Academicians say such a showdown might answer a lot of questions and separate the truth from the spin.
PETALING JAYA: With Najib Tun Razak staunchly refusing to accept Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s challenge to a debate, some local academics are now interested in seeing a showdown between former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed and his one-time deputy.
Prominent historian Khoo Kay Kim told FMT that Malaysians were keen to know the truth behind the fallout between the two, especially now that a general election is imminent.
“People want to know what happened between them, and a debate like this might answer their questions,” said Khoo.
“People know that Mahathir picked Anwar and gave him a high position in Cabinet. They were very close. But then their relationship broke down and Anwar was thrown into prison.
“People want to know what happened, and they will only understand what truly transpired if they come out and speak together in public.”
Khoo said that the information gleaned from the proposed debate could help the public differentiate the truth from the spin and in deciding which coalition to vote for in the general election.
“Otherwise, we can only rely on rumours. So a debate like this may help people to understand better which party is telling the truth.”
Anwar, who is PKR’s de facto leader, served directly under Mahathir as the Deputy Prime Minister and Umno Deputy President from 1993 to 1998. He was considered Mahathir’s closest ally and future successor until he was unceremoniously sacked and sentenced to prison in 1999 on charges of corruption and sodomy.
Anwar’s abrupt downfall in an otherwise stellar political career led to the Reformasi movement and the birth of opposition party PKR, which, along with its allies PAS and DAP, gained a significant political foothold following the 2008 general election.
Since Anwar’s release from prison in 2004, he and Mahathir have been trading potshots over issues ranging from the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis to the citizenship-for-votes issue that is the subject of an ongoing public inquiry.
But they have not come face to face in a public debate.
‘Personal topics will emerge’
Khoo predicted that should such a debate take place, the public could expect an interesting battle.
“Once they meet each other openly, there will be very personal questions thrown in. Things people don’t know may come out, and it will be very interesting.”
He said that Anwar would likely bring up “all aspects of his relationship with Mahathir” that many Malaysians might not be aware of.
“Mahathir is very clever;” Khoo said with a chuckle. “You can’t catch him because he knows how to twist and turn. If he cannot answer, he will say I cannot remember.”
But he added that Mahathir was not likely to agree to such a debate.
“I’m not sure such a debate would happen. I think Anwar would be eager to debate with Mahathir, but I think Mahathir would not be interested.”
Khoo also said he was unable to predict who would win in the debate, adding that they were “equally good” as public speakers.
But Professor James Chin of Sunway Monash University said he was sure that Anwar would emerge victorious.
“Anwar is a very well known debater,” he said. “When he debated with the sports minister, the latter got hammered.”
He agreed with Khoo that Malaysians would benefit from a public showdown between the two because both had “lots of things to hide”.
“Mahathir and Anwar have both said the other is behind the Project IC in Sabah,” he said. “So this would be an opportunity for them to prove who is actually telling the truth.”
Mahathir has accused Anwar of being the main man behind the project, saying the latter at times acted without orders from him.
But Anwar has claimed innocence and accused Mahathir of founding the task force which granted citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Chin pointed out that this would also be the first opportunity for Anwar to engage with Mahathir since he was imprisoned in 1999.
‘Distracting’
But Lim Teck Ghee, the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives, said a debate between Anwar and a BN leader would be more useful because Mahathir no longer represented BN.
“Unless Mahathir wants to take over from Najib or wants to go into election, I don’t see any usefulness in a debate between them,” he said.
“Mahathir has his own agenda; he doesn’t speak for BN nor does he lead it. He is simply an individual, a private citizen, and he should behave like any other private individual.”
Lim added that such a debate could even be “distracting” compared to a debate between Anwar and Najib.
“It’s unfortunate that Najib is refusing to engage in a national debate with Anwar because debates are now done all over the world.
“It is not good for Najib to avoid this. If he’s confident that BN is doing well, he should be willing to debate.”
However, Chandra Muzaffar, the president of International Movement for a Just World, insisted that debates between any individuals were not at all necessary.
“I don’t think a debate would generate more light than heat,” said the pro-BN scholar. “I don’t think it would help at all because of the very nature of it.
“A debate is polarised, with two sides saying two totally different things and we end up with two sides scratching at one another. A debate is just the public asserting a position from a certain perspective.”
Instead, he said, the public needed all actors involved to be more ethical in presenting the facts.
“I think the real challenge is to separate facts from fiction, the spinning, the deliberate attempt to distort. I don’t think this is helping the rakyat, this sort of spin and distortion, people making use of the new media.
“We need to bring back ethical standards in public discourse to present what is really happening and look at both sides of the picture.”
