DESPITE the results of the 8 March 2008 general election, the mainstream Malaysian media still generally loathes crediting non-Barisan Nasional (BN) politicians, i.e. those from the Pakatan Rakyat.
Hence the inaugural televised live debate on 15 July 2008 between opposition icon Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Information Minister Datuk Shabery Cheek, which was won by Anwar and conveniently dubbed by the mainstream media as a “victory for the rakyat”.
The consensus was that more televised debates of this nature would be good for democracy. The standard official line is that such debates allow the rakyat to let off steam without resorting to street protests. I’m sure some marketing executive also felt they would be good for television ratings.
So, another debate was hastily organised by news portal Agendadaily.com, and televised live on ntv7 and TV9 on the night of 20 Aug 2008.
Land scams
This time, the topic centred on the numerous land scams in Penang unearthed by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s new Pakatan Rakyat state government.
It was a face-off between Lim and his predecessor, Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, and the build-up in the mainstream media promised that it would be a lively “battle”, perhaps as heated as the Anwar-Shabery exchange.
Loosely modelled after the US presidential debate system, it lasted one hour (mandatory commercial breaks notwithstanding) and was moderated by newspaper columnist and former editor Johan Jaafar.
Both Lim and Koh were dressed casually — jackets draped over open-neck shirts — and wore smiles that toothpaste manufacturers would have killed for.
Lim began with three simple questions for Koh. First, how many such shady land deals were there and how much were they? Second, who were the culprits and what action was taken against them? Third, what were the weaknesses that led to these deals?
And Lim mentioned five cases, the most controversial and expensive for Penangites being the Penang Global City Centre (PGCC)/Batu Kawan land deals.
Koh’s opening retort was rather cheap, albeit predictable, chastising Lim for acting like an opposition leader instead of the head of government.
This tired line has been used so many times since 8 March, though frankly, it still doesn’t make sense to me. Does it mean that former opposition politicians who now head state governments are supposed to move on, turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of their predecessors, and not attempt to correct wrongs and reclaim funds meant for the rakyat?
If so, where does the lofty Islam Hadhari, conceptualised and promoted by the Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi administration, and the calls for a “first-world mentality”, come into all this?
Following this, Koh went into a spiel about the BN being conscious about integrity and constantly modernising land management. And, really, not addressing Lim’s three opening questions.
No, to be fair, Koh did address one case, a RM40 million deal that’s currently with the courts. And this case was virtually the only case that the duo duelled over throughout the debate — without anything really satisfactory coming out of the exchanges.
Bersih, Cekap, Amanah
I’ve been told often enough that Johan is a pretty good and balanced moderator. But the one question that he asked — “Isn’t this a witch hunt, and shouldn’t Lim’s government concentrate on bringing Penang forward?” — sounded painfully inadequate given the overall scheme of things.
Anybody who has not been living on Mars since 8 March and who has been following the Malaysian media would know that the Penang government is strapped for cash. Federal allocations for development, quite predictably, have been drastically reduced. And, apart from ideas, “moving forward” requires money.
When so much of that money (taxpayers’ money, mind you) has somehow disappeared, I would think it’s the responsibility — nay, obligation — of any responsible government to investigate where it’s gone to and whether it can be recovered.
In any case, in response to Johan, Koh continued to waffle and repeat his favourite RM40 million case, and how it was being fought in court. Lim rightly retorted that it was fine to try to recover the losses in court, but there is still a need to know how it came about, and who was responsible, in order to prevent it from happening again.
There were two other portions of the live debate that bear mentioning. The first was when panelist Aziz Deraman asked Koh if he’d given the land files to Lim.
Koh (right) accused Lim of “tembak sebelum semak” (shooting before looking) in response to Lim’s questioning on land scams in PenangKoh’s response was that there was no need for him to do so as the files were available in the state government’s file room, together with other files. This brought back memories of a scene in the 1998 movie A Civil Action, where such files were buried under an avalanche of other files and needed ages to locate.
The second portion was Lim using slogans such as Bersih, Cekap dan Amanah (Clean, Efficient and Trustworthy) and Kepimpinan Melalui Tauladan (Leadership by Example) — slogans that were “invented” by the Dr Mahathir Mohamad regime.
I suspect that Lim was being naughty and baiting Koh. And Koh swallowed the bait, indignantly exclaiming that these slogans were the BN’s. Lim’s retort was that under the BN they were just that: slogans. His task now was to put them to practice.
What was worrying in the end was Koh’s assertion that the land scam cases were few and far between, with, according to him, another 99%-plus success stories. Lim rightly responded that when these “minority” cases involve millions of ringgit, they do really matter and bear investigation. More than that, surely it’s a matter of principle and ethics as well.
Truly disappointing
In the end, the live telecast turned out to be a tame affair, hardly a debate. There was too much repetition of the RM40 million scam without much being revealed. Everyone, from the moderator to the debaters, was just interested in putting in their five sen worth, without the whys and wherefores of the shady land deals being elaborated upon.
Indeed, it was truly disappointing that what has been termed in the blogosphere as the “mother and father of all questionable land deals”, the PGCC/Batu Kawan deal involving the Penang Turf Club, Batu Kawan and Abad Naluri Sdn Bhd, was not even discussed.
If the Anwar-Shabery debate was a “victory for the rakyat”, the pathetic Lim-Koh exchange was essentially a victory for waffling, sidestepping and sloganeering. 
Rom Nain yearns for a quiet life. But once in a while, his better half convinces him that he needs to do more than just teach the nation’s youth to be politically, socially and culturally incorrect and actually get down and dirty.
Justin Then says
Nice piece, Rom. Thanks. I personally didn’t expect anything to come out of the debate, so I’m not disappointed 🙂
adeline chong says
I think a programme format like DEBAT is refreshing. Although the recent debate was more defensive than solution-based, it’s a starting point whereby social issues are discussed by politicians like decent human beings.
Sharaad Kuttan says
We should not mistake perfection for progress. Perhaps, the slow and incremental pace of democratisation needs these very flawed steps. Years of authoritarian culture has stunted us in many ways. It’s unlikely to be put right overnight. In time, and crucially, with the hard hitting critiques such as Zaharom provides, the sorely underdeveloped capacity for quality debate might be strenghtened. A critical faculty in reading these public spectacles, rather than cynicism, ought to be promoted.
Ahmad Hafidz Baharom says
To put an analogy to the entire debate….
Too much dirty laundry being put through too much of a spin cycle, and all you realise in the end is that you’re still missing a single sock.
Lee says
If I were you Rom Nain, I would not associate my good name with such a disreputable publication as this.
rom nain says
Lee, I’m a bit puzzled by your comment. This ‘publication’ is hardly a week old and you accuse it of being ‘disreputable’? Why? It’d be good if you could elaborate since you evidently know something that I don’t.
Sharaad Kuttan says
Lee typifies the Malaysian who prefers to insinuate rather than have a reasoned dialogue. The long term effects of authoritarianism show in ourselves as much as our politicians.
Lee says
(Editor’s note: This comment has been edited as per our Columns and Comments Policy)
As for Rom Nain whose writing I’ve come across in other fora, the disreputable tradition of this young publication is — my projection, if you will — of course an expected natural outgrowth given that Nut Graph is an avatar of the disreputable Malaysia Votes.
KW Mak says
Lee,
We already have the mainstream media broadcasting the aspersions of our politicians with nary a shred of proof to back up their words.
May I suggest that, for fair comment, you write a commentary piece yourself about The Nut Graph with facts and figures that led you to such an analysis?
Malaysia Votes is still up and running. Jacqueline Ann Surin’s works are public. Cite which of those works led you to your conclusion. I’m interested to know.