Over the last few weeks almost everyone has had something to say about Malaysian ‘political frogs’. If the pollsters are right, a vast majority of Malaysians have been made to appear, ironically, like frogs themselves.

They first erupted in joy when one ‘frog’ announced he was leaving his pond for another one only to find themselves somewhat sheepishly cursing the three ‘frogs’ who one week later announced that they were hopping in the reverse direction.

As Malaysians scratch their heads and try to decide which position they should hold on this issue, it may be helpful to have a short science and social dynamics lesson.

Firstly, they are all manners of frogs in the natural world. Some are poisonous while others are positively delectable when cooked in the right way. One could then conceivably love one species of frog and loath the other kind. In that same line, it would be perfectly okay, I submit, to cheer one ‘political frog’ and heap vitriol on another.

The same rules of nature could be applied to the world of politics. One would just need to decide which type of ‘frog’ it is in each case. And that could easily be done by having some questions answered.

Is the action poisonous or not? Will it cause harm or nurture a process? The best way to get answers would be to observe the actions of the ‘frogs’ and the reaction they cause.

For instance, one could perfectly well conclude that a particular ‘frog’ did the right thing when it could hop to the front of its constituents and face them majestically, say in a stadium. If by doing that and it resulted in thousands of people cheering it, then that action is commendable.

On the other hand, if another ‘frog’ is shunned and no one even wants to give or even sell food to it, then it would be clear that the action of that ‘frog’ and by extension, the ‘frog’ itself, is poisonous.

If one ‘frog’ can, without any fear, walk boldly in front of the people it represents while another has to cower and hide, why then must people be forced to have only one opinion on the question of party- hopping?

Let’s not force the adoption of the dichotomy that one either loves or hates all ‘frogs’.

This world of ours and this is where we move on to social relations, is a complex one where relationships, opinions and beliefs change all the time.

Over the last 10 years or so, poll results have shown that a whole lot of people who previously supported and voted for one particular political group underwent a change of thinking and hopped onto a new cause.

Can we also classify these people as ‘frogs’ or should we not, rightfully acknowledge that they have the right to change their beliefs after being exposed to other ideas and causes?

At the same time, if people hop to other ponds for personal interests and monetary gains, as is being alleged in the case of some of the recent ‘frogs’, then the action of shunning them is understandable and should cause no conflicts in the minds of the people who supported an earlier ‘frog’ that switched ponds because it sincerely felt that the interests of the people it represents is best carried forward in that new pond.

So let the ‘frog jumping’ continue, I say. The constitution is right. People, including politicians, must be allowed the freedom of association. But just like how we choose our friends and work-mates, one must be prepared to bear the consequences of our actions. If the motives are right, there is nothing to fear.

All party leaders need to do is to reassure the people they represent. Give them the irrevocable assurance that, if there are enough defections to bring down a ruling government, they would in the shortest possible time, dissolve the government and seek a fresh mandate from the people. This will clear any doubts that may remain.

If a particular party is willing to go back to the people at all times, we should not unjustly condemn the party-hoppers who move in that direction. It is the ones that are unwilling to seek a fresh mandate that we should loathe.