KUALA SELANGOR, 23 June 2009: The two-coalition system practised in Malaysia is a better system of check and balance as opposed to the idea of forming a unity government, said Selangor Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) liaison chief Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.
He said the two-party system in the country, which resulted after the 8 March general election last year, would be good for the country and people in the long run.
“If we analyse the [unity government] concept carefully from the political viewpoint, [its formation] may confuse the people and would not strengthen the country’s administration.
“As such, it’s always better to have two strong parties to create check and balance.
“Even developed countries like Britain, Australia and the United States have acknowledged the system,” Khalid told reporters here today.
He was responding to the decision yesterday made by the Pakatan Rakyat, comprising the DAP, PAS and PKR, to unanimously reject the idea of forming a unity government with the Barisan Nasional.
Khalid, who agrees with the decision, said the two-coalition system would motivate political parties to perform better. — Bernama
Nicholas Aw says
The two-party system (as in the case of Malaysia, the two-coalition system) is indeed a better system. But unfortunately this setup is becoming a pain in the neck for the ruling government which all this while has been carrying out a divide and rule policy. Hence, its ability to cling to power for more than 50 years.
The coalition of the opposition parties which resulted in the Pakatan Rakyat, has given more bite and dented BN’s control, capturing 5 states (now 4 after BN wrested control of Perak).
Unless the BN find solutions to win back the rakyat’s support, this nightmare will continue and a likelihood of Pakatan Rakyat taking over more states or even the federal government will be greater.
Meanwhile, the BN will find ways and means, including putting a wedge to split the Pakatan Rakyat coalition so as to ensure that the former will continue to rule for another 50 years. Too much is at stake.