United
States
TV debate: An eye opener
Superior debating skill has allowed underdog Kerry to catch
up with Bush; in it lies a lesson for Singapore's
aspiring politicians. By Seah Chiang Nee
Oct 16, 2004
Few
of us who watched the three TV debates between John Kerry
and George Bush cannot but admire the level of their thrust-and-take
skill, especially that of the Democrat challenger.
Some
say Kerry had won simply because he was more prepared than
President Bush, but it is more than that.
His
articulate, fast thinking retorts show him up as the more
intelligent man, who had a better grasp of issues that matter
to Americans.
It may
or may not win him the presidency, but if it did, it would
have been the result of his skill and the expressions that
TV revealed.
On Sept
24, before the first encounter, Bush had led Kerry by 8
points – 52-44% - in a Gallup poll. Today they are
levelled at 49% each.
Majority
public perception is that Kerry was, by far, the winner
in two encounters with one (the 2nd) drawn. Even on this,
there’s no unanimity.
For
longtime observers of Asia’s politics, the question
is: Why is there such a gap in oratorical skill between
US politicians and our own.
Leaving
aside what is right or wrong, there are only a handful of
leaders with debating skills that win over the masses.
Debate,
of course, does not mean a stirring speech. It is not the
same as emotional rhetoric over loudspeakers history was
occasionally bombarded with from the likes of Suharto and
Hitler.
These
dictators could deliver speeches but never had to answer
tough questions in a public debate like Bush and Kerry did.
Few
politicians in Asia are good debaters anywhere matching
Lee Kuan Yew, S. Rajaratnam or Goh Keng Swee because it
lacks the tradition, culture or history that creates them.
For
most countries, it is neither an innate ability nor one
easily acquired. Singapore is, by and large, no exception.
Even
in the 21st Century, the republic has an environment where
most people find it disagreeable to disagree or tell someone
he is wrong to his face.
Few
schools today nourish debating skill as a policy for all
students, although some have debating teams for competition.
As a
rule we have always chosen our politicians from scholars,
businessmen and successful executives, many of them for
their high grades. Debating skill commands no premium.
After
watching the US debates I am convinced me some rethinking
is necessary to prepare for the future.
In the
next three to four general elections, as the opposition
parties attract talent and the voters gain maturity, politics
may evolve around the US concept of public debate.
A TV
debate allows voters to exercise sound judgment on a candidate’s
intelligence and sincerity, provided the majority is able
to distinguish between empty air and substance.
It will
show whether he has the ability to think on his feet, a
quick intelligence, in the face of adversity, to form rational
policies in today’s complex world.
The
People’s Action Party’s overwhelming strength
has done two things.
Firstly,
it makes debating ability less necessary and secondly, it
doesn’t provide the test needed to mold it. Mr. Lee
Kuan Yew and his colleagues were good because they had strong
rivals who gave him plenty of practice.
Today’s
calm, controlled politics doesn’t offer them the tests
needed; the opposition or the public does not provide them
the challenge.
But
in future, things will change. History is a long time, and
the new generation of Singaporeans, exposed to the outside
world, will also.
The
Republic will then need politicians who will be more than
technocrats or problem solvers but also skilled in arguing
to support their policies against strong critics.
The
Bush-Kerry kind of debate will happen in Singapore –
but it will take time.
By then
each minister will have to be able to stand on his or her
feet and slug it out with strong critics, watched and judged
by the public.
What
we have today are ministers who have a host of skills (Lee
Kuan Yew says they are the best scoured from the land),
but most are not as articulate as Lee Hsien Loong or George
Yeo or Teo Chee Hean.
Now
back to Bush-Kerry debate. The reactions culled from BBC
also tell me one important thing.
Firstly,
oratorical skill for a leader is not emotional rhetoric.
A good debater may not make a good leader without sound
ideas and performance.
In fact,
Kerry’s TV victory may not necessary make him winner,
judging from the trend of comments from American voters.
Overall, it is a contest in which any man can win.
But
on the issue of debate skill versus substance, here are
a few of the comments in BBC’s Talking Point: -
I vote
based on the substance of debate rather than who apparently
wins a debate. The debate winner does not necessarily make
a good president.
Kevin,
USA
Kerry
was clearly more composed and articulate with his responses.
Bush's response that people who lost their jobs should get
money to go to junior college to develop their skills has
got to be the dumbest reply I have ever heard. What if that
person had a Phd?
A Jimenez,
Chicago, Illinois
Bush
won on substance, Kerry won on style. So even though technically
Bush won, polls will show it a tie.
Justin Hughes,
Tacoma,
USA
Mr.
Kerry clearly appeared stronger in this debate than he did
in the second.. I think he clearly has integrity, a real
plan for America and the ability to unite this country to
have that vision realised.
Maura Manning, MD,
Prospect, Ohio, USA
Bush
was being real, while Kerry was trying to appeal. Kerry
will say and do whatever he thinks will get him votes while
Bush stands firm on his beliefs and principles. Bush won
this debate.
Evan,
Pittsburgh,
PA, USA
I thought
that President Bush was the clear winner. Kerry's long and
boring answers were full of air, with no substance. Bush
spoke in earnest, and his positions were clear.
Jim,
Miami, Fla. USA
Kerry
wins again. Bush was not as horribly inept as he was in
the first debate, but he still did not have a firm grasp
of the facts. He seems out of touch with what the average
Americans really needs and wants. Rebecca Satterberg,
Los Gatos
USA
Again,
John Kerry was, without question, the more intelligent and
intelligible, the better prepared, the candidate that showed
strength, consistency and understanding of American and
world issues. Bush is a child pretending to be president
in comparison.
Regan Gill,
Berkeley, CA USA
I still
can't trust Kerry to really do anything he promises. Why
didn't he do anything during his 20 years in the senate?
All talk and no action. Sorry Kerry I'm going with the other
guy.
S Kym,
Los Angeles, Ca
Bush won hands down without a doubt. Kerry only spoke to
the cameras, but Bush spoke with his heart to the American
people.
Sean Su,
New York, USA
Kerry
says he has a plan, but you never hear the substance. He's
simply a politician.
Kathy Kiepert,
Menomonee Falls, WI
Oct 16, 2004
