The wait is finally over as the Malaysian parliament has been dissolved and a new mandate will be called before the end of March. As an observer and a bystander in the run-up to the dissolution, it is disappointing to note that some old habits still die hard and some old tricks are still being recycled by both politicians and political pundits.

According to the Star 's assessment, racial and religious issues featured prominently in the past 10 general elections and will likely rear their ugly heads again at the 11th hour of the coming general election. These issues, while being the most sensitive and contagious, are also the most convenient political tools which can be used by any election candidate as a "no-brainer" strategy to win electoral support or to romp home a decisive personal victory. Yes, personal victory, because it is a victory for the candidate but a defeat for everything else such as social relations, societal harmony, socio-political development and simply, progress.

I pick no bone with the calls for a healthier parliamentary democracy in our country. The sterility of political discourse and debate should move and progress beyond the parameters of race, religion and partisanship. However, it is also desirable that these voices should at least be accompanied by logical substance.

For example, a call to elect more opposition members into the house of lawmakers does not seem to rhyme very well with the need to identify and insist that the members should come from a certain racial denominator. Is it true that Indians can be better served or obtain greater democratic rights if they are represented by at least one fellow Indian opposition parliamentarian? What has race got to do with the ability of a people's representative to serve his/her constituency?

A truly Malaysian parliamentarian must be able to uphold his/her pledge to serve all Malaysians regardless of race, creed or belief and to also set aside partisan politics to serve those who voted or voted against him/her in a constituency. Malaysians can only be proud of ourselves if we can prove our maturity by being able to set aside all political and partisan differences once the election is concluded and set our sight back on key issues agonising us as a developed nation in the making. This will then also be the time to let practicality and common sense prevail over irrationality in dealing with socio-political or economic issues.

Hopefully, then, we do not have to suffer the incredulity of claims by some politicians and pundits alike who cannot seem to leave the dogs in Subang Jaya alone but instead dragged the poor animals along with their owners, and the neighbours (of course, the ones who are not too fond of dogs) of the owners, into the whole debate about Islamisation or fundamental rights just because the local council decided to impose some conditions for a peaceful co-existence between humans, their animal friends and their sleep-deprived neighbours.

Owning a pet dog is nothing wrong. In fact it is desirable to be animal loving. However, it is necessary that the dog does not misbehave and interrupt the tranquillity of nightfalls. If it is your fundamental right to own a dog, it is also your fundamental responsibility to ensure that your dog receives proper training so that it can co-exist in human environment.

Why irrational? Ask those who think that if they need their neighbours' permission to rear a dog, their neighbours should also ask for their permission to have babies. When human civilisation is equated with that of animal logic, then anything is possible in this election. For goodness sake, having a baby is not like having a pet dog! I hope I do not have to be asked to explain the reasons.