DISAPPOINTING as a Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek-Lim Guan Eng televised discuss was, what's transparent is this: Malaysia could do with some-more open debates in in in in between a politicians who covet our votes as good as a power of open office.
Since a 18 Feb 2012 discuss in in in in between a MCA president as good as a DAP secretary-general, calls have been done for some-more debates in in in in between political opponents from a Barisan Nasional (BN) as good as Pakatan Rakyat. Among a strongest calls have been for a discuss in in in in between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as good as Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Yet, while other BN component parties have declared as good as even shown eagerness to public debates, there seems to be great hostility from inside of Umno for Najib to take upon Anwar.
Why is Najib not enchanting in a open discuss with Anwar?
The subject is, why? Since it is generally supposed which open debates in in in in between politicians is a single reflection of a seasoned democracy as good as mature politicians, what could be a probable reasons for Najib not wanting to discuss Anwar publicly?
"No need to debate"
So far, a reasons which have been proffered by dual former budding ministers against land such a discuss have come opposite as being without protection excuses.
Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has pronounced debates "don't confirm a election"! as good as do not "solve problems". "What is some-more critical is which a government is means to contribute to a people by implementation of programmes," he told reporters.
Rick Perry ( Gage Skidmore | Wiki Commons)
It's loyal which open debates are not expected to compromise a nation's issues. But is which a role of a open debate? you disbelief which anyone wanting to watch a open discuss in in in in between politicians design it to be anything except a single approach to assess a candidate as good as be convinced of his or her ability to lead.
And actually, open debates can confirm an election. Just look at, for example, a presidential candidate debates inside of a Republican as good as Democratic parties in a US. In a Republican presidential debate, once-popular Rick Perry blew his possibility during being a party's presidential candidate when he struggled to recollect a third government agency he would get rid of should he come in to office. The three-time Texas governor saw his poll total tumble from as tall as 38% to single number lows after he "stumbled as good as bumbled" by a fibre of Republican debates during a end of final year.
Is which what Najib's bureau is fearful of? That Najib won't fare good against Anwar, a skilled orator? Or which Najib would see his recognition ratings tumble should he not be as scintillating as Anwar during a open debate?
Mahathir
In a way, former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad speaks candidly when he objected to a Najib-Anwar discuss as good as pronounced which such debates, even in a US, infrequently showed "how stupid" leaders were. That is true. And my subject is, isn't it utilita! rian as good as fitting for a rakyat to know "how stupid" a leader is before you confirm to support him or her? Isn't it in a US citizens' interest, for example, which they right away know which Perry would not essentially have an means president despite a actuality which he was a very renouned Texas governor as good as handsome to boot?
Is Najib fearful he will look stupid? Is which what Dr Mahathir is observant about a description of a current Umno leadership? If Najib isn't fearful of looking stupid, afterwards what's interlude him from debating Anwar publicly?
Dr Mahathir also pronounced it was pointless to discuss Anwar because his former emissary budding minister was a "chameleon" who spoke a opposite message to opposite audiences. Notwithstanding a accuracy of which generalisation, a same observation could be done of Najib. At a Vatican final year, where he met a Pope to concrete diplomatic relations, Najib was for sure not issuing conditions for respecting Christians in a same approach which he did upon his lapse to Malaysia.
Then there was a forgive from Cheras Umno multiplication chief Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee who pronounced Najib should not discuss Anwar upon national mercantile issues because a Opposition Leader was not an mercantile expert. If you recollect correctly, it was Umno which appointed Anwar as finance minister until he was sacked upon corruption as good as sodomy charges. So if Anwar is not an mercantile expert, doesn't which meant which Umno cannot be devoted to appoint a right! person to a cupboard portfolio? What, then, is Umno's criteria in making cupboard appointments?
Ibrahim Ali
Not to be outdone, Perkasa chief, Datuk Ibrahim Ali, has pronounced Anwar does not have "the moral standing" to discuss a budding minister. One wonders, just how tall is Najib's moral station when a attempted murder of a Mongolian translator, whose name contingency not be mentioned, continues to shade a premier.
Missing a point
Then there's a idea from Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor which Najib has "more critical matters" to attend to than discuss with Anwar. Imagine President Barack Obama observant he had "more critical matters" to attend to than rivet in a open discuss with his political opponent. Clearly, a Malaysian premier is just busier than a US president.
Tengku Adnan combined which if Anwar were meddlesome in debating, he would gladly organize for a Opposition Leader to discuss with his former aide as good as accuser in his sodomy II trial, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan. Surely, an Umno maestro should know better than to be facetious. Or could it be which a Umno maestro is just completely missing a point?
Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (source: parlimen.gov.my)
Saiful Bukhari, distinct Najib, is not an elected representative. He is not vying for open office. And he is not, to a public's knowledge, contesting to turn budding minister. Najib wants to sojourn premier as good as Anwar wants to turn Malaysia's num! ero uno< /em>, as good as as Opposition Leader contingency be deliberate a potential prime-minister-in-waiting in a democracy. you think Tengku Adnan was attempting to insult Anwar. And a law is he instead ended up insulting a budding minister's bureau by making Saiful allied to Najib.
Protecting Najib
What do these excuses tell us? Apart from a actuality which they're illogical, it would appear which Umno is receiving great pains to protect Najib from a discuss with Anwar. And which could be for a number of reasons.
One, which Umno has bad understanding as good as apply oneself for a bureau of a Opposition Leader in a parliamentary democracy. Two, which Umno believes Najib does not need to be even some-more under obligation to open queries by a open debate. Three, which Umno knows which it does not need any additional open platform given a BN already controls most of a media. Or four, which Najib is essentially just scared. Scared of losing popularity, frightened of being held accountable, frightened of debating with his opponent. Or may be he's just solid frightened of Anwar.
Which would be a shame given Anwar is no knight in resplendent armour himself. And you could all do with a rousing discuss to provide a better clarity of which of a two, if during all, deserves to lead this country. 
Jacqueline Ann Surin believes which if broadcast open debates were a norm, Umno supporters would feel less threatened as good as disposed to thuggery when a Opposition Leader holds open ceramah in Umno-controlled constituencies. She undoubtedly benefitted from being a school as good as university debater.
BANTUAN KHAS KERAJAAN BARISAN NASIONAL
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
No comments:
Post a Comment