Rafizi vs Khairy debate: The bigger picture

There were no insults or personal attacks, just facts and light-hearted banter, and it's incredulous that older politicians are averse to such healthy exchanges on Malaysian soil.

COMMENT

The most enduring words uttered by Rafizi Rahim, the Pakatan strategic director in his debate with Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar in London last Sunday, were his closing remarks to the assembled students.

“All of you, when you go back to Malaysia, it does not really matter which side you take. Whether BN, or Pakatan. Please participate…

“The worse tragedy is having so many bright people, learning from the best of the best universities, only to go back and withdraw into your own little world, not really knowing what happens outside.

“Go back and make a difference, no matter what you choose to do. Make sure you make a difference to society.”

His words were echoed by the equally magnanimous Khairy, who told the students to make informed decisions making use of all sources of media, both alternative and mainstream.

Khairy informed the audience that “Malaysia had moved on” and that open debates should be the future of the nation.

The two contenders presented their arguments at the first event of 2012 organised by the United Kingdom and Eire Council for Malaysian Students (UKEC). Their topic was “Public Policy: Vision 2020: Is Malaysia Moving Towards the Right Direction?”

In this lighthearted, medium-paced banter between the two young leaders, both of whom studied at British universities, there was wit and humour, plus application of facts tempered with personal experience.

‘Poke-eye’ clothes
There were agreements and disagreements on issues, which ranged from the economy, the taxation system, subsidies, free media access to the racial perspective, the teaching fraternity, Sabah and Sarawak, the Public Assembly Bill (PAB), and racial unity.

The enthusiasm showed by about 350 Malaysian students from all over the UK and the Irish Republic was no less pleasing to watch.

The more conservative of them, judging by their mode of dress, mingled freely with the long-legged girls in high heels, hot pants and ultra mini-skirts. To quote the Ministry of Defence’s English website which has since been removed, there were quite a few Malay girls even wearing “poke-eye” clothes.

One wonders what would have happened if this event had been in Malaysia, where women in short-sleeved blouses have been refused entry to government departments. Nevertheless, it was healthy to note our youth fully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and choice.

Elsewhere in the conference hall, the old freely chatted with the young, and the straight had no qualms about exchanging notes with those who were undoubtedly from the LGBT crowd.

The two stars of the day, Khairy and Rafizi, looked as though they enjoyed themselves debating with one another.

With the interest generated and the civility showed, it is incredible that our older politicians are averse to similar useful exchanges on Malaysian soil. As the Sunday event showed, there was no trading of insults and no personal attacks. Just facts, figures and the occasional playful tease.

This exchange was in stark contrast to the July 2008 debate between Anwar Ibrahim, when he was the special adviser to PKR and Ahmad Shabery Cheek, the former BN Information Minister, which was broadcast on TV3 and ASTRO.

In this event, Shabery freely dished out personal insults while Anwar resisted making innuendos and kept strictly to the topic.

UCCA should be abolished
Nevertheless, in last Sunday’s event, the day’s lectures ranged from career development and opportunities in the corporate world (Rafidah Aziz) to human rights in Malaysia (Marina Mahathir, Pang Khee Teik, Yunus Raiss), Islam in Malaysia (Zainah Anwar, Karim Raslan, Dr Carool Kersten, Dr Dzulkefli Ahmad) and Vision 2020 (Khairy and Rafizi).

If there was any criticism, it was the manner in which Rafidah and Khairy were whisked away, presumably by their minders, into the VIP room, out of reach of the students and press.

If this was intentional, then it does not encourage interaction between the panel of speakers and the students whom they were hoping to influence. Why bother with an event when students are not allowed to engage with the speakers?

One other observation was that students in the UKEC council organise an array of interesting events throughout the year. One might ask if their Malaysian peers enjoy similar freedom of expression and thought?

What little we hear of them is through news reports of students protesting the suspension of students because they refuse to toe the official line.

If the home students are denied access to exciting events, then are we not placing them at a disadvantage to students who study overseas?

Are we effectively breeding an elite group of students, because those who study overseas are exposed to exciting events, debates, different cultures, methods of teaching, facilities, environments, challenges and experience?

The opportunities for debates and free thought should be extended to ALL our students.

The fact that overseas students are not afraid to wear “poke-eye” clothes, and people mix freely, are manifestations of this freedom of expression. It stimulates creativity and cohesion.

Are we not being unfair by restricting the minds of and curtailing the liberties of our Malaysian students back home, with the Universities and University Colleges Act (UCCA)?

The UCCA should be abolished. Not amended.

For Malaysian students in UK, debates are not exceptional by any means, but for the likes of Adam Adli and his peers, street protests probably remain the only form of expression left because debates and political meetings are discouraged.

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist.