Loyalty as we know it differs greatly for politicians

Do you remember when you were back in school? How you would jump to her defense when some other student from a rival school would call you names simply because your school had a different one?

Remember?

I have come to a conclusion that some people just do not have any loyalty. Especially so for some who seem to turn their backs the moment things get tough for them.

I am talking bout the likes of Anwar Ibrahim, for one. The moment he was sacked from UMNO, he started attacking it choosing to label himself as having to go with the pack when he was very much part of it. In fact he revelled in his position as nr 2 back when he was in UMNO.

How bout Chua Jui Meng? Jui Meng was very much up there when in MCA, and of course, he battled Tun Ling Liong Sik and as a result of not having gained control of MCA and after a power broking deal, left MCA as a nowhere man. He has tried to reinvent himself and you will not be faulted to think of him as the chinese version of Anwar Ibrahim now that he has chosen to be Vice President of a non elected position.

And then there is Lee Hwa Beng. A losing candidate in the previous 2008 General Election, Hwa Beng has also tried to reinvent himself. Gone are the days when he was riding high, armed with his Palm Pilot asking his constituents whether they were voters or not.
His tenure as Chairman of Port Klang Authority dissapeared as fast as his loyalty to his party MCA when he was told that his term was not to be renewed.

These are only three examples of how people who have had a taste of power cope with themselves and their loyalty, always choosing to go 'if you don't need me, I will need-le you' route.

But perhaps the one that takes the cake is Ong Tee Keat. Having lead MCA in perhaps the most trying times post 2008, the man chose questionable methods to distance MCA from Barisan Nasional. One of which was to engage a think tank to 'severe limbs' from a perceived sickly body (post 2008, MCA was at times hinting of breaking away from BN) and to reengineer its ties with NGOs that were mainly supportive of MCA then.

Suddenly,MCA was a bad word, and he must have thought it so, to employ such drastic measures. Subsequently,members of MCA through two EGMs decided that Ong Tee Keat was not going to be the man that could be trusted with such an enormous task.

History says it all. Chua Soi Lek was elected President and despite all the attempts by Tee Keat to shut him out, returned to helm the fragmented society to where it is now. Fast forward to now, and it seems old wounds are healing accept for Tee Keat. Choosing to still brand the party which he once lead as irrelevant, Tee Keat has gone beyond the step of no return. Assured that he will get the same support from his constituents, Tee Keat has chosen the war path, similar to what the likes of Anwar, Jui Meng and Hwa Beng had done.

Question is why have they all fought so hard to keep their status quo had they believed that their (now former) parties would have been better off had they maintained their status? And when things do not go their way, condemn and attack it like a rabid dog?

As is, Tee Keat is adamant to take the 'independent' route in the next GE. Having already made MCA as his opponent, it remains to be seen how he will see himself should even the NGOs of Pandan Indah abandon him.

No need to look far, as most always quote western countries as a fine example.
Why not look at Kevin Rudd? Having been unseated by Julia Gillard through lost of support from his own party, did Rudd go on a warpath or stick it out with his party?

So here is my advice for Tee Keat, either go see Kevin Rudd and learn up on what loyalty means or go see Chua Jui Meng on how to get to be Vice President with a back side boss.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.2