The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on on May 24, 2012 titled “Malaysian People’s Court“. In it the influential newspaper challenges Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to admit to committing “civil disobedience” at the April 28 Bersih Rally and accept the consequences of that action.  The paper says rather cynically “If Mr. Anwar wants to practice civil disobedience, he can’t pretend to be innocent at the same time.”

The Wall Street Journal seems to believe that the primary purpose of the gathering on April 28 was to protest the Public Assembly Act, which states in Section 4(2)(c):

“a person commits an offence if he organises or participates in a street protest.”

It’s clear however that the April 28th demonstration has nothing to do with the Public Assembly Act, just like the previous BERSIH rallies in 2011 and 2007 had nothing to do with the predecessor laws to the Peaceful Assembly Act that restricted public assembly in Malaysia and presumably rendered those public gatherings technically illegal under Malaysian laws. The April 28th demonstration had the stated purpose of protesting electoral fraud. Subsumed within that protest are a whole litany of laws that prevent free expression and assembly of Malaysians.

What exactly did Anwar do that is illegal? Currently he has been charged with violating the Public Assembly Act and pleading not guilty. What legal tradition does the WSJ belong to that suggests an accused must prove himself innocent when charged with a crime?

Such an upside down approach to the law is usually the modus operandi of the Malaysian Attorney General, where politically motivated trials place the burden of proof on the defendant and not the prosecution in a true perversion of the justice system.

If indeed Anwar Ibrahim was engaged in an act of civil disobedience by participating in the April 28th BERSIH Rally then so too were the 200,000 other Malaysians gathered in downtown Kuala Lumpur, not to mention the thousands of others who demonstrated throughout the country. Why is Anwar Ibrahim and his two associates the only ones to be charged by the government? And why would the WSJ place the lions share of responsibility on Anwar Ibrahim and not BERSIH chairperson herself Ambiga Srenavasan?

Additionally, if the BERSIH gathering was deemed legal but it was the breaching of the barriers at Dataran Merdeka in particular that are considered the illegal act which Anwar was expressing civil disobedience over, then the WSJ’s point is also fundamentally flawed. Anwar has denied giving any instructions for people to breach the barrier and in fact the extended video of him near the barrier shows he tried to get the people to disperse, rather than cross the barrier.

A legitimate, independent investigation needs to be conducted to figure out what happened. The likely conclusion will be that those near the barrier were dead set on crossing over and prepared to face the consequences. There was no mechanism for Anwar, Ambiga or anyone else to control that sentiment. However, it’s also clear that a truly independent inquiry is virtually impossible in Malaysia and even when inquiries do happen, their results are ignored.

So why then should Anwar plead guilty to an act of civil disobedience when 1) he was not expressing civil disobedience but rather demonstrating in support of electoral reform and 2) when doing so would necessarily land him in jail or with a fine that would disqualify him from contesting in the upcoming general election?

Is now the time for Anwar to willingly banish himself to prison or to the political wilderness just to prove a point that the opposition is willing to adhere to the rule of law in a country where the laws are themselves fundamentally flawed. Is the Wall Street Journal trying to make a point that Malaysia is a reformed nation now and that both government and opposition should be held to the same high standard of adhering to the rule of law?

What laws are we talking about here? Whose laws? The Public Assembly Act was forced through parliament just like all of Najib Razak’s so called reform measures. They are in each case an example of giving some rights out with their right hand and taking away a series of other rights with their left hand. The net effect is pretty much zero. Is the WSJ drinking the Kool-Aid that Najib’s administration is mixing with the help of well paid international media consultants, including some journalists formerly employed by the WSJ?

Instead the WSJ should have read the latest polling results from the Merdeka Center that show 90% (i.e. virtually all) of Malaysians want to see the electoral roll cleaned before the next election and that nearly half of all Malaysians do not have faith in the integrity of the electoral process. There are also a large percentage of Malaysians, Malays in particular, who remain unclear about the stated goals of the BERSIH movement. Presumably, if given the chance to be informed and educated, a large percentage of these people will also question the integrity of the electoral process.

Is this not the real story that the WSJ missed by zeroing in on Anwar’s act of civil disobedience? The fact that an election is likely to take place in Malaysia within the next 11 months in the midst of the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the return to public office of Aung Sun Sii Kyi where 50% of voters do not believe in the integrity of the process and are thus likely to question the integrity of the counting and results?

