Beating you down with words, the dangers of debates to elections

JULY 2 — I failed to disguise my chuckle reading about Onn Hafiz’s verdict on public debates. As much as he unequivocally failed to hide his contempt for reason.

The Barisan Nasional Johor chief remains convinced they are unnecessary and counterproductive in an election. More so I suppose if it involved him debating.

A cruel world which asks a state’s chief executive of four years to respond to his opponents in real time on a stage.

Yes, standing up and speaking, who’d think that’s one of the requirements for higher office?

I mean, bowling and Bonsai pruning may be far more necessary to run a state. Square dancing too.

Onn felt dignified discourses should be the sole preserve of the state assembly, not in markets or on TV.

His reply was to an unwelcome invite from former education minister and PKR-Pakatan candidate for Wangsa Puteri Maszlee Malik. To the unacquainted, Malay-Chinese Maszlee rates himself as a speaker. He also rates swimming classes for students.

Onn feels debates are confrontational, when outside the assembly. He really should not be in politics if he’s convinced confrontation is unhealthy. Central to politics is the confrontation of ideas, values, ideology and beliefs. In the pursuit of power.

Elections peak these confrontations.

Except one bit, elections and their debates are civil activities, they eschew violence.

Perhaps he imagines participants clubbing each other with verbs, nouns and adjectives. Metaphors are nuclear escalations. And gesticulations, taunts.

The august chamber vs plain voters

In Onn’s universe, the state assembly is the perfect and only forum. They are rich with decorum, restraint and orderliness. 

I could not help thinking that perhaps the menteri besar spent the majority of his four years in power, being abducted by aliens. Mind probes, they can do a real job on you!

Because our legislative gatherings are usually farces.

They are dominated by serial screamers whose key achievements are to prevent others with the capacity to form sentences and articulate them to complete their utterances. 

They find it an affront that people can formulate thoughts through speech rather than rage. Since they find it impossible to do it themselves.

But more pertinent, if I am to be permitted, lawmakers in theory rationalise to their equals in the chamber to clarify, elevate or decry resolutions, and in better days shape or amend legislations. Through the interactions of lawmakers, in Johor’s case the 56 elected assemblymen.

An election debate, on the other hand, is to assist the voters to decide if those vying are worthy to be elected.

It’s the step before.

Johor’s 2.7 million voters are better off to see the competitors face off. Which assists them to decide who governs the state.

A debate positions those in contention to speak up but even more to speak about their ideas in the presence of their opponents, and to reply to the queries from their opponents.

Since only one of them wins, and all of them want the support from the rakyat, it is quite extraordinarily simple to assume having them have that argument in the presence of said voters is in the interest of all.

Exactly why politicians like Onn, and his coalition avoid intellectual altercations.

They hate to look silly — my six-year-old niece forbids me from using the other word.

So, they obfuscate the matter and suggest an incomprehensible excuse that Onn is being the good guy by being afraid to be embarrassed. Such sacrifice.

I believe that the Royal Military College which processed Onn in the Nineties, administered education and managed activities conducive to the challenge of replying after listening. 

Also, his exceptional opportunity to be raised in a celebrated political family must have added to his armour. Not the least the mentoring by his uncle, Hishammuddin Hussein.

This before adding the amazing political education received in Umno which holds up more than anything, intelligence. Also, nepo-babies, but that is for a different segment. Fellow nepo, pardon party member, Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar led him in Umno Youth before.

Speak like you never have

I have good news for Onn despite his dislike for disorderly arguments from beyond the state assembly, Maszlee is not a monster speaker. In fact, the field from Pakatan to Perikatan Nasional is inundated with the ordinary.

The thing is this. It is not about debating.

This is not a throwback to the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates for the Illinois senatorial race which is the modern political debate benchmark.

It is not about format, structure, platform or microphone quality. It is the spectre of facing each other.

Umno likes to win without being exposed or examined.

Without being questioned.

Of course, Onn will struggle to reply to anything related to incessant floods in the state to the economic model as a Singapore satellite. 

Umno leaders are not wired to reply, they are wired to declare. Opinions, decisions, deliberations or discord. Their way is that they speak, and we for our own good find a way to agree.

Umno leaders do not like surprises. They want results confirmed upfront which is why they have a distaste for elections. Too much power in the hands of the peasants, sorry, voters.

The biggest reasons I cheer them on, despite almost guaranteed to have a snooze-fest, is that public election debates humanise all of the participants and increase the powers of the people. That we all get to openly judge them.

There are hardly any outright winners in these debates. They have their base to back them regardless.

Onn, if he entered the arena would receive waves of adulation and support. Social media rife with his pictures and ideas, for there are armies of Umno supporters from Muar to Pengerang. Not to mention paid cybertroopers.

The real benefit about a debate is that the people get to hold their own mini-debates after the debate. That’s the real boon from the exercise, the rest talking to each other about what they think about the proponents.

The ideas collide in the debate even if farcical.

Debates are indeed confrontational. They are also our triumphs. They exhibit our ability to contest our thoughts and philosophies verbally rather than with actual clubs. 

They add to democracy, not detract from it. Those saying otherwise are unfit to lead.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.