Details of the debate from Malaysiakini
Anyone miss out the Debate of the Year, this is the details of Debate last night.
Anwar vs Shabery in historic debate
PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim and Information Minister Shabery
Cheek participated in a historic debate which was carried live on TV
tonight.
The debate entitled ‘Form the government today,
reduce fuel prices tomorrow’ was held at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
in Kuala Lumpur.
It began at 9pm and lasted for one hour.
Viewers
watched the debate either live on the Internet - from websites Global
Media Channel and BernamaTV - or live on TV on TV9, Astro Awani and
Bernama TV.
Both Anwar and Shabery, who stood on a stage in a
similar set-up to the United States presidential debate, kicked off the
session with a 4-minute opening statement each.
This was followed by questions from a three-member panel.
The
event, sponsored by web portal AgendaDaily, was moderated by Dewan
Bahasa and Pustaka chairperson Johan Jaafar and two other panelists -
current affairs weekly Siasah editor Zulkifli Sulong and Universiti
Utara Malaysia vice-chancellor Nordin Kardi.
After their
opening speeches, Shabery and Anwar were questioned by the panelists.
Following this, both debaters were given the chance to ask each other
one question.
The debate ended with a 90-second wrap-up speech.
Anwar: We can slash 50 sen off
Anwar,
60, who was casually dressed in a beige sports jacket and white shirt,
was the first to speak and in his opening, he declared that should
Pakatan Rakyat come to power, it would, as an early measure, reduce
fuel prices by 50 sen per litre.
In order to finance such a
measure, Anwar proposed that leakages be plugged and that national
power supplier Tenaga Nasional (TNB) reduce their reserve capacity from
40 percent to 20 percent, thereby reducing the amount of funds going to
independent power producers (IPPs).
“We have the highest
(electricity) reserves in the world. Who profits? IPPs. Why should we
allow that? Petronas and TNB have to incur the costss. But IPPs profit,” he said.
By
doing so, Anwar argued that the government would have saved RM2
billion. He said an additional RM3 billion needed to finance the 50 sen
reduction in fuel prices would be sourced elsewhere.
“Five billion is enough to help lighten the burden on the rakyat. The Perwaja bailout was RM13 billion of government’s money,” he added.
Shabery: Why only 50 sen?
In
Shabery’s opening statement, he went on the offensive, pointing out
that Anwar’s claim of reducing fuel prices was made prior to the March
8 general elections and as such, the 50-sen reduction should be for the
price before the recent fuel price hikes, which was RM1.92.
“If
we were to maintain prices of fuel at RM1.92, the amount of subsidies
needed is RM50 billion. This would mean that a lot of development
projects - schools, rakyat, roads (cannot be implemented) - to maintain
our lifestyle,” he said.
Shabery, 50, who was more
formally attired in a black jacket and pink shirt, then spent about two
minutes arguing that the fuel prices were not the fault of the
government but the result of a rise in global crude oil prices.
By
the three-and-a-half minute mark, Shabery launched his first of many
personal attacks against Anwar by highlighting the opposition
politician’s role in organising street demonstrations when he was a
youth leader.
Round 2 - questions for debaters
The second phase of the debate involved both speakers responding to a question posed by Johan which reads as follows:
“At
the moment, Petronas has only a 20 percent market share of the fuel
pumps. This means that the government has to subsidies several giant
oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Shell. How do you view this?”
In
response, Shabery touched on the question fleetingly, admitting that
the subsidies may go to foreign companies, the rich and foreigners, and
then attacked Anwar’s opening statement claim that stemming corruption
and government leakages can lead to lower fuel prices.
“Ask
Norway and Finland. Ask developed countries with are said to have few
cases of corruption. They don’t subsidise their fuel yet they their
economies perform well. Malaysia should head in that direction,” he said.
Petronas is rich enough to help
Quick
to reply, Anwar chided Shabery for comparing Malaysia with Norway which
has a per capita income 10-folds that of Malaysians and this was not a
basis for comparison.
Anwar reiterated that subsidies were
portrayed negatively by the government when it was not described as
such when the government used taxpayers money to help big businesses.
“The
amount spent on Perwaja, MAS (Malaysia Airlines) and other bailouts are
known as ‘financial aid’ and ‘saving the economy’. But to help the
farmers and the fishermen, it is known as ‘subsidies’ - a very negative
term,” he said.
Anwar said that Petronas was a rich company which could afford to spend a small portion of its profits to help the public.
This could be done without impeding its ability to operate and invest further.
Round 3: Questions from panelists
The third-phase of the debate involved their appointed panelists taking turns to pose questions to the speakers.
