‘Both sides should be applauded for having the public debate. It is nothing short of an historical event and a significant milestone in Malaysian politics.’

On Anwar vs Shabery in historic debate

LS Kong: Who was the winner? The people! Both sides should be applauded for having the public debate and for their performances.

It is nothing short of an historical event and a significant milestone in Malaysian politics as we venture down the path to becoming a more matured democracy.

We the people need to encourage more such open political debates, but with more substance on policies than personal attacks, in the future.

While the BN government is obviously not yet comfortable with letting the greater masses see the debate on uncensored live telecast - one's level of maturity to handle such political debates is gauged by one's ability/inclination to install paid TV - but it is a major step forward nonetheless.

Hurrah to all! Malaysia Boleh!

Lim Teck Ghee: DSAI emerged as the clear winner in this debate. He was substantive and in command of the facts and figures - to the extent that the short period allocated to both speakers permitted.

Just as important, he focused on the issue and made a convincing case that the oil price increase was excessive, poorly planned and badly executed. What was impressive was that he was gracious and did not seek to over-demonise the government for the policy mis-step but called for its correction.

Information Minister Shabery Cheek, unfortunately, used much of his time casting aspersions on Anwar's past record. In contrast to Anwar who appeared gracious and courteous, Shabery came across as a hectoring politician intent on scoring political points by making personal attacks and not debating the issue.

While he attempted to analyse the rationale behind the government’s action, he also tied himself up in knots - by claiming for example that the oil price increase would help reduce inflationary pressure in the economy - a point that Anwar was quick to pounce on.

Towards the end of the debate, the minister pointed out that the fact that the debate was being held was testimony to the openness of the present government.

It is hoped that the outcome of the debate - an apparent victory by the opposition over the government spokesman -will not result in the government clamping down on similar public policy debates on vital matters affecting Malaysians.

A Star Is Born: Cringe did I when I first heard news of the Anwar vs Shabery debate. I pictured either a massive reaming for the BN speaker or a repeat Syed Hamid's fumbling buffoonery a la ‘Hard Talk’.

In fact I didn't want to watch but was dragged in front of the telly. All day the general feeling was that Shabery was going to get creamed because Anwar is probably the best and most charismatic speaker in Malaysian politics today. Sort of like watching David vs. Goliath.

My frown though, soon turned into a smile as Shabery began his rebuttal and by the end of the debate I was clapping enthusiastically at the TV. He wasn't as eloquent as Anwar but he was confident, calm, concise and even managed to crack a joke or two.

Most importantly, he was never rattled and could deliver his points (though I would suggest a glass of water or a tissue for him the next time).

Honestly, Anwar won as far as public speaking and showmanship went. That, after all, is his strong point. But on facts and actual answers to the questions put forward, Shabery came out on top.

I'm sure by populist vote Anwar would be the winner but even in that event, his supporters have to admit that it was far from a landslide victory.

Yeap Cheng Liang: Before we judge which side won the debate, we have to look at their original objective.

For Shabery, the objective is to defend government's move on fuel price rise and to win over the so called independents/sceptics. On this, Shabery failed.

Those who are sceptical remain sceptical. And I think he didn't even win over Anwar's sceptics. What he did was just repeating what you can read in the mainstream media, nothing new.

Whereas Anwar has done a good job in recommending many measures to justify his proposal.

And he was very forward looking compared to Shabery, who kept on looking backward into 30-40-year old stories.

Bhavani Krishna Iyer: I am neither a great fan of the opposition nor a foe of the BN government but I was tickled pink during the recent debate between Anwar and Shabery. And watching it live made all the difference for we could see who the thinker was as opposed to the other who was grinding on redundancies.

To begin with, Anwar emerged the nobler of the two, by strategy or otherwise and Shabery was a shame to himself and the government whom he spoke for.

Despite Anwar repeatedly warning - or reminding, if you like - that the event at hand was not Anwar vs Shabery but more to counter or support the opposition pledge to reduce the fuel price hike if they were to be given the opportunity to lead the nation, Shabery was only a loaded machine gun, losing ammunition but mostly not hitting the target.

Anwar had his mind and insight clear, he talked about reducing the fuel by not just any sum but by 50 sen and he came up with his reasons and justifications backed with facts and figures.

Shabery, on the other had, was hiding behind the Barisan government and saw it fit to defend his paymasters without there being a need to do so.

