I think Najib is fairly liberal, progressive and western and the most qualified to be PM in UMNO but is held hostage to his party.

I saw his past 4 years as someone who was trying to “tarik rambut” without the “tepung selerak” – basically trying to reform without upsetting the status quo which allowed him to sneak in some reforms but with very limited effect.

That’s why despite him boasting about 100 reforms, many people, especially urban folk say they don’t feel any difference.

Anyway good luck to him and to Malaysia the next five years and I hope he is not challenged for the PMship from within his party.

Many anti-Thatcher made it as if they would have preferred the sclerotic decades instead, citing troubles 30-40 years later to justify their opposition to Thatcher. But they ignored the prevailing 1970s situation rather conveniently. They ignored what would have happened if the 1970s status quo remained well into 2010s.

Finally, while there are some parallels between Mahathir and Thatcher, the parallel ends somewhere. One, Thatcher was bounded by strong institutions. Mahathir wasn’t and Mahathir in fact compromised them greatly. Thatcher didn’t in fact, those institutions remained influential after she left office. Second, Mahathir’s privatization was a mess. Britain, well, look at Roll Royce. Look at British Airways. The way privatization was carried out matter. Not all privatizations are the same.

Furthermore, the lack of Thatcher’s policy wouldn’t have stopped the death of various heavy industries (steel for instance) in the UK. They would have died anyway even without Thatcher. It was a global phenomenon already underway the minute the Japanese found a cheaper way to do things. You ignored that.

As for civil liberties, yes, let us ignore the reality of the 1980s with its IRA and labor actions and the difference between the UK and Malaysia shall we?