Shabery’s
appointed panelist, UUM vice-chancellor Dr Nordin Kardi, instead of
posing a question, made a short speech on how Anwar’s plan to use
Petronas’ profits to keep fuel prices low was akin to a ‘fighting over
the spoils’ in order to be popular.
Anwar answered that
Pakatan Rakyat’s policy was not to touch Petronas’ coffers but the
dividends the company returns to the government and denied that he was
trying to be popular.
“The amount we specified - 50 sen -
is not an amount which is overboard. This is an early measure. Shabery
said I promised more. Correct.
“The reason why I said
it is an early measure is because the negative effects on the economy
(caused by fuel price hikes) is not supported by the people. It is only
supported by Barisan Nasional MPs,” he said with a wide smile.
But Shabery failed to answer
Meanwhile
Anwar’s appointed panelist, Siasah editor Zulkifli Sulong, then asked
Shabery on the government’s claim that the RM4 billion saved from the
March 2006 fuel hike to be spent on improving public transport.
“But
according to what was told in Parliament, only RM834.7 million was
spent. How did this happen? This time however, the government can save
RM13 billion… what would happen to the ‘bigger savings’ this time?” asked Zulkifli.
Shabery
shot down Zulkifli’s question by saying that at the time of
announcement, oil prices were US$70 per barrel while now it was US$140
per barrel, but did not respond to the question on public transport.
Instead
Shabery went to talk about how Venezuela and Iran had low oil prices
but staggeringly high inflation and how the Malaysian government had
weathered through the ongoing food crisis and still keep rice prices
lower than even Thailand, a rice producer.
“So what we’re trying to say is that (problems) can be solved with proper subsidies.
"We
don’t have to have street rallies and we should thank God that we can
gather here today (to debate) and not get involved in obscene concerts,” he said, who received wild applause from half of 300-strong crowd who were supporters from BN.
Zulkifli
tried to jump in to say that Shabery did not answer his question but
this was waved off by moderator Johan (right), who asked the magazine
editor to ask his question to Anwar.
Record profits for Petronas
Zulkifli
then proceeded to quiz Anwar on Tabung Warisan (Vision Fund), which the
opposition leader had established during his tenure as deputy premier.
Anwar
explained that the fund was established at a time when there was a
budget surplus and the intention was to save a portion of Petronas’
funds for future use. But the fund was not expanded, lamented Anwar.
Anwar then took the opportunity to rebut Shabery’s use of Venezuela and Iran as examples.
He
said a survey for sundry goods would show that prices have increased,
surpassing the official inflation rate as a result of the sharp rise in
fuel prices.
According to Anwar, there was no direct correlation of high subsidies with high inflation as argued by Shabery.
“So
the minister’s observation of inflation contradicts the government’s
decision (to raise fuel prices) - that if fuel prices are raised,
inflation would not go up - who thought them such economic theories?” he said to laughter from the opposition supporters.
"Venezuela and Iran may have low oil price, high inflation. We have high oil price, high inflation."
Anwar
than said that there were efforts to distort the issue of fuel price
hikes when the country was making record profits from soaring crude oil
prices.
Shabery: Flaws in Anwar’s arguments
Nordin
then asked Shabery why Anwar had chose to lower fuel prices, instead of
lowering taxes, providing home rental schemes and putting a lid on
inflation at around three percent.
Agreeing with Nordin,
Shabery said there were several flaws in Anwar’s arguments and that
Malaysia was not even among the top 20 oil exporters and it should not
be compared to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.
“We’ve been
taking oil for a hundred year. We’re at the final stages. We’re a net
exporter, but a small one. Only 26 percent of Petronas’s money come
from our oil. The rest comes from its investments (overseas),” he said.
In
view Malaysia becoming a net oil importer in 2015, Shabery said that it
was incumbent upon Petronas to use its profits to invest in other
countries.
“Thanks to Dr Mahathir (Mohamad), Petronas has
operations in 33 countries. (The company) is now one of the biggest and
the best in the world. Don’t make Petronas poor. We must be realistic.
We don’t have that much oil,” he said.
Round 4: They get to ask one question each
The fourth phase of the debate involved the two participants asking each other a question.
In
a lengthy comment-cum-question, Anwar asked Shabery why the media was
used to distort the opposition’s message when it had argued that our
oil resource could have been better managed.
In retorting,
Shabery labelled the opposition’s message as “populist” as it implied
that fuel price hikes were the result of corruption and government
leakages.
“We can accept this if the fuel price increase
in this country was an isolated case. Anwar appears to deny that the
whole world has to pay for higher fuel prices,” he said.
Shabery again revisited his argument when Anwar revolted against the government.
“He
incited students to take action on Baling. But when he was deputy prime
minister, Baling’s problems were never solved. Talk is cheap,” he said.
