Pak Lah What He Was What He Achieved And Did Not

---

On Sept 2, 2004, less than a year after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, affectionately known as Pak Lah, had succeeded Dr Mahathir Mohamad as prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim was freed after the Federal Court acquitted him of Mahathir-era sodomy charges.
He had served six years of a nine-year sentence, and having finished serving a corruption sentence earlier, he was eligible to stand in the next election, which had to be held by 2009.
The Pak Lah-era judiciary played a part in Anwar’s political comeback, eventually as prime minister.
"Thank God that it is over. But I remain committed to my struggle for justice... I also give credit to the prime minister," Anwar exclaimed on his release.
Why did Anwar credit Pak Lah when it was, to all intents and purposes, a judicial process?
Less than two weeks later, on Sept 15, 2004, the Court of Appeal turned down his appeal of conviction against the corruption charge, although the sentence had been served. This meant that he could not stand for public office for five years after the sentence was completed.
Reluctance overturned
The courts had been reluctant to hand down decisions favourable to Anwar, but that changed after Pak Lah took over the reins from Mahathir on Oct 31, 2003, solidifying his position on March 21 the following year with a huge victory, securing over 90 percent of parliamentary seats.
That gave the mandate for Pak Lah to be his own person and the near-perfect opportunity to chart a new course for a country hemmed in by Mahathir’s questionable policies, which resulted in a proliferation of corruption and patronage in the country.
In fact, Pak Lah’s victory at the polls, unprecedented then and up to now for independent Malaysia, came on the back of a strong commitment towards a clean government, a fight against corruption, a voice for all, and a cleanup of government machinery, particularly the police.
A population finally freed of Mahathir, energised at the prospect of a corruption-free Malaysia and a place for all downtrodden under the sun, looked to Pak Lah as the saviour. But he did not go through with all he said he would do before the election.
A gentleman in politics
That does not detract from the kind of person he was - caring, kind, had a heart and listened attentively to what one had to say. In other words, a gentleman in every sense of the word - that would be both his strength and his weakness, perhaps trusting too many people.
In the one long interview I had with him, together with other colleagues when he was prime minister, he was the first major leader who expressed even the slightest interest in what your opinions were, and he listened attentively and with empathy and sympathy.
These were the traits that endeared Pak Lah to everyone who met him.
After 22 years of authoritarian rule under Mahathir from 1981 to 2003, Pak Lah took the major step of finally allowing civil society the space to come into its own by relaxing the considerable constraints on expression, and the continual stress and strains on the judiciary.
The courts and the press enjoyed a renaissance under him and the rebirth of a new upright system of law and order, and a free press allowed to criticise and comment under his tenure was a great breath of fresh air, sweeping out the stale.
This was his greatest achievement, but it came with costs, unleashing a torrent of attacks from Mahathir himself, who mounted a strong campaign against Pak Lah, often using underhanded methods such as referring to his sleeping episodes, knowing full well that Pak Lah suffered from sleep apnoea.
This was all to be undone later when Najib Abdul Razak, with the support of Mahathir, took over in 2009. But that’s another story, and it would be safe to say that Mahathir regrets Najib becoming prime minister much more than Pak Lah in the same position.
Perhaps the public expected too much of Pak Lah, perhaps the bad was too entrenched for him to make a significant impact in the time he had, but the backtracking of things he had strongly promised before caused a serious setback in the 2008 election, losing a two-thirds majority in Parliament and five states.
While he formed the MACC to replace the previous Anti-Corruption Agency, it came too late in 2009, after the 2008 election, when he received a major setback, leading to his resignation the following year.
His earlier attempts to fight corruption fizzled out after two prominent people, businessperson Eric Chia and then-minister Kasitah Gaddam were charged in 2004. Both were acquitted. They were part of a list of 18 prominent people on the list to be charged.
Back-tracking on IPCMC
He also went back on the promise to set up an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission, backing down under threat from the police themselves, leading to a considerable loss of credibility. These directly affected the 2008 election results as Umno was punished by a disappointed public.