PETALING JAYA: With Najib Tun Razak staunchly refusing to accept Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s challenge to a debate, some local academics are now interested in seeing a showdown between former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed and his one-time deputy.Prominent historian Khoo Kay Kim told FMT that Malaysians were keen to know the truth behind the fallout between the two, especially now that a general election is imminent.
“People want to know what happened between them, and a debate like this might answer their questions,” said Khoo.
“People know that Mahathir picked Anwar and gave him a high position in Cabinet. They were very close. But then their relationship broke down and Anwar was thrown into prison.
“People want to know what happened, and they will only understand what truly transpired if they come out and speak together in public.”
Khoo said that the information gleaned from the proposed debate could help the public differentiate the truth from the spin and in deciding which coalition to vote for in the general election.
“Otherwise, we can only rely on rumours. So a debate like this may help people to understand better which party is telling the truth.”
Anwar, who is PKR’s de facto leader, served directly under Mahathir as the Deputy Prime Minister and Umno Deputy President from 1993 to 1998. He was considered Mahathir’s closest ally and future successor until he was unceremoniously sacked and sentenced to prison in 1999 on charges of corruption and sodomy.
Anwar’s abrupt downfall in an otherwise stellar political career led to the Reformasi movement and the birth of opposition party PKR, which, along with its allies PAS and DAP, gained a significant political foothold following the 2008 general election.
Since Anwar’s release from prison in 2004, he and Mahathir have been trading potshots over issues ranging from the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis to the citizenship-for-votes issue that is the subject of an ongoing public inquiry.
But they have not come face to face in a public debate.
‘Personal topics will emerge’
Khoo predicted that should such a debate take place, the public could expect an interesting battle.
“Once they meet each other openly, there will be very personal questions thrown in. Things people don’t know may come out, and it will be very interesting.”
He said that Anwar would likely bring up “all aspects of his relationship with Mahathir” that many Malaysians might not be aware of.
“Mahathir is very clever;” Khoo said with a chuckle. “You can’t catch him because he knows how to twist and turn. If he cannot answer, he will say I cannot remember.”
But he added that Mahathir was not likely to agree to such a debate.
“I’m not sure such a debate would happen. I think Anwar would be eager to debate with Mahathir, but I think Mahathir would not be interested.”
Khoo also said he was unable to predict who would win in the debate, adding that they were “equally good” as public speakers.
But Professor James Chin of Sunway Monash University said he was sure that Anwar would emerge victorious.“Anwar is a very well known debater,” he said. “When he debated with the sports minister, the latter got hammered.”
He agreed with Khoo that Malaysians would benefit from a public showdown between the two because both had “lots of things to hide”.
“Mahathir and Anwar have both said the other is behind the Project IC in Sabah,” he said. “So this would be an opportunity for them to prove who is actually telling the truth.”
Mahathir has accused Anwar of being the main man behind the project, saying the latter at times acted without orders from him.
But Anwar has claimed innocence and accused Mahathir of founding the task force which granted citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Chin pointed out that this would also be the first opportunity for Anwar to engage with Mahathir since he was imprisoned in 1999.
‘Distracting’
But Lim Teck Ghee, the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives, said a debate between Anwar and a BN leader would be more useful because Mahathir no longer represented BN.
“Unless Mahathir wants to take over from Najib or wants to go into election, I don’t see any usefulness in a debate between them,” he said.
“Mahathir has his own agenda; he doesn’t speak for BN nor does he lead it. He is simply an individual, a private citizen, and he should behave like any other private individual.”
Lim added that such a debate could even be “distracting” compared to a debate between Anwar and Najib.
“It’s unfortunate that Najib is refusing to engage in a national debate with Anwar because debates are now done all over the world.
“It is not good for Najib to avoid this. If he’s confident that BN is doing well, he should be willing to debate.”
However, Chandra Muzaffar, the president of International Movement for a Just World, insisted that debates between any individuals were not at all necessary.“I don’t think a debate would generate more light than heat,” said the pro-BN scholar. “I don’t think it would help at all because of the very nature of it.
“A debate is polarised, with two sides saying two totally different things and we end up with two sides scratching at one another. A debate is just the public asserting a position from a certain perspective.”
Instead, he said, the public needed all actors involved to be more ethical in presenting the facts.
“I think the real challenge is to separate facts from fiction, the spinning, the deliberate attempt to distort. I don’t think this is helping the rakyat, this sort of spin and distortion, people making use of the new media.
“We need to bring back ethical standards in public discourse to present what is really happening and look at both sides of the picture.”
No comments:
Post a Comment