By doing so, he feared that other ethnic groups, particularly Malaysian citizens of Chinese, Indian, and different non-Malay backgrounds, could gain more influence over the government. However, this stands in contrast to Mahathir's previous actions. In January 2013, he called for an inquiry into granting citizenship to a million "foreign immigrants" in Malaya before Malaysia gained independence. One might question how a man who courted Malaysians of all races during elections can continue to view non-Malay citizens as "others" or "foreigners."
While it's acceptable for Mahathir to advocate for the rights of his community, his arguments should be based on factual information and sound reasoning. However, some of his claims need more reason, such as his statement that multiracialism benefits only non-Malays and offers nothing to Malays. This overlooks the achievements and successes of Malays across various sectors and industries in Malaysia.
For instance, take his claim: "Multiracialism in Malaysia means everything goes to the most capable, the most financially strong and (the people) with the widest business network, the best trained and experienced. Only non-Malays qualify. Malays get nothing from multiracialism."
First, he implies that the Malays are not very capable. This is untrue.
Many businesses today are owned by Malays, and Malays largely control major industries such as the banking and plantation industries. The corporate sector has many Malay suits, even if most are government-linked.
At the very least, living in a multiracial nation helps everyone – including Malays – increase their knowledge of other cultures and languages, participate in each other's festivals, taste a variety of food, and learn a host of useful things such as tolerance and life skills.
But these benefits could be clearer on the elder statesman, preferring a monoculture country - where power is centralized in a single figure, the true Malay man, Tun Mahathir.
Although many Malays are still poor, if you were to step into any four- or five-star hotel or go to classy restaurants and upmarket fashion outlets today, you would find that a high proportion, even a majority, of the patrons are Malay.
If there are still poor Malays today, the correct conclusion is that Mahathir failed to uplift their lot despite being in complete control of the government and the then-ruling Barisan Nasional for 22 years during his first stint as prime minister. It shows he also failed to rectify this in his 22-month second stint.
Here, his legacy can be last seen as a failure which, for all of his rhetoric, had failed to uplift and uphold the very values that he claims to represent.
