Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Biased Malaysians

Hantu Laut

Many Malaysians were under the impression that it was wrong to take potshots during a debate.What Shabery Cheek did was not personal attack on Anwar's character, it was on past policies and practices when Anwar was one of the policymakers in government.Not exactly a wrong thing to do in a debate.

Watch the next American Presidental Debate and see whether you can pick out how many potshots the candidates throw at each other.

A full transcript of the third and final debate of US Presidential Election 2004 between George Bush(R) and John Kerry(D): is here.

It is not my job to defend Shabery Cheek but I do hope fellow bloggers in particular and Malaysians in general show some impartiality when making judgement and give credit where credit is due.

Anwar is a seasoned orator and should, undoubtedly, shines brighter than newcomer Shabery. Even with less experience and exposure I would say he has done pretty well.

Let us be honest how many politicians in this country would dare to participate in a debate on live TV. Many of them can't even read properly from a prepared text let alone go on live TV scriptless.Give him a few more years I am sure he would be just as good if not better than Anwar.

Such debate would be unthinkable under previous administration.

3 comments:

Pok Kam said...

Dear HL,

You asked "How many politicians in this country would dare to participate in a debate on live TV?"

My answer "Not many. Worst still for our own politicians from Sabah. Bung? I'll wave my white flag. Shabery is one of the few who dare and over time he'll get better."

You have made a fair and impartial comment. Why is that doesn't go down well to some people is their problem. ;)

Anonymous said...

hantu,

there you go again !?
the same rhetorics the same biasness.

you may claim your impartiality, but can you dare face the truth ?

It is an open dabate with a topic with limited time, but instead our information minister used up all his time making personal attacks veered from the original topic, produce no hard facts for the audiences, dragging history of no relevancies into the picture to run down the fellow debator, and you call this fair and impartial comment ?

He sounds more like an old macik picking a fight with the fish seller in the market.

Whereas for the point on the lack of oratory talent among the ruling politicians; where do you really honestly think have gone wrong for the total lack of talent in this 26 millions nation !?....may be you already have the answer, but again, dare you face up to the truth ?

by the way 96% of voters polled in malaysiakini says the information minister lost...by many miles.


winterwolf

kadayanjournal said...

Let me just make snap shot remarks: Johan Jaafar did all right as the Chairman. But the audience was filled by UMNO members. Notice the clapping of hands.The one Professor posing questions to both participants was behaving like a politician himself. Mind all it was Ahmad Shabry who offered to challenge on this defined subject, anywhere, anytime, he called it. I would therefore assumed he must be well prepared. On question of whether one is seasoned or not doesn't arise-even if one is just a primary six-look at tat Professor couldn't even put statistic right-There is an element of rule of advocacy in a debate of this kind-you lose point because you did not prepare, because you're expecting audience to support you-attacking your opponent like what Shabry did in order to hear more clapping won't work. It lacks of intellectual