I am pretty sure that there were many eyes watching the debate at Astro Awani Channel 501 and some could here through Bernama Radio 24.
What can we say about the debate?
Both presented their case and their point of view in interesting manner. Indeed their arguments, rebuttals and counter arguments between them excites the spectators, listeners and followers of the debate.
In the first part of the debate, we were presented with numbers by both sides. YB Khairy has given his, and Rafizi presented his calculations. Of course, to verify those numbers on the spot were a little bit difficult, but based on both, I think Rafizi has left out some of the cost elements, such as maintenance, salary paid to staff working for the education institutions and cost running the institutions. Perhaps, we can verify the numbers when both of them put up in their blogs.
Another point that I think Rafizi has mislead the debate spectators and followers was on the TS Tajuddin Ramli’s case. The debt of RM580 million owed by him was met with an arrangement with Danaharta by out of court settlement, not the debt is being waived. I am pretty sure, being an accountant himself, Rafizi should know the difference between settlement and waived. Therefore, I hope Rafizi can rectify the point given in the debate in regards to TS Tajuddin Ramli’s debt with Danaharta.
Also another highlight is the restriction made on those who are unable to pay that lead to blacklist. In a normal non-paying-debt, 3 months non-service non-performing loan enough to make a person hard to move around. However, for PTPTN, only after 22 months of non-servicing PTPTN loan, effected individual will be blacklisted. So, is it fair or not fair, a person being blacklisted and not allowed to go oversea after 22 months not servicing his or her loan? I leave it to the readers to use rationale. 🙂
In brief, I am fine with all the arguments given by both sides. However, there’s one argument made by Rafizi that irritated me so much. That was when he said the IPTS under Pakatan Rakyat’s care were inherited from Barisan Nasional. Being a strategic director for PKR with claiming himself to be an accountant, I think that is very much a lame excuse for not being able to reduce the fee (what more to waive the fee!!!).
So, as a conclusion, what can we get from the debate? Jumping joy and loud support each time they presented their arguments? What can we learn?
Anyway, if one can noticed, I posted in my twitter a question that have been buzzing in my head since Tuesday morning, which indirectly related with how Rafizi presented some of his arguments, and how some other Pakatan Rakyat has been arguing when touching economy. The question also related to few questions I received in relation to oil royalty and Kelantan. What is the question?
There are 4 states under Pakatan Rakyat’s management – Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Kelantan. Out of these 4, three of the states do not dependant on oil royalty, but yet performing better than Kelantan. How and why that happens? Why is it for Kelantan, oil royalty being used as an excuse for being one of the least performing states in Malaysia? Why Penang, Kedah and Selangor, without oil royalty can out perform Kelantan?
Whatever it is, I hope my dear readers can learn as much from the debate between YB Khairy and Rafizi.
Question on the street: What have you learn from the debate?