YOURSAY 'Chua spoke first and was allowed to have the last word while MCA members mostly hurled accusations by shouting themselves hoarse instead of asking questions.'
Blind Freddo: When the writer (Nigel Aw) says it was one of the most significant debates in Malaysia's political history, I hope he means that that's because there haven't been too many debates.
As a debate, it was overwhelmingly insignificant because it failed at all levels to be a debate.
I see it as another symptom of Malaysians' failure to understand what democracy is; it highlights the selfishness and lack of respect of the Chinese Malaysians, the inability of Malaysians to be honest at any time, but most of all it further demonstrates the inability of Malaysians of any race to have any vision.
To fill the vacuum, they squabble about petty issues and resort to name calling and veiled insults.
Joker: I was very disappointed with the so-called debate. As intimated by the article, the debate never happened as the whole event was an act of political grandstanding by both parties.
Even so, I do not blame Lim Guan Eng or DAP because Lim spoke later, and DAP members were outnumbered and they behaved much better during the Q&A sessions.
Chua spoke first and was allowed to have the last word while MCA members mostly hurled accusations by shouting themselves hoarse instead of asking questions, as exemplified by the antics of 'Ms Tow Truck' .
Chua went on the offensive by straying far from the topic and accused Lim and DAP from the word 'go', Lim had no choice but to counter.
I was very put off by the way Chua played the aggressor role and twisted words instead of making direct replies. Instead of being seen as articulate, I got the impression of Chua as a sly and wily old career politician.
Chks: It is easy for these analysts to say, "Lim could have said this and said that...".
Of course, retrospectively anyone could have done that; the infinite number of probabilities could have happened but imagine the tension on that night, the many bombardments and comments that came firing at you from members of the opposite side.
There are a lot of specific skills one needs to harness in order to be good in a public speaking event such as debates. For example, how to deconstruct a ‘straw man' argument, how not to be swayed by red-herring arguments, etc.
Being good in public speaking does not mean one is a good politician, and neither does being a good politician automatically entail one to be good in such academic topics.
After all, the debate only lasted one hour; what transpired during that one hour does not necessarily reflect the true ideology of that person.
Cala: A debate is a debate. The fact of the matter is if MCA has been sitting on its laurels for 54 years, no amount of talk much less an impressive one put across within one hour of televised debate can rejuvenate its damaged reputation as a spineless, unprincipled, clueless and weak partner in the BN regime.
I knew right from the start that Chua would use the debate for public relation purposes as the party has been trapped into a small corner by the bully of a big brother, Umno.
The situation is exactly similar to a cancer patient lying on his death bed but clothed in an elegant dress talking profusely as if he is still in the best of health.
Thus, if I am Lim, I should not be distracted by Chua's ‘showmanship' for what matters to voters is commitment to a worthy cause, which is not found in Chua.
Anonymous_3ef1 : For Chua to back stab Ong Tee Keat, past president and fellow party member, shows how low the ethics and morality of MCA is. You do not condemn your own fellow members. MCA is finished, Chua has just put the final nail in the party's coffin.
Negaraku: The real ugly sight during the debate was that of the MCA members in the audience. They certainly projected an unprofessional image, at times even jumping up and down like monkeys.
Come on, we are talking of a professional debate and yet these MCA people acted like they were in a coffee shop watching a wall-hung television. I hope they behave and show some class in the next debate.
Bertrand Russell: It was the politics of thuggery that won the day.
Anonymous_3f1f: I did not watch the so-called debate. But from the feedback, the whole show was a total failure and disappointment. In first place, the topic ‘Chinese at the political crossroads' is irrelevant.
To me, it is the MCA Chinese and BN which are at the political crossroads. They are at the crossroad because come GE13 the voters will make sure to vote them out of power.
Chua, please wake up: it's not DAP teaming up with PKR and PAS that will bring hardship to the people, but MCA teaming up with Umno will.
Alan Goh: Chua Soi Lek has nothing to lose by debating with Lim, with the former's shameful leadership track record on the line.
He has to prove to PM Najib Razak his capability to lead MCA and that he is still a winnable candidate, not withstanding that he was caught with his pants down some time ago.
No matter how he projects himself, whether as a good debater or a highly intelligent politician, Chua has failed the basics of leadership by example.
Chua needs to learn from Low Thia Khiang, the secretary-general of the Singapore Workers Party, the meaning of transparency and accountability. The Workers Party member and MP for Hougang constituency Yaw Shin Leong was expelled on allegations of his affairs with party workers, resulting in a fresh by-election for Hougang.
MCA delegates, especially the Wanita MCA member Jessie Ooi, should be ashamed even to be seen associating with such a president, let alone question the capability of Lim as Penang chief minister.
Rakyat Malaysia: MCA - Make Chinese Ashamed, Angry, Annoyed.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .