I like analogies involving football. In football, the running criticism of club owners has been on the poor habit of sacking team managers too quickly, sometimes, mere months from taking over the job. The argument for keeping a manager in place for a long period, for good or bad in the short term, but ultimately for long term gain, is backed by the long tenure of many successful managers, such as Alex Ferguson, David Moyes and Arsene Wenger.
The idea of retaining managers for a longer period for long term gain whilst forgiving early hiccups is not unique to football. In major corporations, whilst managers are under pressure to deliver from the moment they enter their new offices, there is some tolerance for error, as one understands the learning curves these managers have to climb. In fact, a more recent trend has been to retain managers longer so they may face the long-term consequences of their actions.
It has also been variously touted since trade began that 'stability of government', a country's 'manager' so to speak, is essential for the nation's economic growth. This is continuously emphasised on development of 'third world' countries. In the 70s and 80s, the stability of government, was seen as a key differentiator between Asian economies and that of Latin America. Why? Well simply put, if the government is unstable, it'll be excessively distracted by survival issues!
With history and the knowledge above in the minds of 'intellectuals' such as Khoo Kay Peng and Wong Chin Huat, one would expect them to consider the stability of government, whether it be BN or Pakatan, to be in the best interest of the Rakyat of Perak. One would expect them to undertstand that it doesn't matter that 70% of those polled by the Merdeka Centre wants fresh polls, as in the end, the more populist 'democratic' choice may be the poorer one here.
Perak needs stability after more than a year of political upheaval in the state. It is not true that without a further demostration of 'democracy' through fresh polls that investors will not find Perak attractive. Democracy in of itself does not attract investors; compare Communist China against Democratic India and you will soon conclude that 'Democracy' is quite irrelevant to investors! If anything, it is the political stability that Democracy usually brings that is the key.
With the courts deciding that the BN Perak Government is legitimately in power, the best thing for the Rakyat would be for DS Dr Zambry and his team to get on with their job. Ironically, if Pakatan is truly Rakyat-friendly, the best way for them to demonstrate this is now is by stopping all their efforts to further destabilise the situation in Perak. With the resultant stability from all parties respecting the court ruling, investors will assess Perak in a more positive light.
I understand that intellectuals have politic leanings too. Sometimes, the leanings are not political but intellectual, and unfortunately just as dogmatic! However, intellectuals should not allow their own opinions, such as that Democracy is the bearer of all things good, get the better of them. Just like any other good thing, like sunlight, medicine or satay, too much of a good thing can be bad. Certainly, too much more Democracy in place of Stability will be bad for Perak now.
With that in mind, DS Dr Zambry should be confident in ignoring the Merdeka Centre poll beyond what it is, a sample of the state of mind of the populace at the time. The Perak government should then just proceed to govern as Democracy and the courts have mandated them to. Then they could focus on what truly matters to the Rakyat... Good Governance. That is what will lead to re-election, not populism...