It also appears that Shabery might have worked really hard on researching the history for that seemed to be his preoccupation rather than issues at hand plaguing us every dawn and dusk.

Never once did Anwar condemn the Barisan government or Petronas but he did criticise. How do we debate without constructive criticism?

At the debate , Shabery made us realise that it is one thing to be a talker and another to be debater. Despite the playing field not being equal Anwar emerged a star.

Chong: I was very happy to be able to catch the last segment of the debate on Bernama TV online. I feel the country is growing up and with that we are given more freedom to express our views in a peaceful and respectful manner.

Thanks to our PM who has given the flexibility to allow such a forum. I could not help notice in the ending shots seeing Wan Azizah beaming with pride for Anwar.

In her heart, I think I know who won. I hope to see more live debates, and not just with Anwar.

Kenny Gan: What is it with Umno politicians? Can't they conduct a civilised debate without hitting below the belt?

Shabery's debate was liberally peppered with personal attacks against Anwar going all the way back to the 1974 Baling demonstration. How low can you go? The past is over and gone, nobody can say they are the same person 30 years ago.

Anwar was the better orator and had more substance in his points while Shabery could only keep repeating the mantra that we have to increase oil prices because world crude price is high.

But what really lost it for Shabery was his unwarranted personal attacks. Thankfully, Anwar refused to be drawn into defending himself or the debate would degenerate into a political fight.

Hopefully, we will see more such debates in future. With an outlet for expression, people be less prone to take to the streets.

Primus: Kudos to DSAI for making excellent points cemented by facts and figures during the debate on the price of oil.

And I strongly believe that many of the right-thinking viewers could decipher that our Information Minister Shabery Cheek was ill-equipped with information regarding the whole issue in contention and resorted to unethical, unprofessional behaviour by using the debate platform to make personal attacks on Anwar.

It seemed as though Shabery Cheek was a pawn of the BN govt. to spearhead a smear campaign on Anwar. Perhaps, his post should be changed to propaganda minister!

Analysing the entire debate, I agree with Anwar's point that the IPP agreements should be reviewed and I also believe that a ‘windfall tax’ should be imposed on the IPPs.

It was also pretty obvious that Shabery did not answer the question on what are the steps taken by the government to improve public transportation in Malaysia, especially in the urban areas but chose to make more personal attacks on DSAI.

Kudos again to DSAI for highlighting the problems of diesel smuggling in the country. It was also very enlightening to hear DSAI suggesting that RM1 billion be taken from the special dividend given by Petronas to the government to subsidise petrol price.

DSAI also made an excellent point on the need for good governance, which is vital for the economy of any country. The mandate given to the government is sacrosanct and in exchange the government must govern with the welfare of the people in mind for every single move that they make.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure that there is low corruption, low wastage and prudent management of the country's multitude of resources.

Lenard Yangli Lim: While I salute Shabery's bravado for participating in this debate, he must also now fulfill his pledge to resign.

Not only did he dodge questions, he also played up rhetoric and the very same populist approaches that he claimed to denounce.

This is not to say that Anwar won the debate though - his arguments, while somewhat logical, are very much contingent to a supremely idealistic world.

Lastly, as for Shabery's challenge to Anwar - ‘to name a country which enjoys high subsidies and does not have a high rate of inflation at the same time’, well, how about our neighbour Brunei?

Gman: I must applaud the information minister for breaking the norm to engage in a debate with the opposition that affects the lives of all Malaysians.

It was indeed a rare occasion to see such a debate and I hope (and I am sure countless others would agree as well) that such debates should be held more often.

It brings together different elements, ideas and approaches to the problems facing the common people and it is indeed refreshing to see such a debate.

I am sure it was not only an education in politics, but also finance and economics which I am sure somewhat enhanced the understanding of the average Malaysian on the matter.

My only gripe is that it was too short and only skimmed the surface of the issue. Anyway kudos to the information minister for taking such a bold step as it is about time and I hope this would be the start of more debates to come as from now we, the rakyat are 'expecting' it

Tattchua: I can now figure out how come the debate was cut short from the original 90 minutes to 60 minutes after having watched the debate. The information minister was definitely out of points and going on the defensive.

On the offensive was Anwar who have been rebutted convincingly the minister’s queries.

