JAN 13 — In my grandma’s house in the squatter settlement of Kampung Pandan, there’d be only one gas lamp in the borders of the living area, corridor and two rooms.

Everyone gravitates to the light so the sitting settles into a template no matter when you walk in.

And the only source of entertainment was oral. In recollecting the past, detailing some development regarding a complete non-event, and at times, my aunt would read a story from the book of Tamil short stories she always had with her. You can say I developed a keen ear for engaging speeches from early on.

When you have a captive audience you have to engage them, but more so their imagination.

Sadly, on the national stage, literally, there are just a handful of speakers who pass the “not that horribly bad” standard.

Yes, speech-making and, therefore, speech-writing in Malaysia has a long way to go.

Which is why there is this enigma attached to Anwar Ibrahim. In a country where speeches are generally two steps away from being used as weapons of mass-destruction, Anwar has a listenable quality.

During the Election 2008 campaign, an excited party worker in Pahang reported back in a telcon that there were people coming out of the jungle to listen to Anwar.

You might not agree with what he is saying, and as the years since his release from prison pass he may be guilty of recycling his material a little too much, but he is interesting to listen to.

So to his detractors, try to do a little better, try to sell yourself, make yourself interesting. Just saying Anwar is wrong does not deflect from the fact you might need to pay people money, give burgers, book busses and herd them to a stadium before they want to listen to you.

I said “might”; you’d have to be a pretty sad national leader if you actually have to pay people to listen to you.

Let me be fair here. I am not going to sell the Pakatan Rakyat’s change or whack Barisan Nasional’s “better the devil you know.”

I am just going to measure things on what speeches have to be tested on, their value to the people listening to them.

Adolf Hitler was, and this is not just opinion, an excellent speaker. He may be the model for all right-wingers who are vertically challenged, for when he spoke, a considerable number of people perked up, way before he was able to have the heavily built-up juggernaut German army under him.

He was in the business of selling opinions, even if they were of the sadistic variety.

Not everyone has to be Benjamin Disraeli and put their Gladstones in place with style and also a strong moral compass, in equal measure.

So why are the speeches here so bad?

One, the obvious reason would be the divisive nature of Malaysian ideas, primarily in politics. People are certain without the need to be convinced either one way or the other.

They don’t need speeches to affect them; they only need them to repeat what they already subscribe to. Therefore, the speakers in turn are focussed on being schematic.

It might help, it really would, if audiences showed their disdain when experiencing shoddy speech-making. The occasional barracking is not the worst thing to happen in an auditorium.

I remember a contingent of Australian debaters leaving a debate venue in haste when a prominent Filipino presidential candidate back in 1997 made crude remarks about the physical limitations of women.

Lim Kit Siang is commendable in the things he stands for, and his son Lim Guan Eng is proving to be a natural administrator of a sluggish Penang waking up.

They have both been to prison for their beliefs. They are both a bit boring to listen to. I have been told their speeches in Mandarin and other Chinese dialects are quite good, but unfortunately I would not know.

But I think the obvious reason of an obtuse population might be a red herring.

As human beings, we are cursed by feelings. That is why in sales training we tell participants that buying decisions are more emotional than rational.

So I reject the obvious, I am convinced they have been waiting for speeches which will change their lives.

I will leave the blame squarely on the leaders. Najib Razak has about the charm of a chalk-duster when he is speaking. No less at the last Umno assembly when he did his Pakistanis are Malays speech.

But it was no more excruciating than to listen to his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein as Umno Youth chief back when he was trying to fake a machismo about him that never was. 

They spend so much money on fine-tuning the message, surely they can spend some time and, yes, money too, on getting themselves sounding good when they present the message.

They might begin by getting somebody critical to help them rather than keeping an entourage of sycophants behaving like they are spouting Shakespearian wonder.

Tun Razak Hussein, Najib’s dad, was neither a boy band aspirant nor Mark Anthony but he was a tireless organiser and administrator.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad was a reasonable speaker who always got people’s eyeballs almost popping out of their sockets because of what he said.

He was, as he is today, very good for shock value. So you’d listen to him if anything to hear his take on everything on the planet and why things would just be fine if everyone was clever enough to just agree with him.

The reason why I say this is, especially now, is that there is a large gaping hole in the political imagination of the Malaysian people.

US President John F. Kennedy electrified the whole of Europe with his defiance of a Soviet encroachment on Allied sector Berlin, as the Iron Curtain sought all Germany rather than the fourth they had, personified in his “Ich bin ein Berliner (I am a Berliner)” speech in 1963.

Abraham Lincoln took only 256 words to explain America’s destiny — despite a civil war engulfing it — in the Gettysburg Address.

I still have chills reading Winston Churchill’s “We shall fight them on the beaches” speech. (And like him, even though he was an unapologetic racist.)

At my first world debate championships at Princeton in 1995, a Sydney Union debater delivered a floor speech on the death penalty, relating it to the time he spends with inmates.

There was a raw passion, quiet intelligence and humility in the speaker and the usually-boisterous hall filled with fiery debaters fell silent.

Tony Burke is now Australia’s minister for sustainability, environment, water, population and communities, and a friend to this Hulu Langat boy.

Not something to aspire to in Malaysia?

I understand that since all of this country was secured through the safe passing over of the territories to the loyal and subservient civil servants.

I recognise that in the interim till now, passionate or glorious moments have been neutered to pander to controlled democracy where instructions are passed not lit on the altar of hope.

I am, however, adamant that inspiration is as valuable and necessary for these shores as much as anywhere. I reject the notion that just enough is good enough.

And today that gap is growing like the ozone layer.

It’s time for a generation of Malaysians to see beyond what is wrong with the country, and recognise how they are all about to be part of something bigger than themselves, and they want someone to articulate it to them.

Not unlike saying millions are humming the chorus of Nirvana’s “Smells like teen spirit”: Here we are now, entertain us.

We need someone to stand and steady all of us with a voice of hope.

I think that is part of the reason why, despite technology laying siege on ICT in Malaysia, the government of the day keeps working to stop “the others” from getting mainstream access to the public.

They are hoping they can be that voice before a Lenin outflanks them. Perhaps they will be successful, but they have to remember barring other entrants does not negate the emptiness beyond.

The opportunity is here, a captive audience awaits. Time for Malaysian leadership. 

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.