-documented, I bet you know some of the books or documents regarding your statement. Thanks... We need to improve the quality of this really really important article! Izzudin (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I already provided a citation. As I was saying, any comprehensive biography of Mahathir's will mention this. Googling alone will reveal a surfeit of news stories and opinion pieces remarking on his Indian ancestry. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mahathir is an Indian ancestry although he is widely considered as a Malay. He is one of the the greatest Malaysian PM in history. I hope that this article will be the featured article in English Wikipedia. — Imran Al-Sahih 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Johnleemk, your citations provided are from an unknown (not famous) blogs or personal sites that is not considered as reliable reference for Wikipedia. For the best, please provide book name and ISBN number or reference from well-known sites. I may believe one of his ancestors is Indian but really don't believe his name was ..something kutty.. izzudin 11:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Imran, the topic might have the elements to be featured, but this article contains so many rubbishes! izzudin 11:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That his father was Indian cannot be disputed, but I never said anything about his name (I can't think of any biographies which give the Kutty name). Also, a news website is not a blog or personal site. You seem to have not bothered to look it up on Google either, since if you did you would realise that there is a plethora of news websites all referring to Mahathir's Indian ancestry. Johnleemk | Talk 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried googling with keyword 'Mahathir Indian' and none of the first page's results display any well-known websites. If only you can give me a link to the reliable source you found. izzudin 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I found an article from India Today, follow this link. kawaputratorque 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Another by Bowring for the IHT [17] __earth (Talk) 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
India Today says that Mahathir's grandfather is from Kerala not his father. But Bowring says his father was a teacher from India. This is confusing. Still need trusted and certified reference to confirm about this. I'm not saying that I strongly disagree Mahathir have an Indian ancestry, I just want to be sure about this. izzudin 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be confusing. They are not contradictory and India Today does not say the father is not from Kerala. One source says the grandfather was from Kerala and another source says the father was from India. Based on the sources, which are quite reliable, it is only logical that both the father and the granddad were actually from India.__earth (Talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to confirm is it his Grandfather or his Father is an immigrant from Kerala. izzudin 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) ...and why do India today need to write Mahathir's grandfather is an Indian if they can write that it is his father. That confused me... izzudin 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If one source says your father is from country A and another sources says your father is from country A too, would be you confused? __earth (Talk) 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about a source saying Mahathir's father is from Kerala while the other source say nothing about his father. I am stressing here, why would India today state that Mahathir's grandfather is from India if they can say his father instead. (my english may not be so good) izzudin 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it contradict with each other? __earth (Talk) 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless the issue, the two sources cannot be used because they are opinion pieces. We need better sources. __earth (Talk) 12:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahathir Mohamad Iskandar Kutty

The source are suspect. Both sources that provide the name are blogs of unknown reputation. It is possible to have better and more reputable source? Else, it should be removed. __earth (Talk) 08:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The name should be like: Mahathir bin Mohamad bin Iskandar, if want to put the Iskandar but it is not required and will look odd. 'Kutty' however cannot be confirmed. izzudin 10:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some removal

I removed these paragraphs as they seem not to be greatly relevant to this article. Plus it sounds like some pro-BN propaganda.

UMNO heads were seen by opposition supporters as corrupt politicians more focused on power and economic gain, as Mahathir was only interested in their total loyalty.[citation needed] PAS leveraged this into a selling point by promising a clean, Islamic administration. Despite this, PAS only captured the state of Terengganu in the 1999 elections, and failed to retain it in the next election. This was largely seen to be due to PAS' fundamentalist Islamic policies, as they had introduced Islamic sharia laws into Terengganu and their other stronghold, Kelantan. These laws included banning various forms of entertainment, and mandatory wearing of the headscarf for female civil servants. Many political analysts felt that this had prevented PAS from making major gains, keeping the reins of power firmly in Mahathir's hands, as the non-Malay voters were turned off by the perceived religious fundamentalism of PAS. Also, Mahathir remained popular among many Malaysians, and the third world.[citation needed]
Ministries were allotted to all component parties of the Barisan Nasional. Even non-Malay parties obtained the ministerships of key ministries such as Health (MCA), Transport (MCA), and the Works Ministry (MIC). Certain ministries were also shared with one party traditionally getting the ministers post and another party getting the deputy ministership. This was standard coalition politics as with all other coalition governments who wanted to ensure everyone got a slice of the cake.

[edit] Attribute

Antisemitism has been the subject of some discussion here although no consensus seems to have been reached. With great disgust I have noticed that one user even used the chance to openly present his own racist views. It surprises (and appalls me) how one can deny the fact that calling the Jewish people as a whole "hook-nosed" is an antisemitic statement. The statement is to be found in The Malay Dilemma and is also mentioned in secondary sources. The nature of these secondary sources is not of importance (though they are reputable) if it comes to the question of assessing the statement itself. Or how else can you call such a it if not antisemitic?--Fan of Freedom (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Because that is your opinion, and you have the right to have it. I have some negative opinions about contemporary living people as well. But I can't state it as fact on wikipedia. We must attribute the statements.Bless sins (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I must admit that you have a point. I had meant to refer to other examples of contemporary racists and antisemites but had to realize that in wikipedia you apparently can't even call such an extremist like Jean-Marie Le Pen what he really is. Such a kind of beating around the bush seems to be the common compromise for such topics though I still feel uneasy about it to say the least. I would suggest to just speak of "public remarks" as in the previous version.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is one of the down points of wikipedia. I read somewhere in an example on wiki policies that we can't call Saddam Hussein as "evil".Bless sins (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't see your face but if that was meant as some kind of ironic jibe I'd just point out that there is quite a difference between the two examples. But anyway, I'm not keen on discussing Mahathir's comments any further. I'll restore the version with "public remarks", hope everyone can live with that.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)