Najib and Anwar must now debate

Now that former prime minister Najib Razak and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim have presented their campaign manifestoes. The next step is for both to step up and defend their respective policies in a healthy debate. Since Najib’s campaign approach is quite similar to the presidential style in the US, the former prime minister cannot afford not to duel in a debate with his fiercest and most formidable contender – Anwar. For those who say that debate is a waste of time miss one crucial point: the job of politicians is not just to represent the people but to defend their policies. Najib and Anwar must convince Malaysians that they have the best policies worth of defending. And there is no other way to do this than to outwit each other in a healthy debate.

If Najib refuses to debate, it only raises doubt of his capability in defending BN’s (Barisan Nasional) policies and challenging the alternatives provided by PR (Pakatan Rakyat). Contrary to what critics say, debating Anwar does not mean that Najib will commit a political suicide. True, Anwar is a good orator and a crowd puller. If Najib thinks that BN deserves another term and PR cannot make a good government, this is the opportunity for him to tell Malaysians that Anwar is all bark but no bite. But then again the only way to prove this is to see both aspiring prime minister to embark on the battle of the minds. Malaysians want a new prime minister who can articulate issues as well as having the brain to address them.

BN and PR will do disservice if Malaysians do not see the two most recognisable faces in the country’s political arena meeting face to face in a debate. At least one BN leader, Shabbery Chik, came to debate Anwar in 2008. This is a good start for Malaysia as it shows political maturity on the part of BN and PR. The debate has since become the talk of the town. Malaysians from all walks of life gave two thumbs up to the historic debate. In the end, it is not about who wins and who loses. An open debate will allow the public to assess to capability of their representatives to articulate issues and to recommend solutions to them. Presenting the manifestoes alone is not enough. In fact, it is pointless if the manifestoes are not scrutinised and criticised in a constructive and reasonable manner.