What saddens me on hearing the Federal Court's dismissal of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's appeal is that it seals with legal finality the tragic drama of his ordeal that is as unnecessary as it could have been avoided, had Anwar not let pride and ambition get the better of his judgment.

And I am not even thinking of the mighty issues of the day — of 'travesty of justice', independence of judiciary, or failure thereof — to stand as a bulwark against the state's fearsome security apparatchik.

I think instead of the ordinary issues of friendship, love, gratitude or ingratitude, patience, loyalty and betrayal as I recalled Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's " Et tu , Brutus?" speech at the Umno general assembly (two years before Anwar's sacking), which according to Anwar, everybody knew was directed at him.

Anwar in a Time magazine interview (Man of the Year) said he respected Mahathir as a father who had guided him and nurtured his career. Yet when he was acting prime minister, during Mahathir's leave of absence, Anwar directed Perwaja investigations including probes into Eric Chia's affairs, questioned Petronas' RM1.7 billion bailout of Mirzan Mahathir's Perkapalan/Diperdana, demanded Price Waterhouse' audit of Bakun and Ting Pek Khing's request of RM1.6 billion compensation.

Anwar even admitted soliciting Anti-Corruption Agency then director-general's (Shafie Yahya) assistance when he "presided the drafting of a new and tougher anti-corruption law in face of objections from cabinet colleagues particularly over provisions allowing prosecution to follow after a public official leaves office" (Anwar's "From the Halls of Power"

written in Sungai Buloh prison).

Is it wrong to demand proper governance and accountability? Obviously not, except that Anwar was part of the Umno power structure for 18 years, and had known all about the system of patronage and largesse, but until then, had never objected to it.

Anwar maintained that power brokers within Umno were out to influence Mahathir to get rid off him. Why did they pick only on him? Might it not because they viewed him as one of those who might be the most dangerous whistle-blower threatening their position and their families even after they left office?

Might it not be, because even among 'thieves' there is this strange code of honour that those who live in glass-houses should not throw stones, and sinners should not cast the first stone?

Back now to the basic question: Is the 'Mahafiruan' (Pharaoh) that zalim (cruel)? Equally it may also be asked whether Anwar had brought on to himself such a tragic fate that he could and should have avoided.

Mahathir had been challenged by Musa Hitam and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (or Ku Li), who lost. The first challenger is now not faring too badly having just retired as Suhakam chairperson after a stint as Malaysian ambassador in US.

The other has now been rehabilitated even when he had left Umno to form Semangat 46 and now is even a possible candidate for finance minister post. Those who supported Ku Li against Mahathir like Pak Lah and Dr Rais Yatim/Sheikh Fadzir in Team B are now back within the fold as anointed successor and cabinet ministers respectively.

So realistically, how cruel and unforgiving can Mahathir really be based on the facts?

These people fought him fair and square through the ballot box and the political process. When they lost, they went into political wilderness briefly for rehabilitation. On their return, they asked for forgiveness from Mahathir who gave it, and they are back.

He never held it against Anwar when he rallied a groundswell of support to deny Ghafar Baba whom Mahathir would have preferred in the deputy position. Having wedged himself as next in line, Anwar was even openly endorsed by Mahathir as his successor. He just had to wait, like Deputy Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (or Pak Lah) did.

Instead, he could not, and yet did not have the grace to openly fight and contest Mahathir for the Umno presidency when he was in government as well as out.

He chose instead a more devious course of supporting his boss in the open and stealthily undermining him from behind by using proxies like Zahid Hamidi to raise cronyism in the Umno general assembly to fight his cause.

When Mahathir later put up a list that showed contracts awarded to his detractors' own cronies as well, Anwar did not come to Zahid's defence. Little wonder that after a bit of 'advice' from Special Branch, Zahid switched allegiance. Anwar said that it was "a cheap trick".

No differentiation was made between projects worth a few million ringgit and those worth billions. So was he objecting to cronyism in principle or inequitable distribution of largesse?

Mahathir himself let the cat out of the bag recently in his active endorsement of Pak Lah as his successor, and Najib Abdul Razak as Pak Lah's successor when he said that they were patient enough to wait out the 16-month transition instead of some others who could not wait and sought to topple him.

As for Mahathir, it must have been the unkindest cut of all (like Brutus stabbing Caesar) when his immediate protg whom he groomed and nurtured sought to undermine him — not openly as would a gentleman but surreptitiously on the sly.

A PM always had the prerogative to relieve any cabinet minister including his own deputy if the latter no more enjoyed his confidence.

The graceful thing for Anwar to do was to relinquish his cabinet position and take on the boss at a political level at party elections instead of gnarling his teeth and adamantly challenging the PM head-on.

After his sacking, he rallied his supporters to shove away police barricades, and harangued a hundred thousand of them at Dataran Merdeka even during and perhaps by reason of foreign dignitaries' visit to demand the stepping down of a democratically elected prime minister. Some segment of the mob threatened to go to PM's official residence to burn it down.

By Anwar's escalating the level of conflict to that of a street fight — to the finish — and in the face of the threat against public order and mob power, what else could the PM and his lackeys in law enforcement do?

What could PM or law enforcers otherwise do? All these could have been avoided if Anwar chose another way of engagement and political challenge, and eschewed violent confrontation by demonstrations in the public thoroughfares, mosques and padang (fields).

Surely, Anwar cannot reasonably expect the other side to fight him with kid gloves under such rules of engagement in a no-holds-barred power struggle to the finish that Anwar himself had defined?! Of course, the entire weight of state apparatus would be deployed against such a threat to vested interest and the established order and he ought to know the score that no quarter was expected nor would be given by either protagonists.