These were difficult things to do, but if nothing were done, then the opportunity to fight against corruption on a strong mandate would be lost. As a consensual leader, he would have sought opinions from his advisers.
It is speculated that it is here where Pak Lah would have faced the greatest opposition to his all-out corruption reform, from here and within his own party, where many had benefited from cronyism and even corruption.
The other main criticism he faced was the influence of the so-called fourth-floor boys. His son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, supposedly headed this motley group of paid, young, educated aides in the PM’s department and an informal pool of advisers from various backgrounds who had a major influence on policy and decisions, even more so than the cabinet, some affirmed.
In fact, it was said by many people many times over that if you had access to the fourth-floor boys and convinced them of something, then there was a pretty good chance that the prime minister would agree to it. Many businesses actively cultivated them.
One such decision I know of was to hand over all domestic flights to AirAsia, done without even the benefit of a consultation with Malaysia Airlines. The CEO then needed to have an emergency meeting with Pak Lah to allow some routes for passenger connectivity to avoid possible bankruptcy.
The use of ISA
The other factor that led to Pak Lah’s reduced popularity at the polls was the 2007 harsh treatment of demonstrations by the Hindu Rights Action Force, or Hindraf, which was trying to obtain reparations from the British government for the bad treatment of migrant Indian labour in Malaysia.
This was highly visible action with videos shown of old ladies being hauled forcibly into police trucks and caused great consternation among the Indian public, previously a staunch supporter of Pak Lah’s BN and MIC.
The arrest of key leaders of Hindraf under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which provided for detention without trial, resulted in much opposition to the government, and a strong vote swing by Indians who were significant in mixed constituencies, contributing to the poor 2008 results.
In 2008, too, Zaid Ibrahim, who was brought in as minister in charge of judicial reform by Pak Lah, resigned after criticising the detention under the ISA of DAP MP Teresa Kok, a blogger and a journalist.
These are not actions which are characteristic of the kind of man that Pak Lah was. It is fair to ask if he had been influenced by the more hardline people who were advising him, although he must ultimately bear responsibility for these actions.
Khazanah and economic corridors
Nevertheless, Pak Lah achieved some major successes, one of which was the transformation of the sovereign fund Khazanah Nasional into a professional organisation, a move spearheaded by the then-finance minister II Nor Mohamed Yakcop and Azman Mokhtar as its new managing director.
Under that, Khazanah became much more professionally run, self-sustaining and contributed significantly to government revenue. It had a core team of multi-racial professionals running operations, removing its previous use under Mahathir and Daim Zainuddin as an appendage to execute questionable market interventions.
Pak Lah’s promotion of the economic corridors and agriculture was a good move to spread development throughout the country, but did not get the requisite follow-through support after he stepped down as prime minister in 2009, with Najib embroiled in other matters.
The Brunei deal
One other major criticism against Pak Lah was the agreement signed with Brunei involving two oil-producing blocks off the coast, which were disputed barely weeks before he was due to vacate office.
It was reported that this was done in exchange for Brunei dropping its claim on Limbang, a piece of land sandwiched between Brunei territories. It raised many major questions, which remain unanswered to this day.
Mahathir alleged that US$100 billion was lost as a result of that deal with Brunei. Why did Pak Lah have to sign the deal then? Would it not have been better to have left it alone for others to handle, given the short tenure remaining for his prime ministership?
There are always things that prime ministers should have done, should not have done, tales of intrigue, stories of missed opportunities, etc. But given the circumstances then, the resistance he faced, possible betrayal by those he trusted and other factors, he did better than most.
He was a good man with a heart in the right place, convivial, receptive, caring, kind, concerned and trusting - perhaps too trusting. That’s much more than you can say for most of our other prime ministers.
For that, we must be grateful and hold him in high regard. He did what he could with what he had and, most of all, he left Malaysia a better place than it was. History will recognise him for what he did. - FMT
P GUNASEGARAM says that Pak Lah was among the most decent politicians we have had.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---