The debate that has been garnering quite a bit of anticipation over the weeks has finally happened. Lim Guan Eng from the DAP(current Chief Minister of Penang) took on MCA's President, Chua Soi Lek in a debate that was aired on Astro Awani earlier today. It was in Mandarin with translators translating the whole debate into Bahasa Malaysia(as best as they could).
This is indeed a rather momentous occasion to have a political debate be aired on TV(granted it was Astro Awani, but it is still a significant moment nevertheless). Both of them agreed that they would like to see more of such debates happening. I would add that debates such as these expand the knowledge horizon of Malaysians and create awareness amongst the plebeians on the positions that our leaders take on key issues affecting the nation.
It is rather unfortunate that I felt there was less of a focus on these key issues and a overblown insistence on putting the blame on the opposition(and by opposition I mean the other party). What both of them should be debating are those important pertinent problems Malaysia is facing and how they would approach alleviating them(or whether they felt it was a problem at all). What about the right of overseas Malaysian right to vote? Or the use of the ISA(which despite promises, has still not been abolished), an anachronistic law that gives power to the state to hold anyone without question?
While on the one hand, Lim Guan Eng tried to point out what the Penang government has been doing to improve Penang, Chua Soi Lek read the age old script book of MCA and offered nothing new or fresh. He continued to blame the DAP and their 'uneasy' alliance with PAS as a potential point that deserves scorn from the Chinese Malaysian community. It didn't work during the last election, and the tired old argument does not work now.
I must say, I'm terribly disappointed at the quality of audience questions that were all borderline emotional rants(which also paints a lugubrious picture about the quality of graduates produced by our education system). They did not ask interesting questions and were downright partisan. No one asked what would be best for Malaysia. Ong Kian Ming, one of the live telecast panelists pointed out a sharp observation that the crowd in the debate was completely partisan. There was no non partisan crowd which I have to say, is rather worrying.
On one of the earlier points of this debate, both of them spoke about a two party system. I submit that it would be impossible to have a two party system without a significant number of voter segment that was non partisan(ie not in support of any one party). If we had a 50-50 split amongst voters that aligned themselves one way or the other, that would just be an ideological battle that would make political issues irrelevant. Politics isn't like supporting your favourite football club(it shouldn't be that way). It isn't like Manchester United vs Liverpool. It is not about an undying and unwavering loyalty.
The key to a healthy democracy is to have a group that does not support any party blindly; that would allow a party to come back into power in an election. It is not about the recruitment capability of a political party to recruit as many 'fans' as they can. Lets not forget the plot of the Malaysian narrative for the fatuous partisanship that political parties want so much. Let us not give them that. Let's work for a better Malaysia and make politicians accountable for their actions.
This is indeed a rather momentous occasion to have a political debate be aired on TV(granted it was Astro Awani, but it is still a significant moment nevertheless). Both of them agreed that they would like to see more of such debates happening. I would add that debates such as these expand the knowledge horizon of Malaysians and create awareness amongst the plebeians on the positions that our leaders take on key issues affecting the nation.
It is rather unfortunate that I felt there was less of a focus on these key issues and a overblown insistence on putting the blame on the opposition(and by opposition I mean the other party). What both of them should be debating are those important pertinent problems Malaysia is facing and how they would approach alleviating them(or whether they felt it was a problem at all). What about the right of overseas Malaysian right to vote? Or the use of the ISA(which despite promises, has still not been abolished), an anachronistic law that gives power to the state to hold anyone without question?
While on the one hand, Lim Guan Eng tried to point out what the Penang government has been doing to improve Penang, Chua Soi Lek read the age old script book of MCA and offered nothing new or fresh. He continued to blame the DAP and their 'uneasy' alliance with PAS as a potential point that deserves scorn from the Chinese Malaysian community. It didn't work during the last election, and the tired old argument does not work now.
I must say, I'm terribly disappointed at the quality of audience questions that were all borderline emotional rants(which also paints a lugubrious picture about the quality of graduates produced by our education system). They did not ask interesting questions and were downright partisan. No one asked what would be best for Malaysia. Ong Kian Ming, one of the live telecast panelists pointed out a sharp observation that the crowd in the debate was completely partisan. There was no non partisan crowd which I have to say, is rather worrying.
On one of the earlier points of this debate, both of them spoke about a two party system. I submit that it would be impossible to have a two party system without a significant number of voter segment that was non partisan(ie not in support of any one party). If we had a 50-50 split amongst voters that aligned themselves one way or the other, that would just be an ideological battle that would make political issues irrelevant. Politics isn't like supporting your favourite football club(it shouldn't be that way). It isn't like Manchester United vs Liverpool. It is not about an undying and unwavering loyalty.
The key to a healthy democracy is to have a group that does not support any party blindly; that would allow a party to come back into power in an election. It is not about the recruitment capability of a political party to recruit as many 'fans' as they can. Lets not forget the plot of the Malaysian narrative for the fatuous partisanship that political parties want so much. Let us not give them that. Let's work for a better Malaysia and make politicians accountable for their actions.
Comments
Post a Comment