In the row between SOS Damansara and DAP over the selective invitation for politicians, two issues deserve more serious reflection than partisan criticism and defences.

The first is whether politicians should be invited to speak or given a high-profile publicity opportunity in an NGO movement likes SOS Damansara. The second, if yes, on what account should which politicians be so privileged?

On the first question, SOS Damansara president Yong Yoke Sung was quoted as saying the committee did not invite any politicians to speak and Bukit Gasing state assemblyman Dr Lim Thuang Sing was invited in his capacity as a MPPJ councillor and for his help in securing the permit for the SOS solidarity dinner.

Yong apparently has forgotten that local councillors are politicians too. If anything, councillors are more partisan than MPs or state legislators. Unelected but as political appointees of the state government, they represent not the public but their parties.

That securing of a dinner permit should serve as a criterion for a political speech is flawed unless we concede to politicians our right as citizens to assemble as a commodity they could trade with.

In defence of SOS Damansara, Justine Ng sees the invitation to Gerakan's Lim as an effort 'to try and pull out something from the current polarised political situation'. The deadlock intended to break free off was the BN mindset that 'opening the school would mean a surrender to the DAP and opposition'.

As a supporter of the movement, I think it did the right thing to engage with Gerakan or any other BN party. In fact, the movement started four years ago with an appeal to MCA's local MP Chew Mei Fun, whose rejection made the villagers turn to her DAP rival Ronnie Liu.

Where I may differ from Ng is that widening political support need not mean replacing old allies with new ones. Whether or not that was the intention, SOS Damansara's clearly showed their stand when they invited a politician from one party to speak but not his rival.

This is how DAP MPs would have read it not to mention many others like me.

But coming to motives - would sidelining opposition parties when the BN shows signals of a truce (instead of continuously and freely courting all parties for support) really put the movement in a better position?

This has been the belief of many Chinese organisations, to justify their political neutrality and object to the 'politicalisation' of their concerns. What they may have missed is that the state is a rational actor as much as civil society.

I am in no way suggesting SOS Damansara, or any NGO for that matter, should disengage with ruling politicians and be unconditionally supportive of the opposition. They should try to convince BN politicians that their current stand is politically-detrimental and a reverse is politically-benefitting.

In doing so, they must however also remain independent and principle-driven. Political rent-seeking must not be allowed, let alone offered for solving problems that should not have existed in the first place.

'Depoliticisation' should rightly mean that the legitimate rights of citizens are not harmed or held to ransoms by any political party - ruling or opposition.

On the part of DAP, it should avoid an impression that it seeks voters' gratefulness. 'Thanks be to me' may suit well rulers in autocratic states but not for elected leaders in democracies.

Lastly, it is commendable that both SOS Damansara and DAP have shown maturity in that this storm in the teacup will not spill over and affect their cooperation on the issue.

It is also positive for Gerakan to voice the support for the cause when another BN component party has consistently shied away from it.

Now under a new leadership, BN should have the wisdom to rectify the damage done by the closing the SRJK(C) Damansara.