The great Malaysian debate – don’t hold your breath
COMMENT | And so it has come to pass that in the course of trading barbs, our former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak and his fiery foe Lim Kit Siang have challenged each other to a debate. About the kleptocracy. Freestyle, no less.
How exciting! It sure rings a bell, doesn’t it? It seems like there have been dozens of challenges over the years. And indeed there have been.
But try to cast your mind back to a really stirring debate that actually materialised. One that impacted upon public policy and lives long in the memory because of the witty exchanges and high intellectual path.
That’s not so easy, is it?
In fact, this isn’t even the first time Kit Siang and Najib have drawn their swords, only for them to be sheathed without the drawing of blood. In July 2018, Kit Siang challenged Najib to a public forum over Najib's continued insistence that the DAP veteran had linked kleptocracy with Islam.
Do you recall it happening? Well, you shouldn’t - because it didn’t.
In fact, considering that a primary function of their job is to discuss and argue the merits of legislation in Parliament, our parliamentarians seem to run scared when it comes to a formal debate.
Over the past decade, it seems to have cropped up many times...
COMMENT | And so it has come to pass that in the course of trading barbs, our former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak and his fiery foe Lim Kit Siang have challenged each other to a debate. About the kleptocracy. Freestyle, no less.
How exciting! It sure rings a bell, doesn’t it? It seems like there have been dozens of challenges over the years. And indeed there have been.
But try to cast your mind back to a really stirring debate that actually materialised. One that impacted upon public policy and lives long in the memory because of the witty exchanges and high intellectual path.
That’s not so easy, is it?
In fact, this isn’t even the first time Kit Siang and Najib have drawn their swords, only for them to be sheathed without the drawing of blood. In July 2018, Kit Siang challenged Najib to a public forum over Najib's continued insistence that the DAP veteran had linked kleptocracy with Islam.
Do you recall it happening? Well, you shouldn’t - because it didn’t.
In fact, considering that a primary function of their job is to discuss and argue the merits of legislation in Parliament, our parliamentarians seem to run scared when it comes to a formal debate.
Over the past decade, it seems to have cropped up many times.
In February, Bersih had to cancel a proposed debate among the candidates in the Semenyih by-election. While independent and small party candidates were keen, BN’s Zakaria Hanafi and Pakatan Harapan’s Muhammad Aiman Zainali pulled out with tame reasons, leading to the cancellation.
Soon after GE14, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Hanipa Maidin (on left, above) challenged former deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to a debate on the government's plan to abolish the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).
It didn’t happen of course, perhaps because Zahid had used up his quota for the decade when a three-way between himself and other Umno presidential hopefuls Khairy Jamaluddin and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who is popularly known as Ku Li, actually took place.
It was widely felt that KJ outshone his older compadres and one suspects that it will the first and last Umno presidential debate to occur.
If you remember, Khairy scored points by admitting to past errors and saying that he should have spoken up about malpractices by the previous party leadership. He acknowledged the party had a long-standing and damaging practice of protecting the party president and preventing the position from being challenged or by delaying presidential elections.
Zahid, on the other hand, was in full on denial mode, saying Umno was still performing well and implying that the only thing wrong with BN was its coalition partners.
Both Ku Li and Zahid appeared out of touch compared to Khairy leading a clarion call for youth leadership and technological changes. Of course, the grassroots did not go with Khairy and handed the president’s seat to Zahid, which perhaps showed the limited impact of that debate!
Khairy (photo) is no stranger to rumbles over debates. In 2016, Khairy, as youth and sports minister, together with national football coach B Sathianathan and then FAM president Tengku Mahkota of Johor, appeared to square up for a televised debate on the future of Malaysian football in 2016. Only for it to fizzle out.
Among other debates that were touted but didn’t materialise were the running battle beween Wee Ka Siong and Lim Guan Eng, Arul Kanda and Tony Pua over 1MDB, and one between then tourism minister Nazri Aziz and Dr Mahathir Mohamad in April 2017, which was cancelled after the police withdrew permission for the event to be held.
I remember it was April 1 when the news broke that the permission had been withdrawn, and it was tough not to treat it like a joke. In fact, that might be why a frustrated Nazri decided that elderly tycoon Robert Kuok was an easier target instead!
I have been entertained by US presidential debates in the past. Donald Trump may be an atrocious president, but he scored points just by embedding the unflattering nicknames of his Republican opponents “Little Marco” Rubio and “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz in our psyche.
And I’m old enough to remember the classic burn issued by vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen when Dan Quayle made the mistake of comparing himself to the late president John F Kennedy: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
Of course, debates should not really be about clever nicknames, classic burns and political posturing. As someone who is addicted to the concept of a battle of ideas, I lament our politics has evolved into pure identity politics and not one of ideological debate.
I think that’s why debating is generally avoided by our political leaders. They like playing to the gallery and changing their tune according to which audience they are performing in front of.
Maybe many are more skilled at oratory – the dramatic monologue – than they are at a back and forth exchange. Still, we had great debaters in Parliament in the past – from (even) Lee Kuan Yew and DP Seenivasagam to Karpal Singh. Right now we have champion debater Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, but I am not hearing champion debates.
Check out these examples of Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek debating DAP & MCA: Whose policies benefit the country more in July 2012. And Anwar Ibrahim doing battle with Ahmad Shabery Cheek. Far from classic.
I would like to believe our political and civil society leaders can enter a new era of educated debate, backed with statistical evidence and blessed with just the right amount of wit and grace. But when it comes to the latest Najib-Kit Siang exchange – I am not holding my breath.
MARTIN VENGADESAN is a member of the Malaysiakini Team.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.