In The Ring > Now, what do you have to say?

I REMEMBER watching the coverage of the Bush vs Kerry presidential election in 2004. The close race was eventually decided by voters in the State of Ohio.

That very same year saw the Barisan Nasional swept to its largest ever victory in the country’s elections history.

Watching the US presidential coverage, analyses of the election campaigns and polls included extrapolating demographic patterns and voting trends, deployment of cutting edge interactive technology, and the all-important element of debate.

From the US presidential race, even this coming one between Barrack Obama and John McCain, it is apparent that political debate provides key and first-hand information that the electorate uses to weigh its choice.

Malaysian voters, on the other hand, rely mostly on the mainstream media, the morsels over the Internet and on the ground campaign speeches to fathom and form views on various issues.

The March 8 election results provided a strong and fluid platform for political discourse. Soon after that came the restructuring of subsidies.

This restructuring has been highly significant because it affected Malaysia as a whole. It impacted all walks of life, just as in other countries similarly facing the effects of the global food and fuel shortage. In countries elsewhere, there were riots, collapse of political parties and even toppling of governments.

Our country’s subsidy restructuring, however, provided a new form of political dimension that could very well turn out to be a permanent fixture in Malaysian politics – that of political debate.

First, setting the mood for open discourse was the RTM-televised ‘debat khas’ in early June, featuring the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shahrir Samad and Pas Youth head Salahuddin Ayub. Although more a moderated panel-like discussion, it stirred some excitement and was talked about for weeks.

More recently, online news website Agenda Daily organised the ‘American’ style debate (podium and all) on the fuel price hike between Minister of Information Shaberry Cheek and opposition coalition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

An estimated 4.4 million viewers watched the debate which was telecast live. It was also covered real time by some blogs and extensively reported in political news websites within hours. The outcome of the debate was, in turn, debated in most kedai kopi. Malaysians from both sides of the divide opined that democracy was the real winner.

Last Sunday, I was lucky to get a seat at the over subscribed Malaysian Students Leaders Summit (MSLS) 2008, an event organised by the United Kingdom and Eire Council (UKEC) for Malaysian Students. I witnessed the forum (debate, really) between young MPs comprising Khairy Jamaluddin, Tony Pua and Nik Nazmi. It was an amazing experience, listening to young political leaders articulating their thoughts and debating the opinions put forth in front of students.

I was pleasantly surprised by the good natured and highly informative session. The students narrowed in on the substantive at element of the debate. Not only was this reflected in the quality of the questions from the floor, but personal attacks were met by loud jeers as were any attempts at diverting the direction of the discussion.

With expectation in place, what followed was a clear elaboration of each party’s stand in the subsidy restructuring issue. Although all speakers agreed that the subsidy should be reduced, they had differing opinions on how and what to implement. I dare say everyone left the room enlightened.

If expectations continue to be this stringent, parties from both sides of the divide must be prepared to choose leaders who understand the issues, possess the ability to effectively communicate their points and to competently answer any ‘difficult’ questions the public might have. Leaders without these abilities could bring dire consequences in the next elections.

The European Court of Human Rights noted in 1978 that “freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society”. The reality is that Malaysians expect quality debates, in depth analyses and interactive communication technology as part and parcel of the political scenario. It’s always better late than never.