SOME quarters suggest that the recent debate between Anwar Ibrahim and Najib Razak is a sign of “maturing politics” and can lead to “more” democracy in our country.

However, some questioned how a debate between an opposition leader and convicted felon can be a sign of “mature politics” from any angle. This appears more a mockery of good governance and integrity and an insult to democracy, and our country and people.

As Emir Research recently put it in its article Technocratic legal bailout framework to arrest “bailout-preneurship”, the situation around Sapura Energy Bhd 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 the 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 to open his mouth and express any “advice” or opinion, as he has completely and overwhelmingly discredited himself as a leader and policymaker.

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

We see him on national television expressing his opinion, remarkably, not just on the Sapura Energy bailout, but also on economic prospects and the way forward as if this is his election campaign.

And how was he introduced at the beginning of the programme? 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 though charged and convicted for corruption in court, then campaigning in the Johor polls, then sitting among the royals, and now appearing on national television alongside an indeed prominent opposition leader to give his views on the way forward for the country.

We all know to “change its political landscape”, Malaysia must take a definitive and firm stance against pervasive corruption.

By now, Najib, instead of appearing on TV, should be behind bars together with his high-profile companions.

Such decisiveness and firm stance against pervasive corruption should start emanating from political will in the first place. Until this is done, we should not expect maturity from our leaders – focus on the people and nation-building.

As for the content of the debate itself, Anwar clearly had the upper hand not because of his oratory skills and vocal-ness, but the essence, precision, weight and total sense of his arguments.

Speaking of Sapura Energy, he 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 bailout proponents, including Najib, vehemently oppose such an idea. They try to create a sense of urgency by arguing that forensics will take time, while creditors have petitioned its bankruptcy on June 10, 2022.

However, this is not something that cannot be solved through a proper process.

As a first step, the government should negotiate for a delay in petitioning the bankruptcy, indicating to creditors its interest in proper restructuring and reorganising to save the company, including what is due to creditors.

Upon obtaining this delay, the proper bailout process should include:

- Assessing and asserting the company’s viability as a going concern;

- Bailout sum to be exchanged for fair percentage of equity in the company so the government will be able to benefit from the upside in the future. No more free monies;

- A thorough forensic audit of book-keeping, capital management, governance structure, approval process, vendor payment process, etc.;

- Tying the bailout to a moratorium on dividend payments or share buybacks, as well as bonuses and other types of remunerations to the top management and board of directors for the time, while the company is benefiting from the government support;

- Curbing excessive executive pay;

- Revision of long-term incentive plans and bonuses;

- Requirement of payroll maintenance;

- Demand all creditors receive haircuts;

- Ousting the management that presided over the company and found guilty of mismanagement (why a forensic audit is essential) and imposing a clawback on their salaries and remunerations.

The above is only a fair process when public funds are involved, and some of these steps were emphasised in the debate by Anwar.

Speaking of the future of Malaysia, Anwar talked about widespread corruption and the so-called “tummy economy” – the people’s livelihood woes, such as cost of living, healthcare, housing, as well as the quality of education and employment.

He suggested the pathway towards resolving these issues, among other things, include starting with eradicating corruption, establishing standards for correct management with proper accountability and integrity, and getting rid of historical identity politics as time has changed.

Note that Najib did not mention this, likely because racial/identity politics remain central to the Barisan Nasional/Umno narrative to appeal to its political support base.

Therefore the concept of a more “inclusive” Malaysia or 1Malaysia or Keluarga Malaysia is mere empty rhetoric.

In striking contrast to Anwar, Najib came up with the “relict solutions” that brought the country down to its knees and contributed more to the problem than solved it.

He spoke about the necessity to continue investing in big infrastructure projects – “making the cake bigger” – which Anwar immediately countered is to be enjoyed by only the elite few.

“Making the cake bigger” reflects the overused rhetoric of the high-income advanced economy, whereby there are two overarching issues:

1) How the cake is grown, i.e. legally, ethically, etc.; and,

2) How the increased size of the cake is shared/cut to ensure better equitable sharing of wealth?

Time has also changed rapidly since 2016, together with the advancement of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR).

With the advancement of 4IR, no one is talking about the economies of scale and big infrastructure projects. Instead, the focus is now on micro, lean, small, agile, start-ups – all coming together like pieces of a puzzle to form a thriving ecosystem. And Najib was unable to grasp this neither during his tenure nor now.

Najib claimed that during his administration, Gini coefficient was reducing, while two months into the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration, Gini coefficient increased.

We must understand that the Gini coefficient, calculated based on income and its distribution, is an indicator lagging behind the overall national industry development.

To evaluate Malaysia’s industrial development based on available data, during Najib’s tenure, foreign direct investment as a GDP percentage, value added by industry as GDP percentage and economic growth forecast have all been in a declining trend.

Export as GDP percentage fell from 91.42% (in 2009) to 68.56% (in 2018). Youth unemployment and underemployment saw an increasing trend.

Our global innovation index has been in permanent steep decline since 2013. Our technical skills and talents have been stagnant or deteriorating over the last few years.

Not to mention the ballooning government debt throughout Najib’s administration. And the list goes on.

So, unsurprisingly, we saw a Gini coefficient hike when PH took over. This is not to say that PH did not contribute to the problems faced by Malaysia.

All in all, public debates between political leaders are good. However, there must be a debate motion and resolution in the best interest of the people.

Also, why was the public not allowed to express their opinion in real-time, as the debate takes place in our time of advanced technologies? Why do we hear only two choreographed questions from a probably carefully selected audience? How about real-time fact-checking for all the facts stated in the debate, as more developed and democratic economies do?

Nevertheless, there is good news, which is the reaction of the people to all of this. They have correctly deciphered all these events, and their reaction is correct – an avalanche of anger, disgust, resentment and infuriation that even Najib’s paid cyber-troopers cannot combat.

Now they need to keep this momentum of being angry enough to close the Overton window of opportunity for kleptocrats in the upcoming general election and finally set the country on the path of progressiveness and economic sense. – May 17, 2022.

* Rais Hussin is CEO of Emir Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.