Logos, pathos and ethos in Mahathir Mohamad’s speeches during his come back as prime minister of Malaysia

  • Su Hie Ting Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
  • Siti Marina Kamil Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
  • Nyun Chow Chai Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Keywords: Rhetoric, Aristotle's rhetoric theory, political speech, Mahathir Mohamad


The study examined rhetorical appeals in Mahathir Mohamad’s speeches delivered during his come back as the seventh prime minister of Malaysia. The specific aspects investigated were: (1) the extent to which the logos, pathos and ethos appeals were used; (2) the use of the active and passive voice in attribution of responsibility; and (3) the use of personal pronouns in the appeals. Six of Mahathir Mohamad’s political speeches in Malay language delivered in 2018-2020 with a word-count of 13,000 words were analysed using Aristotle’s rhetorical proofs. The results show that Mahathir Mohamad relied on logos (56.17%) and pathos (39.63%) but not ethos (4.20%). Mahathir Mohamad came across as a political leader who relied on argumentation and the positioning of himself as a spokesperson for the ruling coalition and the government, reflected in “kita” (we-inclusive) accounting for 50.26% of personal pronouns used. However, in the context of a distressing situation, he resorted to the pathos appeal and the frequent use of “I” to show personal interpretations. The passive voice and circumstantial referents were strategically used in disparaging remarks without identifying the doer. The study indicated that seasoned political leaders have a stable rhetorical style with flexibility to suit situations and audiences.       


Ab Rashid, R., Jamal, S. N., Ibrahim, N. S. N., Yunus, K., Azmi, N. J., Anas, M. & Mohamed, S. B. (2016). Rhetoric and health: How fitness trainers persuade public on social networking site. Man In India, 96(11), 4673-4679.

Abdulhamid, A. (2015). Retorik: Yang indah itu bahasa. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Alkhirbash, A. (2010). Persuasive language in selected speeches of Tun Mahathir Mohamad. (Disertasi doctor falsafah yang tidak diterbit). Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Al-Momani, K. R. (2014). Strategies of persuasion in letter of complaint in academic context: The case of Jordanian Univesity students’ complaint. Discourse Studies. 16(6), 705-728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614546257

Androniciuc, A.I. (2016). Using social media in political campaigns. Evidence from Romania. SEA: Practical Application of Science, 4(1), 51-57. https://seaopenresearch.eu/Journals/articles/SPAS_10_7.pdf

Bakar, M. M. A., & Hamzah, Z. A. Z. (2015). Retorik pembangunan sosioekonomi masyarakat dalam laporan media. Jurnal Linguistik, 20(2), 10-25.

Brooks, C., & Warren, R. P. (1970). Modern rhetoric (3rd ed.). Harcourt, Brace & World.

Brummett, B. (2000). Reading rhetorical theory. Oriando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Chakorn, O. O. (2006). Persuasive and politeness strategies in cross-cultural letters of request in the Thai business context. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(1), 103-146. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.16.1.06cha

Choong, K. F. (2002). Analisis strategi retorik Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien III tentang isu-isu perlembangaan Negeri Brunei dan Rancangan Malaysia 1959-1963. [PhD Dissertation]. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya.

Dehan, A. A. M., & Yaakob, H. N. A. (2015). Teknik retorik dalam novel Salina karya A. Samad Said. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Lingistik, 2(4), 49-59.

Demirdogen, U. D. (2010). The root of research in political persuasion: Ethos, pathos, logos and the yale studies of persuasive communications. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 3(1), 189-201.

Emanuel, B., Rodrigues, C., & Martins, M. (2015). Rhetoric of interaction: Analysis of pathos. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability: Design discourse (pp. 417-427). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20886-2_39

Enos, T., & Brown, S. C. (1993). Defining the new rhetoric. New York: Sage Publications.

Fatmawati, N., Amin, M., & Nawawi, N. (2020, August). Spoken discourse analysis verbal rhetoric and leadership style: A comparative study of Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad and Dato’Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak. Proceedings of 1st Annual Conference on Education and Social Sciences (ACCESS 2019) (pp. 274-278). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200827.069

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.

Gabrielsen, J., & Christiansen, T. J. (2010). The power of speech. Denmark: Glydendal.

Gagich, M., & Zickel, E. (2018). A guide to rhetoric, genre and success in first year writing. Cleveland, US: MSL Academic Endeavors.

Gaiman, N. (1998). Neverwhere. New York, US: Avon.

Grimes, J. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886474

Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36(1), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003

Lee, A. C. (2001). Analisis teks ucapan politik bahasa Melayu dari segi retorik: Satu kajian kes terhadap ucapan Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. (Sarjana tesis). Universiti Malaya, Malaysia.

Mansor, H. H., Yaakob, N. A., & Hamzah, Z. A. Z. (2018). Retorik pamerian dalam ceramah agama. International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation, 6(2), 29-38.

Mori, K. (2016, November 14-15). Analysis of the discourse of diplomatic conflict at the UN: Application of ethos, pathos, logos. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Humanities & Social Sciences 2016 (IC-HUSO 2016), Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Mshvenieradze, T. (2013). Logos, ethos dan pathos in political discourse. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3(11), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003

Mua’ti, A. (2007). Pemikiran Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad. Penerbit Universiti Malaya.

Nair, S. R. & Ndubisi, N. O. (2013). Entrepreneurial values, environmental marketing and customer satisfaction: Conceptualization and propositions. In N. O. Ndubisi & S. Nwankwo (Eds.), Enterprise Development in SMEs and Entrepreneurial Firms: Dynamic Processes (pp. 257-269). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2952-3.ch013

Osman, Z., & Yusoff, N. (2019). Retorik penulisan ilmiah: Penilaian berdasarkan prinsip kerjasama Grice. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistik, 9(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.15282/ijleal.v9.1196

Osman, Z., Ismail, S. F. S., & Yusoff, N. (2017). Retorik dalam pengucapan Strategik Lautan Biru. Journal on Leadership and Policy, 2(1), 108-125.

Razak, N. A., Salleh, C. I., & Musa, H. (2016). Titah ucapan pembukaan Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan oleh Sultan Muhammad V: Satu analisis retorik. Journal Pertanika, 3(1), 85-93.

Robberson, M. R. & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self‐esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00017.x

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438

Shahrill Ramli, A. M. A., & Hasan, H. A. (in press). Conceptual paper on the rhetorical analysis of Tun Mahathir’s speeches. Human Communication, 2(2), 58-70.

Ting, S. H. (2018). Ethos, logos and pathos in university students’ informal request. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 18(1), 234-251. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1801-14

Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics (VIAL), 9, 133-159.

Yaakob, N. A., Hamzah, Z. A. Z., Zain, N. M., & Adullah, S. N. (2018). Penerapan retorik dalam penyampaian ceramah agama. Jurnal Linguistik, 22(2), 54-67.

How to Cite
Ting, S. H., Kamil, S. M., & Chai, N. C. (2022). Logos, pathos and ethos in Mahathir Mohamad’s speeches during his come back as prime minister of Malaysia. Trends in Undergraduate Research, 5(1), f1-15. https://doi.org/10.33736/tur.4539.2022
Language and Communication