1) I am not a politician, therefore I may perceived not qualified to talk about politics. Unfortunately, I have my own views on what is politics all about, what politician should do and THINK. Furthermore, my formal education is not as high as among politicians and never studied in politics as KJ has in Oxford.
2) I have seen and study a little about current and past politicians including Tun Dr. Mahathir. From my own observation, for these politicians to stay relevance and be accepted by the public, they have to stay firm with their views and principles even though its may not popular to most of the people. As a politician one must have keep his / her principle and fought remain firm although may received resistance by his / her opponent and the public at large. When Tun Dr Mahathir was sacked by Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1969, he remain loyal to UMNO/BN because he still believe UMNO/BN fought remain parallel with his fought. It just because of his differences with the then UMNO - Perikatan leadership has set him apart from UMNO a little while.
3) When Tun Razak ascended to Prime Ministership, Tun Dr Mahathir was accepted as being someone that remain with his principle as before he was sacked. His book Malay Dilemma, although was banned by then leadership wasn't perceived by previous leadership as a treat to their leadership - instead it was treated as his own personal views that also has merit to be considered with, and may have certain truth that hard to be swallowed.
4) Fight for the truth always being Tun Dr Mahathir principle as a politician, the truth that always against the general perception of public at large, the truth that will remain forever while the lies only short-lived. Therefore, we could see Tun Dr Mahathir views of 42 years ago is still remain the same as present. Please bear in our mind, the truth is come from God while lies is come from ourselves or from devil. God is eternal and remain forever while lies will only remain until afterlife, therefore lies are short-lived.
5) In believing their principles, a politician should uphold to their believe and remain firm with it until it became irrelevance due to the time and circumstances that has not allowed it.
6) The truth also about your true intention - about the truth of why you want to be a politician - is it for yourself or for your people. You will never be forever obscure your true intention to be a politician, sooner or latter people will find it, only time will tell. The good analogy is Anwar Ibrahim. AI true intention was so bloody covered during his time in UMNO/BN, but when his true face stripped off - his ill intention started to prevail as we can see currently.
7) PAS also another good analogy. When PAS founded in 1956, the original principle was - to established an Islamic state of Malaysia [PAS own view of Islamic state]. PAS politicians has cursed UMNO politicians for being un-Islamic, abandon Islam just for the sake of power as well as sharing the political reign with non-Muslims. At one time UMNO members and politicians was accused infidel. But today, after 54 years UMNO still remain dominance party in BN in managing this country. PAS on the other hand, remain small fraction in PKR, and have no gut to defend Islam as they should do.
8) When our Muslim brothers faith currently under treat, PAS has lose their teeth and succumbed to it fellow non-Muslims party. PAS became coward, not as what they did in defending 1985 Memali incident, blaming UMNO/BN for granted alcohol and gambling licenses, blaming UMNO/BN for upholding non-Islamic economic values and etc. PAS disillusion will curse them, they will eventually led them into internal bleeding for chasing short-lived lies instead of searching for eternal truth.
9) DAP on the other hand, remain firm with their own political principles, DAP has in so far managed to force PAS to abandon their principles from establish Islamic state into welfare state. Since founded in 1965, DAP remain firm with their Malaysian Malaysia principle until today, while the Islamic Malay party of PAS will change their principle along with time and circumtances as long as it would benefit their political mileage.
10) In this case, we know who is chasing the eternal truth and who is chasing short-lived lies.