Regardless of its terms of reference, the people will have to contend with the independent panel to investigate violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally that has been handpicked by the government. And we may have to wait a little while before judging whether the panel is fair or biased, or simply redundant.

This is in view of the attorney-general’s pre-emptive moves in charging several people under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, as well as having advised the government to sue the Bersih steering committee for damages.

The investigations, or any other action pertaining to Bersih 3.0, should have been put on hold once the government announced the formation of the said independent panel. Similar action was taken during the black eye incident, when I was instructed to put investigations on hold the moment the cabinet announced the setting up of the RCI. Abdul Gani Patail is fully aware of this precedent.

Be as it may, the impartiality of the panel has been a subject of contention since its formation was announced, particularly the appointment of Hanif Omar as the chairperson. The test of their impartiality will be whether the panel is willing to raise the issue on the position of Gani Patail, to whom the panel’s findings will be submitted for a decision.

Where goes the panel report?

Although many will disagree, but if there is need for a panel to investigate Gani, then I suggest that both Hanif and retired Chief Justice of Borneo Steve Shim are the most appropriate persons to be in that panel. I am also of the view that Gani’s antics cannot get past these two distinguished gentlemen.

For the benefit of all, this is Steve Shim’s decision on Gani’s conduct in Zainur Zakaria vs PP [2001] 3 CLJ:

“In the circumstances, was he (referring to Anwar Ibrahim) not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that the AG’s (Gani Patail’s) conduct at the meeting on 2 October 1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him (Anwar) for other alleged sexual offences?”

The former CJ is expected to defend his decision on the above and he will certainly be backed by Hanif, who knows the truth of what exactly happened in 1998 and how the facts were manipulated and by whom. Particularly now, since the panel’s report will eventually be scrutinised by none other than Gani himself.

The government of the day, then and now, cannot deny being fully aware of Shim’s decision on Gani. The government must recognise the former CJ’s decision in the same manner Dr Mahathir takes cognisance of another Federal Court decision, as found in his memoir A Doctor in the House (page 695):

“Most Malaysians are ignorant of the contents of the judgment of the Federal Court, which acquitted Anwar on a technicality due to the error relating to the date of the incident. They are not aware that the majority of the Federal Court had held that in their judgment they found ‘…evidence to confirm that the appellants (Anwar and Sukma) were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen’…”

No one saw Anwar sodomise Sukma or anybody else, or having sex with any woman. The Federal Court came to that conclusion merely relying on evidence gathered or manufactured by Musa Hassan and presented before the judges by Gani and his prosecution team.

But where falsification and fabrication of evidence are concerned, several people saw what Gani did. Musa Hassan and Dr Rahman Yusof not only saw it but were parties to it, willingly or otherwise. Another pathologist from Hospital Kuala Lumpur testified in court that Anwar’s blood sample for DNA tests was stolen from the doctor’s custody on Oct 15, 1998.

Over and above that, I not only saw with my own eyes what Gani did, but I went to the extent of warning him of the complications that could be expected in the near future when he (Gani) is discovered, besides telling him of the stern instructions and warning from the prime minister himself, whom I briefed on Oct 8, 1998, that there should not be any cover-up in the investigations involving Anwar Ibrahim. Most importantly the products of the falsifications are available for all to see.

One important question immediately comes to mind: Which of the two Federal Court decisions cited above should be given more weight? It must be noted that Shim’s decision on Gani came first.

Does that mean that if the court decides against Anwar, then the decision is said to be correct or is in the right direction, but when a court decides in favour of Anwar, then the court is wrong or the judge has a political agenda or may be labelled as a communist sympathiser?

If Shim’s decision on Gani is not given its due weight nor respected by the government of the day, then Shim should not be allowed to remain on the panel. Should the government have some decency to accept a legitimate judicial decision of the highest court of the country, then Gani should henceforth be suspended and made to face the due process.

The government of the day must explain how on earth was Gani Patail, despite allegations of having a tainted resume, chosen to be the attorney-general in 2002 and how such conduct could have escaped the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s scrutiny.

Ulterior motives involved?

Either the government had ulterior motives or the government was simply negligent in exercising due care in vetting Gani’s suitability and competency before he was recommended to be appointed as the AG.

Either way ,the Agong was deceived into believing that Gani Patail was the most suitable and not encumbered with any criminal culpability if compared with at least two other candidates. The Agong would not have appointed Gani had he not been so deceived.

