No lah they won’t resign.

They’re only making noise about ISA because they fear MCA’s traditional supporters (already diminished) will be further disaffected and alienated by the growing perception of MCA leaders’ subservience to UMNO’s hegemony and abuse of ISA, thereby switching their support to available substitute(s) found in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) component parties.

Now Anwar is a man who melds and welds disparate opposition groups together into a viable effective front (PR) to deprive BN the 2/3 parliamentary majority on March 8th election with every promise to take the BN out altogether by crossovers in due course.

This means that if Anwar were neutralised by the ISA, their expectation is that PR will have lost the main person that glues its disparate parts toegther and hence will no longer remain viable to (1) present an available substitute to receive them as political defectors should they incur UMNO’s displeasure by posturing further to oppose the ISA against UMNO’s wishes nor (2) can PR continue to pose a threat to MCA remaining within BN and playing their traditional expected subservient role to UMNO.

So to the question, “Will 4 MCA Ministers resign en masse if Anwar arrested under ISA?” – the answer is highly unlikely, it being actually quite the opposite case – that they will more likely resign whether over ISA or other issues if Anwar were not neutralised and arrested under ISA but continues to remain a clear and present danger to BN’s survival by constantly attempting to poach sufficient defections to effect a fall of the BN government and reminding them about such a fall all the time.

The mindset of MCA’s power brokers/warlords is not unlike those power brokers and warlords within UMNO, inspired by TDM’s thesis that if Pak Lah remains long enough even up to 2010, the perception of his weak leadership will be strong catalyst to foment sufficient crossovers to realise Anwar’s ambition and PR’s Cause of displacing BN from the throne….That is why there is this urgency to pressure the PM to retire earlier to preempt the BN being booted out prematurely and with it all of them before next election.

That is why IF I WERE the PM, it will definitely be ON MY CARDS to neutralise Anwar by invoking the ISA, if only to ease the pressure of these power brokers and warlords who otherwise will probably have no beef to me staying a while longer according to the agreed transition plan. That is why further (if hypothetically I were the PM again), I will have to get police/army etc all ready to deal with this card of arresting Anwar, something which may lead to demonstrations, and the need to restore public order by joint cooperation of all the uniformed services.

I agree with YB Kit that “the detention of Anwar Ibrahim under the ISA seems to be on the cards” – and that is also why I also urged Anwar -if he really has the numbers not to pussy foot and prevaricate but to quickly disclose them publicly by whatever means to legitimise his claims because otherwise doubts that he may be making false claims would provide a valid public justification to support an invocation of ISA or proclamation of emergency rule in the interest of “security” and “economy”.

Luckily the PM is (in my sense and perception, which could be of course wrong) a gentler and better person than me, which may be a saving grace for Anwar.

Anwar’s arrest under ISA is greater on the cards in the time BEFORE the last Supreme Council’s meeting in which many showed their true colours and loyalties or disloyalties by openly drawing the long knives to point at the PM but I expect not so much AFTER…..

The difference : In that meeting it showed clearly to the PM that even if he neutralised Anwar by ISA and take the political costs of that action, it will not in any way thwart the power brokers/warlords’ ambitions/plans to sideline and oust him – so that provokes the other question, why should he resort to invoke the ISA against Anwar when it does not change the equation of threat within his own party and he will be ousted any how? There must be another way.

It is futile to measure MCA’s leaders (or for that matter other poticians on either side of the fence) in terms of democratic principles and ethics.

This is because politics, like business, is a game, and players within it view it as a game and play by the written and unwritten rules of that game, the only difference being the end of business is primarily profits, whereas politics primarily power, and secondarily profits that arise from power.

Rules in the game may overlap but not necessarily congruent to the rules, ethics and principles outside the game applicable to life in general.

Hence a person may well be principled and forgiving in private or social life but when engaged in the game and its rules will have not hesitation to brutally incarcerate another opponent/player under the ISA.

Those interested in this may research further on “Game Theory”, a study/theory of strategic behavior in “game” situations whether applied in economic, corporate or political affairs.

KennyGan,

Your objection/demurrer in posting at 21: 26.05 above
is entirely understandable.

The ‘game theory’, as applied to politics, is “telling it as it is” an account of standards used in political decisions/behaviour by political players. It is not telling it as “what it ought to be” (from idealistic, inspirational or aspirational view points).

Treating politics as a game with its own rules and standards separate from that when one operates in private outside it also encounters another objection : can a person split his values into separate parts for separate applications depending whether in political or private/other spheres??? It will also severely shake all concepts or foundation of morality when a man can profess strong moral principles at home with family and friends and also at same time excuse himself from these standards in work, whether politics or business on grounds that it has its own rules when the “game” is on – especially work (politics or business), which to an Idealist, such a “Dr Jeykyll and Mr Hyde” dichotomous personality is simply unacceptable, since work should not be treated as a soccer, badminton or card game with separate rules independent of ethics or democratic principles; since it should be a sum total or definition of one’s life’s expression, the mark or ‘legacy’ to the world.

Yes to exceptional people like YB Kit once, politics ought to be a noble profession. However he is not the only politician. What about the rest?

Without this “game theory explanation” how does one explain, for example, MCA or UMNO politicians’ behaviour – or Lim Chin Siong’s incaceration or Tun Mahathir’s actions or even Anwar Ibrahim’s comparing what he did when he was ascending UMNO’s heirarchy to what he is doing now, outside?