Three against One on TV1's Debat Perdana

TV1’s Debat Perdana (Premier Debate) series has been a welcome change from the lacklustre forums that used to grace RTM’s regular programme schedule in the past.

The series is one of the rare occasions when opposition politicians have been allowed to appear – and to actually speak – on television. For this alone, credit should be given to RTM. The opposition speakers, however, were up against great odds.

The 'live' debate last night on the topic "Racial Interaction Enhances Unity" featured two opposition speakers in a panel of four - comprising a DAP MP (Chong Eng), the PAS youth head, the vice-chancellor of UiTM, an UMNO MP - as well as a moderator. Sparks flew and the audience was held enthralled.

The debate, the third in the series so far, is supposedly aimed at raising public awareness of the need to nurture the spirit of unity from a young age and to promote ethnic integration. The series is a joint effort by the Information Ministry, the Education Ministry, the Higher Education Ministry and the Prime Minister's Department.

For a forum that was discussing racial integration, however, the composition of the panel yesterday was disappointing. There was only one non-Malay (the only woman) out of the five people involved (including the moderator).

Otherwise, on paper, the panel looked okay. One ruling coalition politician, one academic, two opposition politicians, and a moderator.

In practice, however, the “debate” turned out to be three against one – the moderator, the UiTM vice-chancellor (who came off sounding like an UMNO politician), and the UMNO MP ganging up against Chong Eng. At one point, the UiTM vice-chancellor appeared so gung-ho that it prompted Chong Eng to comment that he seemed pretty adept at politics.

The moderator was far from neutral. He repeatedly grilled Chong Eng like she was in the witness box, interrupting and cross-examining her statements as well as demanding “Yes or No” answers to his interrogative questions.

At other times, when Chong Eng raised what appeared to be valid points, she was interrupted or side-tracked. For instance, when she highlighted the bumiputra/non-bumiputra dichotomy and its effect on national unity, the moderator moved on to other issues. Hardly the role a moderator is supposed to play.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe you could argue that the moderator wanted to extract Chong Eng’s real stand on the issue of vernacular schools and racial integration via national schools. Maybe you could say his questions were aimed at following up on Chong Eng’s earlier statements. Fine.

But the question is: why did the moderator not apply the same critical and adversarial approach when dealing with the other speakers? For instance, the UiTM vice-chancellor, who appeared to be visibly irritated with Chong Eng's views, was hardly cross-examined or grilled the same way Chong Eng was.

While RTM should be commended for the series’ concept, it is obvious that the programme last night was stacked against the opposition politicians in a number of ways – mainly via the moderator’s lack of impartiality manifested in his interruptions of dissenting or “sensitive” views from Chong Eng and through his cross-examination of opposition politicians who raise views that are not in line with government thinking. Contrast that with the kid gloves’ approach used when dealing with speakers articulating establishment views.

RTM needs to look into this seriously as this gross bias in handling the “Premier Debate” – a commendable concept on paper - risks turning it into a farce. Unless of course, this bias was purposely introduced into the programme to ensure that the government’s view prevails during the 'live' telecast.