Former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson was fired just four months after his appointment, for merely allowing two inaccuracies on his qualifications to appear in his biodata that was filed with the securities regulators – one in accounting and the other in computer science.

It was not about qualifications he didn’t have. It was all about honesty. If a CEO can cheat about his qualifications, then he can cheat about everything else pertaining to the affairs of the company.

Similarly, if the EC chairperson and his deputy can deceive the Conference of Rulers and the Agong with no feelings of remorse, then they can cheat on everything and anything concerning the electoral roll.

If our government copied the American model of gerrymandering, then it should also adopt their model of testing the honesty of the EC chairperson, as the Americans did with the former Yahoo CEO.

One must also not forget that Musa Hassan was reported to have committed perjury during a trial in 1998 by claiming to have a qualification that he did not, just like Scott Thomson. The only difference between them is that Thompson was caught once and given the boot, while Musa was caught three times in all and yet cleared of any wrongdoing.

If Gani Patail, who has a damning decision on his head and a preponderance of evidence in several other allegations of wrongdoings, can still be allowed to remain in office and carry on with his illegitimate ways of doing things;

If both the EC chairperson and the deputy are said to have secured their positions through fraud and misrepresentations and by concealing their present or previously held membership in a political party and yet are allowed to remain as custodians of the electoral roll;

If the prime minister himself, who could be proven to have affirmed false affidavits in September 2011 and knowingly filing the same in a High Court to avoid having to give his testimony before the said court and yet nothing was done by the appropriate authorities, then;

Are we not in a state of lawlessness already? No?

MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is a former Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigations Department chief.

Banyak informasi yang dapat dimanfaatkan belia dipaparkan dalam media massa, tentang kebobrokkan dan kezaliman oleh pemerintah kepada rakyat. Di seluruh dunia, terutama di Mesir, yang menjadi penggerak utama kepada naik dan jatuhnya sesebuah kerajaan. Belia adalah nadi kepada negara, pasak yang mendukung aspirasi negara, malah Imam Syafie pernah menyebutkan, “Jika mahu lihat masa depan sesebuah negara, lihat anak mudanya sekarang”

Selari dengan ayat daripada al-Quran, surah al-Kahfi, menjelaskan (13)

“Kami ceritakan kepada engkau cerita mereka dengan sebenarnya. Sesungguh-nya mereka itu adalah pemuda-pemuda yang beriman kepada Tuhannya, dan Kami beri mereka tambahan pimpinan” disambung dengan ayat berikutnya (14) “Dan Kami teguhkan hati mereka, ketika mereka berdiri dan berkata: Tuhan kami ialah Tuhan langit dan bumi, kami tiada memuja selain daripada-Nya. (Kalau kami sembah selain Allah), tentulah kami mengatakan perkataan yang salah.”

AIC meyakini pencerapan daripada kedua-dua ayat tersebut adalah, anak muda harus menjadi kental, harus keras dan berani untuk tolak kezaliman, tolak rasuah, jangan takut kerana Tuhan pasti bersama orang yang benar. Jiwa anak muda yang taat kepada agama sudah tentu akan menitik beratkan integriti dan nilai yang positif. Tidak harus ada kegoyahan kepada ugutan dan kekerasan yang dilontarkan penzalim.

Pastinya ramai anak muda yang tidak menyedari hakikat tentang hak-hak mereka yang diabaikan kerana terleka dengan ‘keselesaan’ palsu yang dihidangkan kerajaan Barisan Nasional. Adakah itu jenis anak muda yang ingin dihasilkan oleh Malaysia?

Anak muda harus berada di barisan hadapan, menjadi ‘whistle blower’ didalam negara, iaitu menjadi penggera kepada setiap perkara yang memberi impak buruk kepada negara. Hingga satu tahap, selayaknya anak muda bakal dijadikan kayu pengukur kepada kecemerlangan negara.

Selain itu anak muda harus meletakkan idea mereka pada tahap yang boleh dibanggakan, merebut peluang untuk jawatan penting dalam komuniti, kerana sudah menjadi norma masyarakat di Malaysia yang hanya menerima pendapat dan idea daripada individu yang berpengaruh atau berjawatan. Menjadi sia-sia apabila sebuah idea yang bagus menjadi kurang kredibilitinya kerana individu yang melontarkan idea itu tidak berpengaruh atau berjawatan.

