Will Zahid betray Anwar?

Could Anthony have betrayed Caesar? Was Hang Tuah going to betray the king of Malacca? Did Patel ever entertain the notion of betraying Gandhi?

Nehru Sathiamoorthy

Mark Anthony was a man of consequence. After Julius Caesar was assassinated, he did in fact end up Ruling Rome, together with Caesar’s adopted son and heir, Octavian. The question however is what would have happened if Caesar was not assassinated? As long as Caesar was alive, Anthony served Caesar loyally as his right hand man, although Anthony certainly saw himself as a man who was capable of ruling Rome. Had Caesar lived longer, would Anthony have ended up betraying Caesar in order to fulfil his ambition of filling the top seat in Rome?

According to the theory proposed by Johan Abu Bakar in an article in Focus Malaysia, the answer is yes; had Caesar lived longer, Anthony would likely have betrayed Caesar, because in politics, loyalty is not about principles, but timing.

According to this theory, had Anthony not betrayed Caesar, it is only because the timing was not yet right. As luck would have it however, Caesar was killed before Anthony  needed to challenge him, so he managed to rule Rome without ever needing to betray Caesar.

If we follow Johan’s theory further, then we can also perhaps say that the Sultan of Malacca was not at all wrong in sentencing Hang Tuah to death, even if it was under trumped up charges, because it was probably only a matter of time before Hang Tuah betrayed the Sultan and took over the throne of Malacca. Hang Tuah was more popular with the people than the Sultan himself. The people admired Hang Tuah’s ability much more than they did the Sultan’s. Considering that, why shouldn’t Hang Tuah topple the sultan and enjoy the perks and privileges of being a sultan? If Hang Tuah had not made a move on the Sultan at the point that the Sultan sentenced Hang Tuah to death, it was likely because Hang Tuah was just waiting for the right time to act to arrive. Considering that, what the Sultan did in preemptively striking against Hang Tuah, before Hang Tuah made his move against the Sultan, was not cruel or ruthless, but judicious and wise.

But if the theory is right, it doesn’t explain why Hang Tuah would later on continue to serve the Sultan loyally without ever trying to betray the Sultan. As a matter of fact, Hang Tuah would even kill Hang Jebat with his own hands, for the crime of rebelling against the Sultan, although Hang Jebat was like a brother to Hang Tuah, and Hang Jebat only rebelled against the Sultan to protest against the unjust treatment that the sultan meted out against Hang Tuah.

If politics was just a matter of timing, not principles, how do we explain Hang Tuah’s action? Why didn’t Hang Tuah ever act in his favour, even when the timing was ripe? Why did he consistently act in favour of the Sultan, even when acting in favour of the Sultan required him to commit such a heinous act as killing Jebat, who was likely more a brother to him than even his own biological brothers?

When India achieved independence, the politician that was touted to be the first Prime Minister in India was Sardar Patel, not Nehru. Despite that, it was Nehru that became the first Prime Minister of India, because Gandhi intervened on behalf of Nehru, and asked Patel to give way to Nehru. It is because Patel respected Gandhi’s wishes, that Nehru managed to become the Prime Minister of India, while Patel resigned himself to serve in Nehru’s cabinet.

Patel was an astute politician that was no stranger to political arm twisting. After India’s independence, it is said that it was Patel’s political acumen and arm twisting that managed to persuade the royals of the many princely states and kingdoms in India to give up their royal status, and become a part of India.

A person of Patel’s willpower and acumen could have easily ignored Gandhi’s wishes, and became the Prime Minister of India himself, if he wanted to. It was not as if Gandhi was the sort to rebel or not relent if his wishes were ignored. If Patel desired it, with the support of Congress, Patel could have easily taken the number 1 spot, even if it hurt his relationship with Gandhi, under the presumption that he could always amend his ties with Gandhi later on.

However, Patel chose to honour his relationship with Gandhi rather than pursue his legitimate political interest. Why?

Other than  timing and principles, an important factor that we must include in calculating the moves that anyone, not just politicians, will make, is identity.

Zahid might have a relationship with Najib, but he likely did not identify with Najib. The same however, I for one suspect, cannot be said about Zahid’s relationship with Anwar.  Zahid might no longer even have an official relationship with Anwar, on account of Zahid and Anwar being the leader of two different political parties, but despite that, at a psychic level, I suspect that Zahid might identify with Anwar even more intimately than he identifies with members of his own family.

Not everybody identifies with those they have a relationship with. When one’s spouse dies, not everybody mourns. Some people are actually relieved. These are likely the ones that did not identify with their spouse, regardless of how long they had a relationship with their spouse. On the other hand, some people will die of a broken heart when their spouse dies. These are people who not only had a relationship with their spouse, but also identified deeply with their spouse. That is why when their spouse dies, they would feel as if a part of them had also died, to the point that they themselves would literally die, not long after their spouse dies.

When we look at someone like Mark Anthony, Hang Tuah and Patel, we can’t only study their self-interest and the political circumstances that affected them to calculate how they will formulate their action. We must also see how they see themselves or how they wish to see themselves, and also their relationship with those they identify with, to determine how they will formulate their actions.

When we identify with someone, how we see ourselves or how we wish to see ourselves, will depend on how we treat those we identify with.

If we betray those we identify with, it will feel like we have betrayed ourselves, and when you betray yourself, you will forfeit any peace you feel in being yourself and condemn yourself to never become the person you wish to be.

At the end of the day, we are the most important and valuable thing we know of in this whole entire universe. Because of that, no one in this world ever takes sides against ourselves.

Mark Anthony, Hang Tuah and Patel did not act against Caesar, the Sultan of Malacca and Gandhi respectively, although acting against them was in their self-interest and even when they had the golden opportunity to act against them, because they likely identified so intimately with them, that they likely felt that acting against them is equal to acting against themselves.

Most of us do not form such an intimate relationship with anyone other than our own parents or children. That is why most of us cannot bring ourselves to abandon our parents no matter how much they have hurt us or harm our own children no matter what wrongs they have committed against us.

But it is not impossible that we identify with someone – or in other words, see ourselves in someone else – although we do not share a blood relationship with them.

By my reckoning, Zahid probably sees Anwar as how Mark Anthony saw Caesar, or how Hang Tuah saw the Sultan of Malacca or how Patel saw Gandhi.

I am even tempted to say that Zahid might even see himself in Anwar as much as Anwar’s wife and children see themselves in him.

Because of that, I doubt that Zahid will ever betray Anwar to strangers, in the same way that your own children, siblings or parents will likely not betray you to strangers.

It is not impossible for Zahid to betray Anwar – even our own parents and children can do things to us in a way that make us no longer identify with them – but considering the length of their relationship, age and experience, I doubt that such an event will occur between Zahid and Anwar.

Your children, siblings or parents might upset you, hurt you, use you, disappoint you, manipulate you and even exploit you, but what they will never do is sell you out to strangers.

I think politics in Malaysia is coming to a point where Zahid might feel tempted to use and exploit Anwar in the near future. PN looks like it is about to throw the towel. The ruling parties in Sabah and Sarawak likely feel very jittery right now, for having defeated PN in Semenajung, PH is likely going to train its gun on them very soon.

As a last ditch effort to prevent a full scale collapse of PN and as a pre-emptive measure to prevent PH from launching a campaign to conquer Sabah and Sarawak, PN and the ruling parties of Sabah and Sarawak might be tempting Zahid with a very lucrative offer to betray Anwar.

Umno abandoning the unity government is likely the only way that PN and the ruling parties of Sabah and Sarawak will be able to feel safe from PH.

Right now might also be the last time that Zahid and Umno will have something of value to offer PH and Anwar. If PN collapses and once PH makes inroads in Sabah and Sarawak, Zahid and Umno might not be as important to Anwar and PH as they are now.

Considering that, I suspect that this might be the last time that Zahid and Umno will be able to play PH and its opponents against each other, in order to gain maximum benefits for themselves.

Despite that, I reckon that in the end, Zahid will still not betray Anwar.

He won’t, because selling Anwar out would be akin to selling himself out, and you can always count on a person to not sell themselves out, even if you cannot always count on them to not sell you out.