Without
skipping a beat, Shabery continued to rain verbal blows on Anwar by
arguing that the problems involving the IPPs were during the deputy
premier’s tenure.
“It’s now difficult for us to change the (IPP) contracts, because these contracts were supported by Anwar before,” he added.
“Anwar
likes to say that he is victimised by the media. But when he was in the
government, would such a opportunity (to debate on live TV) be given to
an opposition leader?” asked Shabery.
Shabery said that
Anwar, when he was deputy premier, had favoured economic policies which
mirrored those of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) which the
information minister claimed had caused many small businesses to fold.
Shabery
also challenged Anwar to name a country which enjoys high subsidies and
did not have high rates of inflation at the same time.
‘Slashing subsidies is an IMF policy‘
Following
this, it was Shabery’s turn to quiz Anwar. The information minister
proceeded to ask if Anwar would consider removing subsidies only when
Malaysia runs out of oil in 2015.
Anwar answered that the
Petronas reports had specified that Malaysia would be a net importer of
oil by 2015 on the premise that no more oil wells would be found in the
coming years.
On the IPPs, Anwar said although it was approved
when he was finance minister, he and former TNB chairperson Ani Arope
had opposed the Economic Planning Unit and then Prime Minister Dr
Mahathir Mohamad’s decision on those contracts.
Anwar then
turned the tables on Shabery by pointing out that government’s aim of
implementing market prices for fuel was an IMF policy.
“Whose idea was it to raise fuel prices sharply? This is an IMF prescription,” he said to the applause from part of the audience.
He
added that he was slandered time and again for kowtowing to IMF during
the 1997 economic crisis and he would gladly debate the issue at
another forum.
Petronas has today announced that it would pay
a ‘special dividend’ of RM6 billion to the government which Anwar said
could be used to help keep pump prices low.
Final round
For
the final round of the debate, Johan again asked Anwar why the need to
form a new government instead of providing feedback to the present
government.
Anwar said he chose to attend the debate to
provide feedback to his colleagues in Umno and Barisan Nasional, who he
said should be open minded to new ideas.
“That is why I’m here. I’m not the prime minister. In fact, I don’t even know what will happen to me in a few days,” he quipped.
Again,
referring to Shabery’s earlier example of how countries with cheap fuel
had high inflation rates, Anwar reiterated that Malaysia on the other
hand was hit by both high fuel prices and high inflation.
“The
difference is, their fuel is cheap, but inflation is high. Malaysia
fuel prices are now high and even higher inflation. This is not a
populist (message). I’m worried that if we don’t have better economic
policies… we would lose our competitive edge,” he said.
Shabery’s
however, chose to begin his remarks by stating that Anwar now blamed
Mahathir for the IPP contracts and quoted a famous phrase used by Anwar
to praise the former premier in the past.
“He once said that new constellations could be named Mahathir and Siti Hasmah. If he didn’t agree then, he could have resigned,” he said.
Shabery
reiterated his position that Anwar should stick to his pre-election
pledge and use RM1.92 per litre of fuel as his benchmark.
“Are
we to say that fuel prices in this country would become cheaper and
cheaper as global oil prices become more expensive? Eventually, the
country would be burdened. This is not healthy economics,” he said.
Shabery
also revealed that Petronas Berhad, which is part of Petronas group,
had given the government 9.1 percent of its earnings and the rest were
used for further investment.
“Would Petronas be in its (strong) position today if not for Umno and Barisan Nasional?” he asked.
Closing remarks
Following this, the two participants were both given 90 seconds to make their concluding remarks.
Anwar
stressed that the recent fuel price hike was too steep and cited
theories that there will be a “break point” soon in oil prices and
there was a possibility of prices dropping.
“We suggested
(the 50 sen discount) with responsibility, because I’m sure that the
government under Abdullah Ahmad Badawi - who knows how long it will
last - continues with its policies, in two or three months, our economy
would be crippled.
“If you don’t agree with this, it’s
alright. But please listen carefully and objectively - we are committed
to continue carrying this message to the people,” he said.
Anwar added that he does not want to answer the personal attacks by Shabery because the debate was not the appropriate forum.
Shabery
in closing said that there was no reason to oppose Abdullah’s
leadership because the prime minister does not take more than what is
needed from Petronas.
“Now we see attempts to incite people to hold demonstrations, such as what had happened in 1974. Will this solve our problems?” he asked.
The
minister said that should Petronas be drained of its funds, the company
would become poorer and may eventually have to be sold off.
Anwar then walked over to Shabery to shake his hand.
** Specially thanks to bro MACG provided the above Debate details **
thanks ya, Ah Nie.**
