Datuk Sim Mow Yu asked Anwar Ibrahim whether he would apologize for his role in 1987 Ops Lalang mass arrests under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the controversy over dispatching of staff unversed in Mandarin to hold senior posts in Chinese primary schools.

MCA’s strategy for Chinese voters in Ijok is basically this poser: can they trust political chameleon Anwar Ibrahim who today sings a different tune in supporting vernacular language? For this MCA taps on Sim Mow Yu’s credibility as a veteran Chinese educationist on premise that Chinese education issues are cornerstone of the hearts and minds of Chinese voters.

MCA thinks its poser clever. Well, in a sense, it is. It is calculated to kill 2 birds with one stone: first, in showing Anwar a double faced opportunist singing different tunes depending on which side of the fence he sits, his Keadilan (PKR)’s candidate, Khalid Ibrahim is discredited; second by reminding, the 1987 Ops Lalang mass arrests under the Internal Security Act during which Kit was incarcerated, it throws a monkey wench between DAP and Anwar/ Keadilan (PKR) and questions Kit, campaigning for the opposition why he so conveniently forgets about the man who played an important role in his arrest.

To counter this poser, Anwar admitted that he was wrong in 1987. He said he would not defend his then decision. “Anwar in Umno is not as free as Anwar now,” he said. [To be sure, this excuse is weak, and can be availed to everyone of the ultras in UMNO today who later, for whatever reason, leaves UMNO and join Keadilan (PKR)!]

Anwar also counter attacks : “When I made the move back then, MCA didn’t even raise it to me – only DAP and the Chinese educationists protested,” he argued. YB Kit now defends Anwar by saying at least he apologized. Kit put the poser back : “Are the other Barisan Nasional component parties and leaders prepared to demand that both Najib and Hishammudin admit that they were wrong – the former for the “SOAK IT (KRIS) WITH CHINESE BLOOD”?

My answer is yes they would, if they were expelled from UMNO for whatever reason and have joined Keadilan (PKR) sitting with Anwar side by side.

If truth be said, and it must be, all these questions posed and counter posed are largely relevant to the masses but irrelevant to real students of politics or their masters like Nicolo Machiavelli , Carl von Clausewitz or Sun Tzu!

The search (by raising these questions) for consistency of position and principles amongst politicians – as we are prone to do so that we could vote on these criteria – is naïve, and I would respectfully submit, an irrelevant one.

Politics is a profession, the end of which is power, the means of which is persuasion based on whatever agenda, programme and ideology that is expedient and popular. That I submit is the consistent dominating purpose and raison de etre of politicians bearing few exceptions. Except for this consistent dominating purpose to attain power, all other consistencies or criticisms of inconsistencies is petty and irrelevant.

A politician should never be adjudged by what he says when he is vying for support in quest for power. It is what he does, after he has attained power and how he exercises that power, and how people are affected good or bad – by his exercise that is the ultimate arbiter, and the legacy. Nothing else.

Based on this criteria of record, neither Anwar nor Mahathir would be credible , never mind Anwar says the right things now, and even if an unlikely source of support in the person of ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad comes out in his support and called on the Ijok voters to send a ‘signal’ to the government – even if Anwar represents the hopes of multitudes of oppressed!

(In saying this, I do not wish to tar with the same brush all politicians and am prepared to carve out exception in the likes of Kit whose political record and sacrifice for the Malaysian agenda is unassailable).

But what has been said, in general terms here, is true bearing in mind what former US President, Ronald Reagan was quoted (by Observer 13) to have said (before the onset of Alzheimer’s disease): “I used to say that politics was the second lowest profession and I have come to know that it bears great similarity to the first”.

In summary then, if, in general, politicians are opportunists, so voters and constituencies, must necessarily also be – to match and complement!

The voters of Macap in last by-election have shown and benefited. That is why DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng said in Melaka on 13.4.2007 that Machap Voters were the real victors in getting tens of millions of Ringgit In development projects!
As in the case of Macap, so will likely be the case of Ijok’s voters. No matter how relevant issues raised about abuse of money and corruption by BN, the key question to the majority of voters of whatever race, culture, religion and creed is : what’s there for me, and development and money hand outs or other tangible benefits will always override intangible values and principles raised.

In the general populace of any society, persons adhering to principles are a small minority : the majority salt of the earth kind who care more of bread and butter issues for themselves and their families will, in a democracy of one man to one vote, decide and prevail. Which is why the old saying the people (by which expression must necessarily refer to the majority) will always get the government they deserve.

The majority voters in Ijok might be said to have spoken by giving BN an increased majority this time round (assuming there are not many phantom voters or other foul means) – but that is different from saying before the by – election results that the Chinese sold out there by supporting BN and after the by election results confirming the same without analysis of the results. Well I agree that what Malaysiakini reported is still preliminary but it is still for the moment comparatively more credible than someone saying that the BN won Ijok because the Chinese sold out there based not analysis of the results but a mere perception and opinion of a so called general trait of pragmatism attributed to a racial group.