FEB 20 — I think the debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng should be given 80 points.

It is indeed a high score, but the points are given to the breakthrough for the Malaysian political culture, instead of the debaters.

For the first time, members of the public were able to personally hear the stands of different parties and compare the arguments of the ruling and alternative parties, before having their own views and conclusions.

It is a platform needed in an open society. Different voices are presented before the people, so that the people can make their judgements and be the master of themselves.

We have marched a step forward through the debate.

It requires much courage to participate in the debate and taking the challenge is a demonstration of being a responsible politician. Both Chua and Lim deserve an applause of affirmation, instead of boos as they received on that day.

It is in fact not so important whether they had performed well. Of course, there are still room for improvement for both the debaters.

Perhaps, they lacked experience since it was the first political debate without a set of established norms. Although it was an American-style bipartisan political debate, there was still some distance in terms of content and quality.

The debate topic "Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” reflected the two mainstream ideas of today’s Malaysian society, which are also the two kinds of thinking of the people.

The debate might help in clarifying the different concepts if it did not veer away from the topic.

Unfortunately, the debaters had sometimes diverged from the topic while locking themselves in a certain political stand. They made their own views and turned the debate into a political party’s view declaration event.

I felt like boarded the time machine of Doraemon and breathlessly shuttled between the DAP’s and MCA’s political forums.

Obviously, Chua and Lim were too eager in beating each other. They were too busy in raising topics to attack each other’s weaknesses until they had no time to debate political party’s ideas, as well as explore the contradictions between the two-party system and racism. They had also neglected the enlightenment for future choices.

A truly American democratic debate, from party primary to presidential debates, focuses on the exposition of ideas and stands, while finding solutions for issues, instead of picking and attacking each other’s weaknesses.

If there is another debate, debaters should avoid the shortcoming.

In addition, many members of the audience did not seem to understand that it was a debate, not a political party propaganda event.

Audience of a debate should be viewers, not participants. Just like attending a classical music concert, audience should not raise an uproar and disturbance, but sit and listen quietly, and applause at the appropriate time until the end.

If you want to shout and scream to express your support, then it would be a wrong place to do so. You should hold your strength until the election nomination day.

Of course, the Q&A session was also a failure. Most of the questions were filled with party spirit and lacked rationality. It would be better if in-depth questions, instead of attacking questions, were asked.

Although the debate was not a classic, it was at least a breakthrough worthy of recognition. Similar debates should be held from now on. — mysinchew.com

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.