Should politicians settle their differences in a boxing match? Netizens wholeheartedly agree

 

MALAYSIAN politicians are known for trading verbal blows, launching verbal missiles and engaging in  political sparring matches that can drag on for months.

But what if, instead of holding another press conference or firing off another Facebook post, they simply put on a pair of gloves and settle their differences in the ring?

That possibility suddenly looks a little less far-fetched following the kickboxing match between former DAP member Hew Kuan Yau, better known as “Superman Hew”, and political commentator Ang Woei Shang, popularly known as “Lawyer Ang”.

The much-anticipated clash, called Strikezone Showdown, took place at a shopping mall in Wangsa Maju last Sunday, with Ang emerging the clear winner after the referee stopped the contest in under 90 seconds.

To recap, Hew, 56, was knocked down several times by the 40-year-old Ang, who eventually secured a first-round victory in a contest scheduled for three two-minute rounds.

The rivalry reportedly began during the Negeri Sembilan state election campaign in July, when Ang challenged DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke to a debate while campaigning for MCA candidate John Siow Kong Choon in Chennah.

Hew dismissed the proposed debate as a publicity stunt and challenged Ang to settle the disagreement in the ring instead. Ang accepted. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Netizens have much to say about the match too:

While the contest was certainly entertaining, it raises an interesting question: could this become a new way for politicians to resolve their differences? Imagine the possibilities.

This thought was echoed by netizen alwiadamtheprincipal who welcomed it with open arms.

Instead of watching two politicians exchange accusations over a microphone, the public could buy tickets to watch them exchange punches under proper supervision.

A disagreement over national policy? Three rounds. A dispute over who deserves credit for a development project? Five rounds.

A particularly heated argument over who should become party president? Perhaps a cage fight, complete with entrance music, fireworks and an oversized belt for the winner.

There could even be different weight divisions to ensure that no one gets an unfair advantage. After all, nobody wants a heavyweight politician picking on a featherweight backbencher.

The Election Commission could perhaps introduce a new category of political campaigning, although the Health Ministry might have reservations about the idea.

Of course, there are serious reasons why  politics should not be reduced to physical combat.

Public disagreements should be settled through debate, evidence, democratic processes and accountability, not by determining who can throw the hardest punch.

Besides, a politician who wins a fight does not necessarily have better policies, just as someone who loses one is not automatically wrong.

Still, if politicians insist on spending so much time fighting one another, perhaps they could at least take their disputes somewhere with a referee, clear rules and a time limit.

The only problem is that Malaysians may soon have to decide whether they want their representatives to be good at running the country or running away from a right hook.

And if the proposed fight ends in a knockout, taxpayers should at least be spared the bill for the ambulance.— Focus Malaysia