There may be something in the air in these hot, hazy days as people are getting friskier and challenging one another to debates.
The numerous calls for debates, my unsubstantiated thesis suggests, have more to do with testosterone — it is largely a male phenomenon here — than to seek the truth or solutions. In essence, it is a dare with a much bigger implication — whether those challenged have the cajones, or balls, in not-so-polite company, for potentially a public display of humiliation.
It is something like schoolyard tiffs, where someone would ask another to meet, say, behind the school hall, to “settle” things with some fisticuffs action. Like the challenges for the debates, even a schoolboy knows he can’t really back down.
Debating is the adult version of a playground fight, which is not really fighting but with some punches thrown, mostly missing targets, and a lot of grappling and rolling around.
At the end of the day, one gets minor bruises or cuts. While nothing is likely to be resolved, one can leave knowing that he did not back down and no one can whisper behind his back that he chickened out.
Anyway, if anyone is taking note of the debates’ cards, we have in the red corner Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng versus Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan in the blue corner over real estate matters in Penang; Petaling Jaya Utara member of parliament Tony Pua to face 1MDB chief Arul Kanda Kandasamy on, well, 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) issues; Guan Eng’s deputy, Professor P. Ramasamy versus Indian preacher Dr Zakir Naik over his inclination in his talks to compare other religions with Islam; and, TMJ versus KJ on the state of Malaysian football.
The debates will not be along the lines of a school debate, with topics like “This house believes that capital punishment should be abolished”, with one side the proposer and the other, the opposer, to the motion.
Instead, there will be a lot of political grandstanding. Participants would be a-playing for the gallery.
I am not sure how many minds would be won over by two guys talking to and interrupting each other for an hour or so. But, debates could be a worthy way to while away your time. They could even entertain.
Even before their debate could be considered, Dr Zakir did a classic put-down of Ramasamy by suggesting that the latter was not worthy of his attention. He said if Ramasamy could not gather a sizeable crowd in his talks, he then should only debate with his proteges instead.
Apart from delivering their points, debaters relish making their opponents seethe and squirm with witty and smart put-downs.
However, that is not something Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin (KJ) can do if the debate with Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim (TMJ) were to go on.
Essentially, KJ would be doing so with one hand figuratively tied behind his back as TMJ is the heir to the Johor throne, and he obviously cannot use Dr Zakir-like methods to put down a future sultan.
Even if His Highness were to eschew his royal privileges for the debate, it is unlikely that KJ, a Malay and a cabinet minister, will abandon protocol and formalities to ignore decorum and tradition when engaging a royal.
Anyway, the debate is a non-starter not only for the reasons above, but for the fact that Malaysian football is too chronic a case and it needs more than just two VIPs talking for a solution to be in sight.
Also, apparently, both TMJ and KJ met recently; they shook hands after their meeting and presumably, the need for a debate is no longer there.
Pua, on the other hand, seemed to have found a cause celebre in 1MDB. He has been as relentless as a bulldog with a bone.
Across the ring is Arul, who is not a shrinking violet either. Despite hours of grilling Arul behind closed doors in Parliament, Pua is not satisfied.
I sense he wants to do so in public to score political points and get exposure. Pua may also be rather peeved that his signature is in the Public Accounts Committee report, which many from his side of the political divide are not happy with.
Thus, he challenged Arul to another debate after the first was called off by his party officials. Arul, on his part, seems to relish the idea of locking horns with Pua.
I am not sure how the debate will be formatted though. Pua would be asking questions and Arul would reply. Can Arul ask Pua anything, and what is there for him to ask? The MP’s performance for PJ Utara folk? Pua’s past business experience? How many potholes in his area?
Nevertheless, of all the debates, this is the most likely to happen, I think. Pua needs to establish himself as a national leader, to take on issues and be out of Guan Eng’s shadow.
The other much-awaited debate that will not materialise is Guan Eng versus Rahman.
It started with allegations of shady real estate deals involving Guan Eng’s purchase of a bungalow at a fire-sale price; then to allegations of cronyism by the chief minister, then to him not delivering on his promises on public housing, as well as parties allegedly making big money from the sale and reselling of state land.
Guan Eng’s reputation has suffered much following the disclosure of his bungalow purchase — notice not many of his party members spoke in his defence on the real estate deal — but he sees this debate as an opportunity to turn the tables on his accusers, namely the Federal Government’s effort in providing affordable housing in Penang.
He knows very well that Rahman cannot go on and on about the bungalow without the pool, and he must move on to another agenda. Guan Eng will then have a national audience, it was to be televised and streamed, to pursue his party’s agenda.
No one in their right mind would say no to any debate challenge, especially if they were politicians who make a meal out of public speaking.
The ability to perform, to be glib and resourceful, will be beneficial. A debater must be quick on his feet, have a strong understanding of subjects, but also well versed in the art of replying.
In actual fact, there is no need for anyone to debate anyone. An hour or so on a common, but contentious, stage would not be any closer to resolving issues than a sit-down between parties would. But, talking is not sexy, a debate is.
Zainul Arifin, an award winning columnist, is currently a strategic communications practitioner