Terutama dalam isu jaminan kehidupan, kestabilan dan keselesaan belia, sekalian anak muda telah muak dengan pelan jangka masa pendek yang dihulurkan oleh sang kapitalis yang akhirnya menjerut leher anak muda, sebagai contoh PTPTN. Asalnya sebagai pelan untuk membantu anak muda untuk belajar, namun modus operandinya adalah untuk mengaut keuntungan dan menguntungkan kapitalis. Anak muda yang baru menamatkan pengajian membawa pulang gulungan sijil beserta setimbun hutang yang akhirnya akan melambatkan tingkat hidup anak muda.

Oleh itu, AIC menggesa agar semua anak muda untuk bangkit dan tolak kezaliman demi membebaskan jiwa dan naluri anak muda. Bangkit menentang kezaliman pemerintah. Isu anak muda bukan sahaja berkisar di PTPTN, AUKU yang menyekat pemikiran mereka, menyekat kebebasan anak muda untuk menyuarakan pandangan mereka tetapi juga kesengsaraan sekeliling yang meruntun perasaan . Jiwa anak muda memang fitrah mereka (seperti yang disebutkan dalam surah al-Kahfi) untuk menolak segala bentuk penindasan.

AIC melihat segala bentuk program yang dianjurkan oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional di Himpunan Jutaan Belia 2012 sebagai tidak mencerminkan pembentukkan belia yang kita impikan untuk masa depan negara. Kejahilan dan kematangan akal tidak boleh bergerak seiring, maka penganjuran sesebuah program yang “berniat” baik tidak akan mencapai sasaran dengan pengisian aktiviti yang menjurus ke arah lara dan melalaikan.

Justeru AIC menyeru agar semua belia menjadi ejen perubahan yang akan menganjak pemikiran dan daya anak muda ke satu tahap yang lebih dihormati bukannya menjadi penerus pada sisi gelap yang memperbodohkan minda dan mencengkam perlakuan belia sehingga kehilangan kehebatannya.

Generasi Penggerak Zaman
Ahmad Amir Arshad Ahmad Shariman
Koordinator Pembangunan -Belia
Anwar Ibrahim Club
Malaysia

Kawasan lapang peneroka tidak akan selamat apabila Felda Global Venture Holdings (FGVH) disenaraikan di Bursa Malaysia, kata PKR.

Pengarah Strategi PKR Rafizi Ramli mendakwa, sebaik sahaja peneroka hilang kawalan terhadap FGVH, tiada apa lagi yang dapat menyekat syarikat itu daripada mengambil alih tanah terbuka atau rumah kedai di kawasan Felda.

Walaupun tanah 10 ekar dan tanah yang dimiliki peneroka tidak dapat disentuh, tetapi kawasan tanpa geran tanah boleh diambil, dakwanya.

Bercakap di konvensyen berhubung hak masyarakat Felda dan Orang Asli, Rafizi memberi amaran, apabila pengambilalihan berlaku, perubahan drastik dalam persekitaran dan kehidupan sosial mereka akan berlaku.

Till now, except for the case of 25-year-old Mohd Safuan Mamat, where he was beaten up in an attempt to extract a confession, when Safuan went to the police station voluntarily, the police has not ascertained who damaged the police vehicles but are already bringing a civil suit against S. Ambiga and the Bersih 2.0 Steering Committee to seek RM122,000 in special damages for 15 police vehicles damaged during the protest, including two water cannon trucks.

It is also not transparent how the damages have been assessed in the first place, because there were no witnesses from both parties. Could it be possible that some damages have been further done to the vehicles in order to create a bigger loss?

Focus on the 8 electoral reforms

Going further, instead of pursuing a civil suit or pressing charges on the civil society movement, the Government should focus on the eight demands of Bersih.

Keadilan calls on Najib to focus on the eight demands by Bersih 2.0 Steering Committee, and ensure that all resources are focused on cleaning up the electoral roll and to make the electoral roll foolproof against any forms of cheating. After all, these people are doing a national service without being asked to be put on the already bloated government’s payroll.

Both EC chief and deputy must resign

Keadilan calls upon Prime Minister Najib to clean up the electoral roll before the next General Election and deal with the other issues such as gerrymandering and mal-apportionment to ensure that we have a clean and fair election.

Both the chairman and deputy chairman of the Election Commission should be asked to resign to pave the way for a new team who can work closely with the civil society to ensure the electoral process is foolproof.

Wan Azizah Wan Ismail
president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Polemik terbesar di Pulau Pinang pastinya persoalan kuasa politik dan ekonomi orang Melayu di negeri ini.

Sering kali kita mendengar atau membaca tajuk berita seperti ”Melayu Pulau Pinang terpinggir”, ”Melayu tiada suara di Pulau Pinang” dan banyak lagi ungkapan yang cuba menggambarkan bahawa kewujudan orang Melayu di Pulau Pinang benar-benar terancam.

Amat malang sekali, sejak Mac 2008 keadaan Melayu di negeri ini digambarkan seolah-olah lebih parah. terutamanya oleh media kawalan pembangkang di negeri ini iaitu, Umno dan BN.

Mengikut statistik Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, untuk tahun 2010, jumlah penduduk Pulau Pinang 1,609,000 orang. Mengikut pecahan etnik, orang Melayu sudah mengatasi jumlah orang Cina di negeri ini sebanyak 676, 900 (42.06 peratus) dan Cina 658, 700 (40.93 peratus) dan selebihnya 155,600 India dan 118,700 etnik lain-lain.

Maka, label bahawa Pulau Pinang negeri majoriti Cina tidak lagi sesuai untuk digunapakai. Hakikatnya jumlah orang Melayu dan Cina hampir
seimbang tetapi secara geografinya terpisah di pulau dan tanah besar, Seberang Perai.

Mac 2008 menyaksikan tsunami politik terbesar berlaku di Pulau Pinang. Jika pada pilihan raya umum 2004, BN dengan selesa memenangi 38 kerusi DUN.

Tsunami politik 2008 menyaksikan Pakatan Rakyat, terdiri daripada DAP memenangi 19 kerusi, PKR sembilan kerusi dan PAS satu kerusi, manakala BN melalui Umno sekadar memenangi 11 kerusi.

Ini bukanlah kali pertama rakyat Pulau Pinang memilih untuk menukar kerajaan kerana sejarah menunjukkan rakyat negeri ini pernah menolak Perikatan pada pilihan raya umum 1969 dengan memilih parti Gerakan.

Masalah yang diwarisi

Saat Pakatan menubuhkan kerajaan di Pulau Pinang, serangan retorik terkikisnya kuasa politik Melayu di negeri ini bermula. Stigma bahawa DAP sebuah parti cauvinis Cina diapi-apikan di kalangan orang Melayu.

Secara tiba-tiba rakyat disajikan dengan berbagai laporan kemiskinan orang Melayu, isu pemilikan tanah oleh orang Melayu yang kurang di Pulau Pinang dan pelbagai lagi bentuk serangan yang berasaskan politik perkauman sempit.

Walhal, kita semua sedia maklum, Umno pernah menerajui kerajaan negeri bukan hanya selepas merdeka, bahkan selepas 1969 pun, parti itu berada di tampuk kuasa.

Maka di manakah perwira dan pejuang bangsa Melayu yang merupakan pimpinan Umno ini berada ketika orang Melayu Pulau Pinang memerlukan pembelaan dan idea-idea baru dalam memajukan orang Melayu baik dari segi politik mahupun sosioekonomi?

Amat malang apabila masalah ekonomi dan kuasa pemilikan hartanah orang Melayu di negeri ini dipolitikkan seolah-olah ia bermula hanya selepas Pakatan memerintah. Sedangkan masalah ini diwarisi daripada kerajaan negeri di bawah pimpinan Umno dan BN.

Hakikatnya kerakusan Umno selama lebih 40 tahun memerintah Pulau Pinang menyebabkan banyak tanah milik orang Melayu, terutamanya di Tanjung tergadai, lantas kuasa ekonomi orang Melayu menguncup.

Krisis kepimpinan

Umno bukan saja gagal meningkatkan penguasaan ekonomi orang Melayu, tetapi telah memilih untuk membenarkan mereka yang korup kekal berkuasa kononnya di atas agenda ketuanan Melayu.

Namun, sejak 2008, kerajaan Pakatan pimpinan Ketua Menteri Lim Guan Eng melakukan beberapa reformasi penting di negeri ini.

Antaranya menghapuskan kemiskinan tegar, meningkatkan perbelanjaan hal ehwal agama Islam, memberi bantuan lebih banyak kepada rumah ibadat, khairat kematian yang lebih tinggi, hadiah untuk anak yang baru lahir, bantuan RM100 untuk warga emas dan lebih 70 peratus kontraktor Melayu memenangi projek kerajaan negeri hasil sistem tender terbuka.

