We hear of proposals and counter proposals for talk shows or so-called debates relating to 1MDB.
So far, we had Arul's explanations to Umno and MCA, as well as a televised interview. But all these were acceptable because they conformed with his requirement or condition, which was his explanations to pliant audience or according to script.
Then came the challenge from Tony to Arul for a debate. Arul accepted with the condition that Tony first resigns from PAC, and after much criticisms, followed by his unconditional acceptance. But to everybody's surprise, Parliament Speaker threw a tantrum that he would resign if the debate were to be held. Tony was unwilling to risk his position in PAC merely for a debate with Arul. As a compromise, Rafizi is to replace Tony, hopefully acceptable to Arul. Meanwhile, critics from both sides of the political divide accused the candidates as cowards for not accepting the challenge for one reason or other. Even Shabery Cheek feigned ignorance of the Speaker's order, asked why Tony had been replaced with Rafizi, as if he just woke up and missed the Speaker's tantrum.
But as it turned out, the new PAC Chairman announced that Tony cannot make any statement relating to 1MDB, even if outside Parliament. Some people joked that he cannot even dream about 1MDB now.
What the opposition leaders like Tony Pua and Rafizi want are truthful answers to their well crafted questions to elicit the truth from Arul. As we all know by now, much efforts had been taken to prevent revelation of the truth. So how can Arul be subjected, like a sitting duck, to answer questions which are likely to implicate his boss? It is so obviously unacceptable to Arul, and it is not going to be a debate at all, more like an inquiry.
Without documentary proof, whatever answers given during a televised show, if not satisfactory to Tony or Rafizi, will remain as doubtful, until investigations are completed by competent authorities and their reports are published.
I see no point in any future talk show or so-called debate because the public will be disappointed. After all the trouble, which included obvious misuse of power, the public will never get to the truth of the matter.
Link
So far, we had Arul's explanations to Umno and MCA, as well as a televised interview. But all these were acceptable because they conformed with his requirement or condition, which was his explanations to pliant audience or according to script.
Then came the challenge from Tony to Arul for a debate. Arul accepted with the condition that Tony first resigns from PAC, and after much criticisms, followed by his unconditional acceptance. But to everybody's surprise, Parliament Speaker threw a tantrum that he would resign if the debate were to be held. Tony was unwilling to risk his position in PAC merely for a debate with Arul. As a compromise, Rafizi is to replace Tony, hopefully acceptable to Arul. Meanwhile, critics from both sides of the political divide accused the candidates as cowards for not accepting the challenge for one reason or other. Even Shabery Cheek feigned ignorance of the Speaker's order, asked why Tony had been replaced with Rafizi, as if he just woke up and missed the Speaker's tantrum.
But as it turned out, the new PAC Chairman announced that Tony cannot make any statement relating to 1MDB, even if outside Parliament. Some people joked that he cannot even dream about 1MDB now.
What the opposition leaders like Tony Pua and Rafizi want are truthful answers to their well crafted questions to elicit the truth from Arul. As we all know by now, much efforts had been taken to prevent revelation of the truth. So how can Arul be subjected, like a sitting duck, to answer questions which are likely to implicate his boss? It is so obviously unacceptable to Arul, and it is not going to be a debate at all, more like an inquiry.
Without documentary proof, whatever answers given during a televised show, if not satisfactory to Tony or Rafizi, will remain as doubtful, until investigations are completed by competent authorities and their reports are published.
I see no point in any future talk show or so-called debate because the public will be disappointed. After all the trouble, which included obvious misuse of power, the public will never get to the truth of the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment