I find it rather amusing, if not embarrassing, that two senior politicians are challenging each other to a public debate over their respective achievements as Transport Ministers.
These are not political nobodies but two top leaders of leading Chinese political parties in the country – DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke and MCA president Datuk Wee Ka Siong.
Yet, at times, their behaviour in public leaves much to be desired. This latest challenge for a debate is one such example.
Loke has challenged his predecessor to a debate on their achievements in helming the Transport Ministry, following Wee’s dare to a DAP candidate in the Bandar Hilir state constituency in Melaka to debate her MCA rival.
Loke also accused Wee of bullying the DAP candidate, Leng Chau Yen, who has a speech impediment, by singling her out for a debate.
I am not interested in who started the challenge or who is more deserving of a public debate. What I find rather childish is this tendency among politicians to throw down the gauntlet whenever they disagree with one another.
What exactly would a debate between Loke and Wee achieve? More importantly, what would the people gain from it?
Both have served as Transport Ministers with Loke still heading the ministry today. They were appointed to do a job, and that was their responsibility. They should be judged on their performance, policies, decisions and contributions to the ministry, not on how well they can perform in a public debate.
If Loke believes he has done a better job than Wee, let the record speak for itself. Likewise, Wee should be able to explain and defend his own achievements without having to resort to a public showdown.
There is nothing wrong with political debates per se. They can be useful platforms for politicians to explain their policies, defend their positions and allow the public to assess their capabilities.
But there must be substance, proper preparation and a clear purpose. A debate should not become an exercise in scoring points, trading insults or boosting the egos of those involved.
On and off, we hear politicians from opposing sides challenging one another to public debates. Some of these challenges are made in the heat of political disagreements, while others are clearly intended to attract publicity and media attention.
I doubt whether many Malaysians are genuinely interested in these confrontations.
We have had political debates in the past, but how many of us can remember what they were about, let alone what significant or memorable outcomes they produced?
Of the many debates held over the years, I can recall one involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, the then Information Minister, in 2008. Frankly, I cannot even remember the details of their arguments or what the debate eventually achieved.
That probably says something about the lasting impact of political debates in this country.
Unlike the United States, where televised presidential debates have become an established feature of the electoral process, Malaysia does not have a comparable tradition.
Our political culture has developed differently. Politicians traditionally reach out to voters through election campaigns, ceramah, party conventions, parliamentary proceedings and media interviews. These are the familiar platforms through which political arguments are presented and challenged.
We also have a multiparty political system with different ethnic, religious and regional interests. This makes political communication more complicated. A debate involving two politicians may not necessarily address the wider concerns of the electorate.
Furthermore, we do not have an established tradition of regular, professionally organised televised debates involving the country’s top political leaders. There is no widely accepted format, institutional arrangement or expectation that political leaders must face one another in such debates.
This does not mean Malaysians are incapable of appreciating a good political debate. Rather, there is little evidence that the public has developed a strong appetite for the sort of impromptu political showdowns that politicians occasionally challenge one another to.
I have watched the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debates in 2016 and the Trump-Joe Biden debate in 2024. I can still recall some of their highlights. One can even revisit the Ronald Reagan-Walter Mondale presidential debate of 1984 on YouTube.
These debates were part of an established electoral process, with clearly defined rules, professional moderation and issues of national importance. They gave voters an opportunity to assess the candidates seeking the highest office in the country.
If we are serious about developing a political debate culture in Malaysia, perhaps we should consider something along those lines.
I would be the first to support or even help to organise such an event. Let’s get the leading candidates for the premiership to face one another in a professionally organised, nationally televised debates before a general election. Let them discuss the economy, education, healthcare, corruption, national unity, cost of living and other matters that directly affect the people.
That would be far more meaningful than having two politicians challenge each other to a debate over who performed better in a particular ministry.
And while we are at it, what about some of the more ambitious young politicians? Every now and then, we hear of some naughty boys in Umno Youth challenging their equally ambitious counterparts in DAP or PKR Youth to a public debate, often in a fiery tone over issues that are of little or no relevance to the people.
What is the point of such exercises? Is it to enlighten the public or simply to demonstrate who can shout louder and deliver the more provocative remarks?
By all means, let us debate important national issues and engage in constructive discussions on matters that affect the country and its people. However, politicians should stop resorting to childish, impromptu challenges whenever political disagreements arise. Such theatrics do little to advance meaningful public discourse.
A public debate must have substance, a clear purpose and, above all, deliver value to the people. Without these elements, it becomes little more than a political circus, with participants enjoying the limelight while the public gains very little.
Politicians are elected representatives entrusted with the responsibility of serving the people, not entertaining their own egos or seeking personal publicity. Public discourse should be about ideas, solutions and accountability, not personal showmanship.
I sincerely hope this message is understood.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. He can be reached at sirsiah@gmail.com.
