I refer to the Malaysiakini report Anwar vs Shabery in historic debate.

The much awaited debate between Anwar Ibrahim and Shabery Cheek did not reveal more information than what is already in the public domain:

Anwar defended himself quite well - even though he had a past in the government before. However, he did not force Shabbery to reveal the six option holders of Petronas who buy petrol cheaply but do not attract any bad press.

Then they both sided with Petronas so much that they also skirted around the issue of the transparency of Petronas’ accounts. Similarly, the lack of commitment towards public transport was also missed by both sides though arguably it is the most important thing to do in terms of a better reallocation of resources and for the environment.

Both tried too hard to cover their Malay ground thus all the compliments for Petronas, for Umno leaders - it was as though this was a debate at a Umno general assembly. Other than that, they both indulged in self-advertising and jabbing each other as unavoidably politicians would do with such a rare audience.

In terms of debating the Information Minister - an academic as such - showed that he was not so well-informed. While trying to associate Anwar with World Bank policies, he forgot that doing away with fuel subsidies would be closer to a World Bank prescription!

Similarly, when Shabery tried to compare fuel prices to Norway and England, he was caught out again when Anwar pointed out the incomparable income levels between the two Western countries and Malaysia.

Both speakers sidetracked from a number of good attacks from their opponent - something which the usually alert moderator failed to notice. For example, when Shabery pointed out that the petrol price to lower was the one referring to the one pre-March 8, Anwar got away without having to face the dire consequences of having to come out with more money to pay for those subsidies.

Anwar was only prepared to cut the fuel price by 50 sen - which is inadequate if the promise of cutting fuel price is done according to pre-election levels.

For Shabery, he never replied to the IPP (independent power producers) criticism - he only said that the IPP agreements were inked under Anwar's time as finance minister.

He should be made to answer why the Abdullah government now refuses to review the IPP agreements - just as they are now forced to review the one-sided highway toll agreements.

While it was strictly off topic, the two tried to hammer the other by pointing to their past and none seemed to be a stateperson enough to make relevant conclusions from the episodes.

For example, Shabery said that there couldn't have been an opportunity for a open debate when Anwar was DPM while Anwar complained that he has not been given space to explain his policies currently under Prime Minister Abdullah.

It would have been good for both of them to admit to their own shortcomings in freedom of speech under BN rule and for both to agree to open up more spaces for public policy debates.

The self-criticisms and self-mocking used effectively to disarm their opponents as often used by US politicians are absent in this crop of very self-righteous and kiasu politicians here.

Far from disagreeing with each other as they may seem arguing from opposite sides, it is strange that they have so many things in common! By way of summarising the result- : politicians win but the public did not get better informed.

From a public interest perspective, such a performance for a open live debate is acceptable only if their performances through more debates can be improved with follow-up questions being asked to focus the debate on the relevant issue rather than on everything else.

For the politicians, they both can go back to boast to their respective supporters of their performances. The public, meanwhile, still has something to clap about for this is a precedent for more debates to come!