Soi Lek’s wrong bet
To join or not to join the Cabinet, either way is a dead end for MCA. All I can say is, why the brainless bet in the very first place? In the absence of support from the Chinese community and recognition from the government, MCA’s future is bleak.
Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew
Up till this second I still do not have much idea why Dr Chua Soi Lek made the decision of not joining the Cabinet.
And why the presidential council, central committee and general assembly all rushed to echo the decision in unison.
What I was trying to say is that it was a very imprudent political gamble, one of inconsiderate “show-hand.”
It is a kind of gamble that puts your life at stake, one that is committed only under specific circumstances: You either have all the best cards to yourself and are sure the opponent is absolutely no match for you, or you are pretty sure your opponent is only feigning confidence to make believe he has the best cards whereby he does not.
But if you do not come close to the above requirements, your show-hand bet is purely suicidal.
Chua Soi Lek’s 2011 gamble with the Chinese voters of Malaysia, betting MCA’s withdrawal from the government if the party won fewer than 15 parliamentary seats, was of bad judgement.
What cards did MCA have in hand?
1. Back in 2011, things were not quite going in favour of MCA, and there were no signs the party would perform any better than in 2008.
2. “Pakatan Rakyat” was the trump card in the hands of Chinese Malaysians, so the “out of Cabinet” decision (read: threat?) would not work.
3. MCA had limited remnants of its influences and support base, and was in no position to place such a stake at all.
It wasn’t the right time when things didn’t go your way to put a bet, more so an all-or-none show-hand.
But, the big-time gambler in Chua Soi Lek cajoled him into making such a foolhardy bet without giving the slightest thoughts for the forte of the party nor the realistic intent of the Chinese community.
The bet that shunned the appraisal for possible consequences accelerated the demise of MCA.
I was wondering. Why on earth did the right-minded souls in MCA’s presidential council, central committee and central delegates just ingest the motion without digesting it?
Didn’t the idea flash past the mind of any what would befall MCA if the Chinese voters didn’t buy its idea?
It is easy for a defeated gambler to quit the table while conceiving a comeback plan later.
While Chua can just call it a day and bow out, what about the party he is leading? Does it have to wind up its business as well?
To stay out of the Cabinet means foregoing political power, leading to the obliteration of whatsoever residual influences the party might still have now. But if it changes its mind and joins the government, be prepared for a quicker death.
To join or not to join the Cabinet, either way is a dead end for MCA. All I can say is, why the brainless bet in the very first place?
In the absence of support from the Chinese community and recognition from the government, MCA’s future is bleak.
Politics is no gambling party. In deciding every single move, a political party must first and foremost take into consideration its feasibility, possible consequences and ways to tackle them. If Plan A fails, there is always a Plan B or Plan C to back up.
If the step would possibly lead to a disaster, it has to be avoided at all costs!
While a gambler may not need a complete set of strategic plans, the boss of a political party cannot afford to go by a day without the right strategies.
