POLITICAL DEBATE: A Positive Shift in Political Climate in Malaysia? Really?

Political debates have been the recent public interest especially in Malaysia. Some people assumed that political debates are just tools of selling propagandas and stands to the public as the 13^th General Election date will be announced in any time soon. Such opinion is neither right nor wrong. People have the right to speak out their opinions. But, the BIG QUESTION is, IS POLITICAL DEBATE BRINGS POSITIVE CHANGE TO THE POLITICAL ARENA?

Malaysia may not be the first to practice open debates, neither the last too. Open debates have been practice by many other country to fight for their stands. This mostly used by political leaders especially when the election is getting close to date.

It is getting to be a trend for political practitioners to hold debates with their opponents to fight against certain issues from the grassroots. Recently, on the 22^nd May 2012, two young men in the political arena had a debate on the issue of PTPTN. It is none than other; Debat Sinar Harian, between Pemuda UMNO Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin and PKR Strategic Director, Rafizi Ramli.

For those who haven't watch the debate, here is the link to the full version of the PTPTN debate:

DEBAT PTPTN: Khairy Jamaluddin VS Rafizi Ramli

Some might say it is pointless to have such debate.  From my personal opinion, it is a positive shift in the political paradigm. Reason being, both speakers were given EQUAL CHANCE to speak, EQUAL CHANCE to rebut and EQUAL access to the audience and the media for that particular time. In reference to that debate, some facts and figures were spoken out by both speakers. It is not about winning or losing BUT it is about delivering the right information to the audiences. Certain facts might have been spinned, intensified or even omitted but the audience will have the chance of evaluating both speakers.

Even before the PTPTN debates, there were other political debates such as Datuk Ambiga VS Khairy Jamaluddin, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim VS Datuk Seri Shabery Cheek and many other debates.

You may watch the full version of this debate here:

THE MALAY MAIL DEBATE: Khairy Jamaluddin VS Datuk S. Ambiga

You may watch this video in YOUTUBE. There are 8 parts in total :)

Political scenes in Malaysia should not be stagnant or stationary but it must move in line with the economical developments of Malaysia. One thing that is deeming true, the rakyat today is getting wiser and the need to be fed with information by respective parties is a must. Open debate is one of the ways to do so. It is just a harmless way to disseminate information to the public.

Debates should be taken as something positive towards the political developments in Malaysia. Political stage is never impaired but it revolves from time to time. Take this as an constructive advantage not a destructive downside. 

Peace Malaysia!

Questioning credibility? Really?

 The credibility of a leader has always lingers around characteristics, leadership values, ideas, image, reputation, education and a lot more. For one to be lifted and accepted as a leader, he must be able to be one of the followers too. To be a good leader, one must be a good follower as well. This is deeming true, if one failed to follow, he definitely will fail to be at the peak of hierarchy.

One side of the leadership requires us to be brave and to be strong. We must be brave to stand up for what we believe in, stand up for the truth and stand up for our people. But often the concept of bravery is taken wrongly. Also, often used for the sake of taking one down.

As we all know, recently, it came out at the front page of one of the mainstream newspaper saying that one of our leaders is challenging the credibility of another leader on the left wing. Is this a proper thing to do? I mean, it is okay to differ in opinions and stand but does it really has to be announced out loud to the public? Is it necessary for us to tell to the people that there are tensions between our leaders? Well, it is something for us to ponder on.

Measuring credibility? 

Stepping on the credibility of someone should not be the ground of winning a political game. It is not wrong. Yes, no one ever said it is wrong. But to make it public is it ethically right? Some might say yes, but some might say no. There is wrong and right answer for this question.

Most of the leaders are great rhetoricians but some are great dialectics. Aristotle, pioneer in art of rhetoric, in one of his texts said that for the public to be persuaded to actually believe it, they must be triggered in terms of their trust on one’s credibility, their emotions must me touched as well as their logical reasoning must be in parallel just to get the public to believe in them. In this case, Aristotle’s mentor, Plato has a different opinion. He said in his text, no emotions should be touched as the truth will be the point of believing anything. There should not be any emotional manipulation. But, the only thing that they both believed is that the CREDIBILTY will be one of the determinants of taking anything into beliefs.

 The point about the arguments between Aristotle and Plato is that both believe in credibility is the main point of the mass public to believe in any idea. Maybe, this is the reason why some politicians are so eager in using credibility of their opponent as a weapon of taking them down. Well, I would say, game well-played. There should not be any reason to say the other way. But the blame is not totally weighed on just one side.

I would consider we are lucky that we as Malaysian are still bound to the constitution which holds us together despite of all political differences. Maybe those at the upper lines should consider all their actions as people at the lower level are observing them. They should always remember that we are the people that determine who are our leaders. We are living in a parliamentary democracy country.


Peace Malaysia!