From Terence Netto
The photo opportunity was adequate for the point that was being conveyed: All principals of the four components of Perikatan Nasional are seated in unison as if they had cohered around its secretary-general.
Hamzah Zainudin is seen sideways in the photo as if making the point that the coalition must swim together or sink separately.
Afterwards, he offered the news about the consensus in a Facebook posting that everything has been settled.
The everything was the dispute that had threatened to sunder the fledging coalition a donation from a brewery for a Chinese schools development.
PN component, PAS, was incensed by the presence of a Muslim deputy minister at the handing over ceremony; PN partner, Gerakan, was enraged by the umbrage.
The brouhaha deepened with threats of expulsion of Gerakan from PN, and of counter threats of withdrawal by the latter, accompanied by predictable recriminations.
Gerakan president Dominic Lau, of whom it could be said there is not the suspicion of a bad bone in his body, then spoke of the overriding need for PN to concentrate on unifying essentials, and not divisive diversions.
That was the cue for PNs Hamzah, a politician of rounded edges and consensus-forging disposition, to work his charm bringing everyone to realise that that which unites them is greater than that which divides.
A consensus-achieved photo is uploaded on Facebook, accompanied by a statement that intimates that alls well that appears well.
Presumably, an intact PN lives to fight another day and Hamzah endures as a consensus builder.
Coalition politics has to have a consensus-forger or else its inherent fractiousness will drive it to distraction, followed by schism.
Hamzah is an avatar of the late Ghafar Baba, the Umno stalwart of the 1970s to 80s who contending MCA factions resorted to, in order to bring them together to resolve factional disputes.
The whole demeanour of the man radiated consensus. Before him as mediator, it was easy to envisage that disputants would hesitate to press their case too strongly.
Hamzahs countenance is less obvious but more subtle. It suggests that no disagreement can be so grave that one cant come round to resolving it.
His persona suggests Bismarck was right about politics being the art of compromise and Disraeli was spot-on in holding that finality is not its language.
PN was wise in appointing him its secretary-general: Hamzah does not take himself and his interlocutors too seriously.
He reminds one of the sage counsel of Talleyrand, the French statesman of the Napoleonic era, who advised politicians: Above all, not too much zeal.
Hamzahs disposition equips him to be a welder of differing politicians into what can pass for unity.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.