DSAI-SHABERY DEBATE: NOT THE MALAYSIAN STYLE

My Take

1. Nothing significant in the outcome of the Debate that would contribute to help decision makers consider reducing high price of fuel. All the facts and history deliberated is common knowledge.

2. All the two Debaters did was just to trade political blows at each other. Who won? Depends on the perspectives one takes, some would say DSAI while others Shabery. Some would even say democracy was the winner.

3. As amongst the majority of consumers affected by the one massive fuel price hike and its overall consequential inflationary effects on the economy, I would stand with anyone who would disagree against the Government’s action irrespective of whatever the Government may put forward in its arguments. This is the expected psychological behaviour of the general public, thus DSAI had that special advantage in the Debate. His argument for a staggered price increase definitely made sense.

4. Two key points which DSAI brought out during the Debate worth mentioning are
· Due to the Government’s action, the country’s traditional competitiveness has been greatly eroded, the people is just beginning to feel the effects with less purchasing power as the economy increases its pace towards stagflation.
· DSAI’s last comment which many listeners did not pay heed: the country is expected to face a financial tsunami of magnanimous proportions in the next 2-3 months and DSAI is of the view that the present administration will not be able to handle it.

As someone who views the current administration as weak and indecisive as well as incompetent, I share the view or rather advocate that PM should go off immediately to be replaced by a new strong team with greater honesty, integrity and commitment to the Nation.

5. With the present political, social and economic scenarios fill with uncertainty and instability, I wondered why the Government agreed to proceed with the Debate – is it to show that the Government practices democracy or that democracy is well and alive in Malaysia?

I am happy with type of democracy prevailing in our beloved country all these years which had into consideration our rule of law that had its origins from the Social Contract. Our country is unique, structurally different from the US, Britain or elsewhere and so there’s little need to follow the US style of Debate.

The Debate thus served little purpose except to further contribute to the restlessness and rumblings on the ground when the focus should be on enhancing our economic performance in preparation of any eventuality of another economic crisis which could be worse than the 1997 Asian Financial Crises. All the pointers are there.

6. From another political perspective, the Debate provided DSAI the opportunity to enhance his image in the media. This guy is presently being accused for the second time of sodomy and the police investigation into such evil act is only just beginning. This guy’s modus operandi is well known; he will make use of whatever means including the use of demonstrations and foreign interference to cause havoc to achieve his means.

The recent police road blocks undertaken by the Government, rightly or wrongly, are associated with this one “godly” guy called DSAI, the defacto leader of the Opposition. To the Opposition, this guy can do no wrong and any action taken against him is a conspiracy; they look at all angles under the law for technicalities to ensure that this guy cannot be “touched”.

Thus the Debate only demonstrates the inconsistencies of the Government’s stand on this one guy. But this is expected from the character of the flip flop PM who is incompetent and consistently advised by a bunch of nincompoops.