Should the debate be allowed to run the original 90 minutes, our minister would have most certainly been script-less whilst Anwar would certainly be applauded by the masses for his tenacity and in-depth understanding on the subject of fuel/ subsidy including the leakages.

Whilst my ‘winner’ would be Anwar, I applaud Shabery Cheek for taking up this challenge and clearly he is of the kind of budding intellect with calibre that is willing to shoulder the responsibility the country needs.

Having said that, Anwar displayed a high degree of calmness and quick-mindedness that others can only dream to have possess.

CK Wong: At long last, the much awaited debate between DSAI and Sabery Cheek took place. But what a big let down it was.

You had a feeling akin to expecting an electrifying football match between Brazil and Argentina only to realize later it was between Brazil and Myanmar.

How on earth could our learned ruling party let Shabery take on the likes of DSAI and expect to come out of it a victor? Maybe Shabery was the best they could do because that’s all they have.

How could the ruling party make a complete mockery of such an important event concerning the rakyat and the future of Malaysia?

There was nothing BN could offer in this debate as all the facts points to only thing - that whatever DSAI said was true.

What excuse or critical points could BN offer? None if facts are being taken into consideration. One only has to open half of one's eye to see that the monies being squeezed from the general rakyat through higher fuel prices have gone to the bulging pockets of BN cronies.

Soon, Malaysia will be privatised, run by BN cronies and known as Malaysia Berhad. The land we walk on could soon be sold by greedy politicians. Let people power prevail and make sweeping changes.

Let's make ‘Wawasan 2020' a reality before it becomes ‘Yayasan 2020', needing donations from other nations.

K Manickam: Anwar's explanations were simple, clear and up to the point. Sabery was no match for Anwar. It is a shame for Sabery to touch on personal issues when he could not answer the questions posed to him.

The press and all the other media being controlled by the government would without doubt side with the government by saying that Sabery won the debate. But the rakyat cannot be fooled.

Faizul Zainol: First of all, this debate was not conducted on a level playing field, Anwar is a pro whereas Shabery Cheek behaved like a student. Najib and Pak Lah together should take on Anwar.

A competent CEO of any multi-national company will tell you that the way to maintain profit margins during inflationary periods is to control your cost and wastage and increase sales. Shabery Cheek is clueless about cost control.

Any intelligent, unbiased person will undoubtedly state that Anwar won the debate way ahead of Shabery. Anwar won the debate because he spoke with facts, figures and plans and that too with conviction while Shabery was being political in taking pot shots at Anwar.

While there was always a professional smile on Anwar, Shabery desperately needed a handkerchief. Even if this was not a competition, Anwar, who answered to the point and responded like a gentleman, clearly eclipsed the younger man.

Anwar clearly won the debate without a doubt.

Cangamra: Never mind the statistics. If we go beyond the debate as a competition or combat, there are major victories here that are not caught in the statistics.

One is that we are able as a nation to debate major issues and discuss them openly and with decorum.

Secondly, that it is not necessary for government to classify every opposition or challenge to its policies and decisions as being treasonous or to spray and club those who protest.

Finally, even if the minister's arguments in debate were predictable, it was admirable that he took the challenge and was willing to appear before the public and state his views. There was valour in that. Others in government should cringe.

Patrick Yong: I was glad that I turned on the TV to watch the debate. I do agree it was like watching a soccer match but more filled with mental matches. My kudos to the information minister for this open debater.

Do bring on more of these events and also do include English versions as well to elevate the standard of this language.

As for the debate, I do agree with most of the people, DSAI was certainly the winner. He kept to his points and to the objective of the debate and provided the rationale for his points.

The minister, however, chose to deviate from the issue and at times took personal punches at DSAI. He failed to answer questions from the panel and made unfair and poor comparisons between Malaysia and other countries.

He was adamant that Malaysia will be a successful country under the present government but failed to acknowledge that we already behind Singapore, Korea and Taiwan. Now when we turn our back, China is right behind us or is it already in front? Vietnam is very fast catching up.

Let's not compare with the lesser nations. We should compare with the ones when we were at par and the greater nations. Very soon, we would have no more nations to compare but the the nations from Africa!

My View: To me, the outcome of the debate was a forgone conclusion. I hope to see more such debates.

Perhaps, the Parliament speakers should learn from the moderator of this debate. I also hope this is not the last 'live' debate involving Anwar. He is definitely one of the best orators around.