Hakikat yang tidak dapat kita lari, nasib orang Melayu dan rakyat seluruhnya lebih terjamin semenjak Pakatan memerintah.

Program-program ekonomi yang disusun, kecekapan dan ketelusan pentadbiran kerajaan Pakatan bukan lagi rahsia atau retorik kosong semata-mata.

Laporan Audit Negara dan laporan pelabur asing menunjukkan negeri ini bebas dari amalan korup dan salahguna kuasa sejak Pakatan Rakyat memerintah.

Menjelang pilihan raya umum ke-13 yang semakin hampir, parti komponen BN – MCA dan Gerakan – masih lagi gagal untuk mengembalikan sokongan bukan Melayu di negeri ini.

Krisis kepimpinan yang dihadapi komponen BN nyata bakal merencatkan lagi usaha mereka untuk menawan kembali negeri ini. Usaha transformasi Datuk Seri Najib Razak yang indah khabar dari rupa juga disambut dingin oleh majoriti rakyat negeri ini.

Pencerahan buat segenap bangsa

Umno tidak mampu untuk membentuk kerajaan tanpa kemenangan parti komponen, MCA dan Gerakan, tanpa sokongan dari etnik lain selain Melayu di negeri ini.

Kenyataan pengerusi perhubungan Umno negeri Datuk Zainal Abidin Osman bahawa mereka bersedia menjadi pembangkang untuk satu lagi penggal membuktikan Pakatan bakal mengekalkan kuasa pada pilihan raya depan.

Maka, realiti politik orang Melayu Pulau Pinang pada pilihan raya umum depan tidak lagi duduk sebagai majoriti pembangkang, tetapi menambah wakil rakyat Melayu dalam barisan kepimpinan kerajaan negeri.

Sudah tiba masanya sokongan orang Melayu dialihkan kepada PKR dan PAS. Orang Melayu harus berani keluar dari dogma bahawa Umno saja mewakili orang Melayu.

Orang Melayu harus sedar bahawa parti politik untuk masa depan adalah parti politik yang mampu mendapat sokongan semua rakyat Malaysia tanpa kira ras dan agama.

Tiada guna lagi mengangkat pemimpin Melayu yang hebat melaungkan ketuanan tetapi sebenarnya korup dan pura-pura. Pemimpin Melayu yang progresif, berjiwa rakyat dan adil kepada semua adalah sosok pemimpin yang kita perlukan di saat ini.

Moga sosok pemimpin ini mampu membawa pencerahan kepada segenap bangsa di negeri ini untuk kita bina Pulau Pinang yang lebih gemilang untuk diwariskan pada anak- anak negeri.

Tahniah kepada Sinar Harian kerana berjaya menganjurkan perdebatan di antara Ketua Pemuda Umno, Khairy Jamaluddin, dan pengarah strategik PKR, Rafizi Ramli.

Ketika debat berlangsung, tidak berlaku pergaduhan. Tidak ada yang terbunuh. Tiada kerusi terbang di dewan di mana perdebatan berlangsung walaupun penyokong kedua-dua pihak ada disitu.

Moderator yang dipilih oleh Sinar Harian, Dr Maszlee Malik, memainkan peranan beliau dengan baik. Adil kepada dua-dua pihak.

Ini adalah bukti Malaysia tidak mempunyai apa-apa masalah untuk berhadapan dengan demokrasi.

Patahlah hujah golongan ekstremis garis keras dalam Umno bahawa debat terbuka menyebabkan huru hara berlaku.

Sekarang tiada lagi alasan bagi Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak untuk menolak pelawaan Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk berdebat.

Seperti yang dikatakan oleh Dr Maszlee Malik, rakyat Malaysia kini menantikan debat diantara PM dan Ketua Pembangkang.

Cabaran dilontarkan oleh moderator itu agar Najib dan Anwar berdebat. Sinar Harian bersedia untuk menjadi tuan rumah kepada debat tersebut.

Debat bukan untuk menang-kalah

Mungkin ketakutan utama Najib dan pemimpin Barisan Nasional (BN) lain adalah kehebatan Anwar Ibrahim berpidato.

Memang benar kehebatan mantan timbalan perdana menteri itu dalam berpidato dan berkata-kata luar biasa.

