Deconstructing Anwar-Najib Debate – Democratic Progress or Degression

Some quarters suggest that the recent publicly held debate between former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim is a sign of "maturing politics" and can lead to "more” democracy in our country.

However, some questioned, how is a debate between a convicted felon and a prominent opposition leader a sign of "mature politics" from any angle! This appears more as a mockery of good governance and integrity and an insult to democracy, our country and the rakyat.

As EMIR Research recently put it in its article "Technocratic legal bailout framework to arrest 'bailout-preneurship'", the situation around Sapura very neatly falls into the definition of "bailout-preneurship" or yet another type of corruption cartel in our country where in a very symbiotic relationship government-linked companies, banks and government work together first to draw money out and then use people's money to clean up the mess.

Therefore, on a topic like this, Najib, given his conviction and array of corruption charges, should be the last person on earth to be given the right even to open his mouth and express an opinion or any "advise" as he has completely and overwhelmingly discredited himself as a policymaker and leader.

When this convicted felon even raised his head to comment on this issue, he should have been immediately pointed to his place. But what do we see instead?

We see him on the national TV expressing his opinion, remarkably, not just on the Sapura bailout issue but on the Malaysian economy prospects and way forward as if this is his election campaign. And how was he introduced at the beginning of the program? With Anwar, he was presented as a "big" or "prominent figure" in national politics. How is this possible after all that he has done? How is this a sign of mature politics or democratic progress?

As it transpires, there is a movement to re-legitimise Najib in line with the Overton window opportunity strategy (Figure 1) - when something completely unacceptable is gradually turned into a widely accepted norm.

First, we see him freely walking around while being charged and convicted for corruption in court, then campaigning in Johore elections, then having a seat among the royalties, and now appearing on national TV side by side with an indeed prominent opposition leader to give "HIS VIEWS” on Malaysia's way forward.

We all know well that to "change its political landscape" Malaysia must take a definitive and firm stance against pervasive corruption. By now, Najib, instead of appearing on TV shining in all the limelight, should have been behind bars together with his high-profile companions. And such decisiveness and a firm stance against corruption should start emanating from the political will in the first place. And until this is not done, we also should not expect maturity from our leaders - focus on rakyat and nation-building.

As for the content of the debate itself, Anwar Ibrahim has clearly had the upper hand in it not because of his oratory skills and vocalness but because of the weight, essence, precision and total sense of the arguments he brought in.

Speaking of Sapura, he has stressed the importance of a complete forensic audit as the first and foremost step before even considering a bailout.

It is more than suspicious why Sapura bailout proponents, including Najib, vehemently oppose such a fair idea.

They try to create a sense of urgency by arguing that forensics would take time while Sapura's creditors have petitioned its bankruptcy on June 10, 2022. However, this is not something that cannot be solved through a proper process.

As the first step, the government should negotiate for a delay in petitioning the bankruptcy, indicating to the creditors its interest in proper restructuring and reorganising Sapura to save the company, including what is due to the creditors. Creditors will surely be more than happy to accept this, as the recovery possibilities will be much higher.

Upon obtaining this delay, as EMIR Research earlier suggested in "Technocratic legal bailout framework to arrest 'bailoutpreneurship'", the proper bailout process should include: