Being overseas, I missed this so-called “historical debate”.
However, from what I gathered around the blogs and their comments, Anwar Ibrahim had come out stronger after the live debate with Shaberry Cheek. Though it really did not matter who won or lost. The most important point to make is whether one has answered the questions and whether his answers made sense.
According to many observations, Anwar focussed on the issue at hand, hike in fuel prices, and tried to offer practical suggestions to reduce the prices, whether he was right or wrong was immaterial, as this was a debate, where as Shaberry relied on personal attacks against Anwar’s person.
According to some bloggers, Shabbery did not even answer some questions and deflected alot during the debate, saying that the hike in oil prices wasn’t the government’s fault, it was “global”.
Now why did Shaberry do that? Isn’t it silly and a total lost of TV time? But it’s ok Shaberry must be thinking, coz it’s the government’s money. But are the people paying for it?
Some pro-UMNO bloggers, of course, could not be neutral enough, and say Shaberry did “quite well”. You can also get the same run-down (or non-commital reviews like ‘no clear winner?) I guess with the mainstream newspaper like New Sttaits Times, Star and the Sun?
Someone even said that Shaberry was trying to suck up to Najib Tun Razak: see hiroblog2007.
Anyway, since I had no idea about the debate, perhaps you could tell me what you think?