So why was the Mahathir talk cut short?

Dr-Mahathir Credit The Ant Daily

Points that matter

Some points to ponder. Former PM, Dr Mahathir Mohamad gave a lecture in London, on 21 September. Despite the last minute publicity, the event was well subscribed. The venue had to be changed a few times to accommodate the extra numbers of people.

Talking to various people afterwards, they said they came because they wanted to see and hear the man, whose policies changed their lives forever. Change that was a mixture of good and bad.

They could not live in an increasingly intolerant Malaysia and moved overseas where they had to make a living away from racism and religious intolerance. They left the land of their birth, their families, close ties and friends. They had to survive in a culture that was alien to their own, the food, the customs and the climate.

They came to hear what Mahathir had to say about the new Malaysia, which he hoped to carve out, but they said that he mentioned very little of that. They wanted to know if he had changed. They wanted to know how he could help reform Malaysia seeing as it is, he single-handedly socially engineered Malaysia.

The event is filmed here. The timeline for the various questions are shown, in the you tube clip write-up, so just click at the appropriate spot in the video to hear his answers.


One. The event was advertised as a two hour event. It was reduced to a one-hour and twenty minute session.
Why? What was the reason for this?
Many people had turned up from far away, to see the man whose lives, he had changed. They were shortchanged.

Two. Wan Saiful was meant to have a dialogue with Mahathir on stage.
Why did the Deputy Dean, who was gushy with praise, for TDM, take over? Ni nak glamour kot?

Three. Why were some of us, who sat under the Deputy Dean’s nose, not picked to ask our questions?
The Deputy Dean saw us put our hands up throughout the one hour and a bit session. A friend in an adjoining section of the audience, said that the Deputy Dean deliberately avoided our gaze and our section. Coincidence? Was this pre-planned? Were we unlucky?

Four. Deputy Dean was a disappointment as he allowed some long rambling questions to be posed, thus preventing others from having their questions asked. Some people were allowed two or three questions each.

Five. Why did the Deputy Dean allow people to make statements instead of asking short and clear questions?

Six. The Deputy Dean failed the many Malaysians with genuine questions for Mahathir. Perhaps, Deputy Deaney wanted an easy job, and so end up looking good not having to deal with difficult, controversial questions, which will set people thinking. Harumph!

Seven. Score out of ten – 3 only. Fail!


Rebuilding Malaysia

Leave a Comment