First debate in MALAYSIA!
It is really nice to learn that the government had taken a baby step forward by allowing the opposition leader to debate openly with the information minister, it is informative and exciting! Best of all, it is aired to all, I do hope we continue to see more debates like this in future, it will enable us to have a better look at our leaders.
Anyway, regarding the debate, too bad it doesnt really look like a debate, it seems the information minister is present to reveal Anwar’s bad intention and keep on pressing on personal issues and personal attack. Before saying who presented a more solid facts, I think the Information Minister is perceived as emotional and not professional as a debat participant.
Overall I think Anwar presented a much clearer vision and goal, his goal is to help the people in general, by finding ways to reduce gasoline in gradual manner price either through renegotiating IPP contract, governemnt expenditure saving, curb corruption, then take some % of special dividend given by Petronas to subsidise the gasoline. His agenda is on "People". But he didnt answer the question of how to stop the subsidies from benefitting other oil refineries companies like Shell, Exxon Mobil. He also mentioned about a "listening government" and the impact of "sudden price increase" will cause adverse economic impact. How sudden price increase will cause adverse economic impact, and how gradual price increase will not cause adverse economic impact, that wasnt clearly explained. He put less focus on "long term economic viable solutions" but focuses more on immediate bread and butter issues faced by the public. This is indeed a populist move, and will therefore easily attract support from public.
As for Shabery Cheek, he is more emotional, his mind is more clouded as he seems like very interested in stepping on Anwar’s tail and revealed his old secrets versus debating on why the government raise gasoline + diesel price. He also didnt answer the panelist question about how the government used the savings from subsidy to lay out public transport infrastructure. He made the standard comparison again with Norway and Finland unsubsidised gasoline price which we already know have complete, free public transport system while her people have higher per capita income. While I could catch his idea of subsidies are not good for country development in the long run, but he doesnt explain how the government come to the conclusion a sudden hike is the right thing to do when majority of the public is not ready, and we have poor public transport, low per capita income. The government focus is more on "long term sustainable solution" and "economic value", but it stopped short of attending to the "people needs". He also said he "believes" the people will find ways to survive and get over the price hike. It just presented the standard government very self-centered approach, and the strong message to all of, "dont ask so much, summary what I do is good for you!". It is like an order and definitely it will not go down well with the public, it will be perceived as "arrogant", "stubborn" and "not listening".
Anwar fights for "people needs", he believes we have the means to do so through savings and proper utilization of the country wealth especially from Petronas. He also stressed the government needs to "listen" to the people, after all bread and butter issues are what normal citizen cares not long term economic viable solutions. But Anwar’s incomplete plan of how he can revive the country’s economy in the long run with continuous subsidies leave many wonder about his intention. His opening speech of reducing gasoline price by 50 cents to RM2.20 also surprised many as his promise was to reduce price of RM1.92 to lower price before election, this maybe perceived as a flip-flop policy and only attracts attack from Shabery.
Shabery Cheek wants to educate public "economic value" and "long term sustainable solution", gov. wants us to be independent and no longer depend on subsidies. But the Government didnt have a good plan to attend to "people needs". Shabery Cheek also wants to "warn" the public Anwar is a person whose intention who need to be wary of. As usual, majority of people only worry about how they can survive today and tomorrow, the idea of long term economic viable solutions will not help many to understand how it will benefit them in the end. It is a valid argument, but a losing argument when comes to garner public support. "Warning", "threatening", "intimidating" tactics from government will not work anymore with the maturing public as it will be seen as challenging them, so the government needs to be able to show their "caring" side rather than their "dictatorship" more often.
From debating stand point, I will give Anwar 4/5 for being professional, his good command of language, able to send his message clearly across the board.I will give Shabery Cheek 3/5 for having the gut to come out and debate in public, but he needs to control his emotion better and be more professional when debating.
Regarding the facts presented I will give Anwar 2.5/5 and Shabery Cheek 2.5/5. Because if both ideas are combined, it will be 5/5.
Overall I think what the government did is right economically, but its implementation is messy thus creating public disgruntled. A government should place people needs, especially the poor at the first place before implementing such an unpopular, sudden and drastic action. This hastily implemented price hike and intransparent in fund allocation/spending for public transport improvement only attracts criticism. Together with the flip-flop statement, therefore this is an inconvenience the government needs to bear with no matter how right their action is.
It is such an ironic when Petronas is announcing its financial result today, earning net profit 61 billions, after giving to government 67 billions in royalties, taxes etc. and another special dividend of 6 billions. So now with less burden on gasoline and diesel subsidies, I will be interested to see how the government intend to spend this extra money. Are they going to improve the public transport system or they will use the public fund to run mega projects that are expensive and useless. Only time will tell….
