Chua-Lim debate more a ‘judge of character’

While the MCA vs DAP debate fell mostly flat, what is interesting is the feedback and commentaries from political observers.

PETALING JAYA: Malaysians from the Chinese community had naively dreamed that the debate between MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng would be similar to the standard and quality of the US presidential debate.

They thought it would have all the ingredients of truthfulness, facts, information and clarity on national vital issues related to the theme: “Chinese at Crossroads—Is the two-party system becoming a two-race system?”

In the end the much-touted debate fell somewhat flat. But what is proving to be more interesting than the debate itself is the feedback and commentary analysis of political observers and non-partisan Malaysian Chinese.

The debate, some opined, is only a frame, capturing a “moving picture” of the political landscape in Malaysia.

In the case of the unprecedented MCA vs DAP debate, conscientious Malaysians need to see the compelling personality differences of both debaters – Chua and Lim – and the history of their respective parties.

Let us take a glimpse of the two debaters when facing a predicament.

It is said that to assess the qualities of a leader, it is best done when they are in power.

To some astute political observers, another good barometer for assessment is when leaders are faced with a challenging predicament or a crisis of their own making.

Annabelle Wang, a professional auditor, opined that the outcomes of political debates are not necessarily a basis for wise judgment of political support for voting preferences.

“We should judge the character of the political leader, the history of the party they represent and the stand they take on the issues together.”

Judging character

The debate obviously did not manage to influence the many Malaysians who are more knowledgeable of the nation’s history.

Wang still remembered Lim having said something like, “If I fail and have to go to jail, I have no regret because I am going down fighting for the principle of truth and justice.”

Malaysians still remembered that Lim was arrested and jailed in 1994 for his criticism (under Sedition Act) on the handling of allegations of statutory rape involving a former state chief minister.

In contrast, what did Chua say when he was exposed to a sex DVD scandal in 2008?

“Who did it and why is obvious… but it is not important now,” Chua remarked at a press conference after admitting he was the man in the DVD.

“What is important is that my family, my wife, have accepted my apology,” Chua concluded.

Many might have forgiven him but they also remembered that Chua should have expressed shame for his wrongdoings. It was recalled that he had instead shifted the blame.

Chinese-educated William Low, 57, a corporate CEO, quoted a Chinese saying: “Yi chou wan nian, liu fang bai shi.”

A bad reputation of a person or of a party leadership, Low said, can last ten thousand years but a good reputation of the same, can last a hundred generations.

‘You reap what you sow’

As the debate was concerned, is being proficient in the Chinese language more important than acquiring Chinese wisdom on leadership roles?

Both debaters had amply mastered the language but MCA veteran SL Ho from Johor had rightly pointed out that both politicians should also study the wisdom of Chinese proverbs that have been handed down for centuries, “hou yan wu chi”.

It is a virtue that politicians should know that whatever is morally wrong cannot be politically correct.

As virtuous leaders in society, they should feel ashamed of their wrongdoings.

That, Ho pointed out, is more important to behold than any pretensions or creative perceptions arising from any political debate particularly when the event was deliberately organised and foolishly orchestrated.

He opined that in the end the debate was more like a ceramah just to gain short political mileage.

There is no winner in the debate and both parties should know the wisdom of the Chinese community.

The community simply believes in the adage that you reap what you sow – zhong gua de gua, zhong dou de dou.

Both Guan Eng and Soi Lek should be aware of their political actions.