Issues like human trafficking, crime and corruption are not partisan issues and yet these issues are allowed to be intensely partisan. Why?

DAP is equally guilty of attempting to do what BN MPs are doing i.e politicize every single issue that comes its way for political capital. When derogatory remarks are made against its MP or MPs it did not move a motion immediately to censure the MPs who were misbehaving but instead waited until it is ‘too late’. Of course it is not too late to want to do something. That’s BN way of politicizing the issue.

When steps are taken to try and improve security in areas like JB, we should congratulate the government for taking action like several readers here like Jong was quick to suggest. Whether it is too late too little does not matter as much. No doubt credit must go to the DAP for putting the pressure on the government, for bringing public attention to the situation prevailing in that part of the country.

My question is “Why must everything be partisan?”

I would like to see more Opposition MPs standing up to congratulate the government for making the right decision when the right decision is made – and not just oppose the wrong decisions. That way the national coalition would be forced to change its strategy and not oppose everything that the Opposition suggests.

The role of the Opposition is much wider than that. It includes bringing the national coalition to do what it wants just as much as not bringing the national coalition to do what it doesn’t want.

“So far, opp party is the only party who dares to comment, critic, criticize the gov our behalf. MCA, MIC where are they?” MWong

Everything you say about the BN government being “not up to the mark’ even wrong, is true. But they are not always wrong – just like no one is always wrong. My point is about the criticism often leveled against the Opposition for opposing for the sake of opposing. This is one such time when the Opposition rises above partisan politics to give credit where credit is due.

We scream because there are not enough boots on the ground when it comes to policing the streets of crime-riddled areas of our cities but when you see change, we find other reasons to criticize. It looks like enough is never enough! We should like some readers here say, “Give them time (to get it right) because they are trying to do something. The issue of too little too late can wait.

I am not suggesting that Opposition MPs stand up to give the government a standing ovation!

Now on your suggestion that members of the ruling coalition like the MCA and MIC should also criticize the coalition to which they belong, to which they owe some of their seats is a bit unrealistic for obvious reasons. Furthermore, it doesn’t happen that way in our parliamentary system. Any differences are sorted out behind closed doors and not on the floor of Parliament. Their support is ensured through the mechanism of party discipline.

Issues like illegal immigration and the presence of criminal aliens terrorizing our women and children, breaking into our homes are clearly bipartisan issues. These criminals do not ask if the home of a DAp MP is preferred to an UMNO Minister or an MIC Minster.

So why should these be treated as a partisan issue. This is the failure of the Parliamentary system.

You don’t see the same thing happening in the U.S. Congress, for example. Voting is not always along Party lines. The issue of illegal immigration for example is tearing the U.S. Senate apart, a divisive issue even among the Democrats. The U.S. Senate has a one vote majority – not enough to carry anything. They need 60 votes to pass any bill. You see some Democrats opposing the immigration bill and some Republicans favoring the bill. Illegal immigration is not a partisan issue.

Our system is just not conducive to this sort of approach to issues. Everything is made intensely partisan. It is in the political culture.

I don’t know which European country you are residing in but it seems it is the same problem where the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy is followed.

To: MWong

My reference to the Westminster Model of Parliamentary Democracy and the comparison to the U.S> Presidential system is for a purpose. The purpose is to highlight how the system works.

In the U.S. Presidential system of government based as it is on checks and balances and on a clear separation of powers between the three branches of government i.e. executive, legislature and judiciary, debate in the U.S. Congress is not hampered by party discipline. A Democrat in the House of Representatives may vote against a Democrat sponsored bill and a Republican Senator may chastise a Republican sitting President. Voting is not on party lines.

This is not so in our Parliamentary system of government where there is no clear separation of powers and the concept of checks and balances is almost alien to it. Through what is generally referred as the mechanism of party discipline, convention requires that government MPs do not criticize other government MPs.