Akan tetapi, perlu difahami bahawa tujuan utama berdebat bukan untuk menentukan siapa kalah dan siapa menang.

Tujuan utama perdebatan dilakukan adalah untuk memberikan input kepada rakyat mengenai dasar dan halatuju BN dan Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Setelah debat berlaku di antara Najib dan Anwar, rakyat sudah boleh membuat pilihan sama ada mereka lebih yakin dengan BN atau PR.

Penutupan ruang untuk majlis ilmu sepertii debat ini hanya merugikan BN.

Ini kerana, debat akan memberi ruang kepada Najib untuk menjelaskan apakah yang sebenarnya beliau ingin lakukan untuk negara sepanjang menjadi perdana menteri.

Hari ini, persepsi umum lebih memihak kepada PR oleh kerana ketidakpercayaan rakyat umum terhadap media arus perdana yang kelihatan sudah di tahap “overkill” kepada PR.

Sementara itu, Anwar juga mendapat ruang untuk memberikan tawaran kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Ertinya, Anwar akan menawarkan sesuatu dasar dan program yang akan dilaksanakan sekiranya berpeluang mengangkat sumpah sebagai Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Persoalan siapa yang lebih diyakini selepas debat itu adalah subjektif. Yang objektif adalah rakyat mendapat informasi dari dua orang tokoh yang mewakili blok politik masing-masing.

Kesan serantau

Myanmar yang selama ini dikecam kerana membunuh demokrasi dan memenjarakan Aun San Suu Kyi kini menuju keterbukaan.

Suu Kyi kini adalah seorang ahli parlimen yang menang dalam pilihan raya kecil baru-baru ini.

Beliau bolehlah dikatakan sebagai “Gandhi” bagi Asia Tenggara. Daripada situasi di Myanmar hari ini, nampak gayanya, Suu Kyi bakal menjadi presiden Myanmar.

Apabila itu berlaku modal asing akan mencurah-curah masuk ke Myanmar. Myanmar akan menjadi kuasa ekonomi besar di Asia Tenggara pada ketika itu.

Di mana pula Malaysia? Apakah sudah menjadi negara pengeksport pembantu rumah ketiga terbesar di Asia Tenggara?

Jika tidak melakukan reformasi dengan segera, Malaysia akan ketinggalan. Filipina, Indonesia, Myanmar dan Vietnam akan menjadi kuasa ekonomi besar Asia Tenggara.

Jangan fikir Malaysia boleh selamanya bertahan. Wang Petronas tidak akan mampu menanggung ketirisan dalam pentadbiran negara untuk selama-lamanya.

Debat terbuka adalah jalan untuk Malaysia membuka demokrasi dan memerangi rasuah habis-habisan. Jika tidak, generasi yang bakal lahir 10-20 tahun lagi akan menyumpah kita kerana tidak melakukan apa-apa.

The debate last night between Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and PKR director of strategy Rafizi Ramli could act as the tipping point for a ‘prime ministerial debate’ before the next general election.

Asked by moderator Maszlee Malik if it is now time for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to go mano a mano with Pakatan Rakyat’s premier-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim, the audience got on their feet and cheered.

“In 2008, we saw the McCain-Obama debate, in 2010 the Brown-Clegg-Cameron debate and in 2011 we await the prime ministerial debate between Najib and Anwar. Are you ready?” Madzlee asked.

To this, the audience answered, “We are ready!” with much of the enthusiasm observed from the side where Rafizi’s supporters were seated.

Maszlee then proposed that the host for the night – Malay daily Sinar Harian – plays host again, while he moderates what would be an epic debate, if it goes through.

Spontaneous proposal

Speaking to reporters later, Sinar Harian managing editor Husamuddin Yaacub said Maszlee’s proposal was “spontaneous” but the newspaper is ready to host any event that sees “a debate of minds”.

“Sinar Harian will be a platform for anyone to (engage) in a gentlemanly manner,” Husamuddin said.

Piping in, Maszlee (right), a Universiti Islam Antarabangsa lecturer, said he had proposed it as he believes “this is what the rakyat wants”.

Rafizi said he had, after his first debate with Khairy in London, asked him to request Najib to accept Anwar’s challenge to a debate.

“I have relayed the message to the PM and he said he will consider it. I have done my duty,” Khairy told reporters.

Last year, Anwar, a former deputy premier, had challenged Najib to a debate on the economy but the latter brushed it off, saying that the now PKR de facto leader will come down with a fever if it ever happens.