How the Tony Pua-Arul Kanda debate is going to help Malaysia

By MT Webmaster Last updated Nov 9, 2015

Do you remember the debate between Anwar Ibrahim and Ahmad Shabery Cheek? Do you remember the debate between the Umno Youth movement and the PKR Youth movement? What did they debate and who won those debates? I bet you cannot even remember and you will also not remember the Tony Pua-Arul Kanda debate ten or twenty years from now.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Salleh Said Keruak, the Communications and Multimedia Minister, has scheduled the live telecast of the much awaited debate between DAP’s Tony Pua and the 1MDB President, Arul Kanda Kandasamy, for this Friday at 9.00pm. Meanwhile, Tony Pua has posted the ten questions that he is going to ask on his Blog so that Arul Kanda can prepare the answers beforehand.

In an unexpected and interesting turn of events, the Parliament Speaker, Pandikar Amin Mulia, has stepped in to lay down the terms of the debate. First, Tony Pua must resign from the PAC if he wants to debate Arul Kanda. Second, Arul Kanda can no longer testify at the PAC hearing if he debates Tony Pua. And if these terms are not followed then the Speaker is going to resign from his post.

Tony Pua had earlier said he would never resign from the PAC because if he were no longer in the Commission then the remaining members of that Commission would be easily duped. Only he is clever enough to not get duped so it is crucial that he stays in the PAC. If not then the PAC might as well be disbanded.

So DAP has proposed that someone else replace Tony Pua in the debate instead so that the debate can still go on without the need for Tony Pua to resign from the PAC.

Maybe DAP can send Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, their candidate as the next Selangor Menteri Besar who is also a constitutional law expert, to debate Arul Kanda considering he has the right credentials. He can then use this debate to prove he is worthy of becoming Selangor’s Menteri Besar and far better than PKR’s Azmin Ali.

Tony Pua is also of the opinion that it would be unacceptable for Arul Kanda to be disqualified from testifying at PAC’s inquiry. Without Arul Kanda’s testimony the PAC inquiry would be meaningless as nothing is going to come out of it. Hence Arul Kanda, too, may need to be replaced with someone else so that Tony Pua’s replacement can debate Arul Kanda’s replacement.

Alternatively, Tony Pua and Arul Kanda can ignore the Parliament Speaker and go ahead with the scheduled debate this Friday and in not so many words tell the Speaker to take a hike and resign if he so wishes. Then instead of replacing Tony Pua and Arul Kanda they can replace the Speaker once he resigns.

As many have pointed out, a debate is not about searching for the truth, as Tony Pua claims, because in a debate you take a position and you argue your case to support that position. Hence the excuse that the debate will help reveal the truth is not valid.

For example, say we debate the subject of ‘Does God exist?’ The theist will say God does exist while the atheist will say God does not exist. The theist will say God does exist because it cannot be proven that God does not exist while the atheist will say God does not exist because it cannot be proven that God does exist.

So, who won the debate? If you were impartial you would say both won the debate. A theist, however, will say that the theist won the debate while an atheist would say the atheist won the debate. Hence there is no real winner in his debate. There is only a perception of a winner and this perception would depend on your stand and belief regarding whether you believe or do not believe that God exists.

So, if you believe that 1MDB is guilty of a crime you would say that Tony Pua won the debate and if you believe that 1MDB is not guilty of a crime you would say that Arul Kanda won the debate.

If, however, you are impartial and have an open mind, or you are not really sure whether 1MDB is or is not guilty of a crime, and you want to make your conclusion based on the outcome of the debate, then you will make that decision based on how convincing each debater is.

If Tony Pua argues his case better that Arul Kanda then you will say 1MDB is guilty of a crime but if Arul Kanda argues his case better than Tony Pua then you will say 1MDB is not guilty of a crime. Whoever is more convincing will convince you of 1MDB’s guilt or innocence.

Okay, never mind who wins or loses the debate because in the end your conclusion regarding the winner of that debate is going to be a mere perception based on who argued his case better. Or it is going to be based on whether even before the debate started you are already convinced that 1MDB is guilty or innocent of a crime. The question now would be, does that mean 1MDB’s problems are now all solved?

If Tony Pua wins the debate how would that solve 1MDB’s problem or if Arul Kanda wins the debate how would that solve 1MDB’s problems?

1MDB’s critics say that foreign investors are leaving Malaysia because of 1MDB. So, if Arul Kanda wins the debate will the foreign investors come back? Or if Tony Pua wins the debate will even more foreign investors leave the country? And will the outcome of this debate help create more jobs and raise the living standards of Malaysians and allow Malaysians to have more money in their pockets?

Will the outcome of the debate solve all the racial and religious differences that Malaysia is facing and will it prevent racial or religious hostilities from breaking out? How will this debate create a better understanding and tolerance between Malaysians of different ethnicities and religious persuasions?

Is this debate the endgame, or the game plan to an endgame, and what is that endgame? And if this debate is the game plan to an endgame why is this the best game plan to that endgame?

Now, if the endgame is we want to see 1MDB succeed and the RM42 billion in that company, borrowed money on top of that, saved, then the game plan should be to make sure that 1MDB’s rationalising and debt restructuring exercise, which includes but is not confined to its IPO, happen.

And a debate is not going to make that happen. What will make it happen is we must give Arul Kanda time to complete the exercise and deliver what he promised the Cabinet in June and which the Cabinet had approved.

However, if the endgame is we want to see 1MDB fail so that this failure can be used to leverage Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to resign then that is another matter altogether. Then surely 1MDB must be made to fail even if the country needs to suffer billions in loses because what is important is not to save 1MDB and billions of Ringgit but to oust the Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, whatever may be the case, the debate is not going to achieve any of those two scenarios. What we will achieve is we will be entertained by two people crossing sword on stage, each defending his position with arguments, and the one who argues the best would be declared the winner, or we will have already decided who the winner is never mind how well they argue because we have already formed our opinion beforehand.

A theist believes there is a God while an atheist believes God does not exist so how well the debaters argue their case is not going to change your mind about the existence or otherwise of God. That is what a debate achieves. But I will have to admit that a debate by two good debaters is very entertaining and that is all it is, entertainment.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK