籌備一場五大政治陣營同台的政策辯論，與從未合作過的組織合作，還要兼顧日常的工作，對我來說其實相當吃力，辯論落幕之後，至今尚未緩過來，頭腦還是昏昏沉沉的。這樣的狀態，本不適合寫文章，但又怕大選之後寫，更加沒人願意看，就只好匆匆提筆，把感想寫下來。當天義氣相挺出席幫忙的友人有建議我發新聞稿總結當天的活動，只可惜我真的太累太多事情要思考要處理，嚴肅的文章就無能為力了，在自己塗鴉牆寫寫感想應該也算是採納了建議。
這場政策辯論對我來說其實是一場賭博。雖然我早在向公司提議時就已說明，嚴肅的政策辯論無論在宣傳上還是提升書店業績上，都可能沒有太大的助力，雖然我早已將這項活動的利弊分析清楚，並且得到了公司的支持，但我知道如果真的沒有引起大眾的關注，公司還是會覺得我浪費資源，甚至會私底下覺得我在公器私用，目的只是為了推廣我喜歡的辯論和我奉行的公共說理理念。我賭的，是媒體和大眾看到這場政策辯論背後的價值，成功引起廣泛的關注和效仿，那我就比較能向公司交代，以後也比較有機會再辦一次。
就目前的結果而言，我應該是賭輸了。由於我們的準備非常倉促，主辦和協辦組織之間的磨合和溝通效率低下，宣傳力度不足，時間日期和地點皆不利於群眾參與等因素，我們其實並未引起眾多媒體的關注。政策辯論當天，應該只有三、四家媒體到場，而目前也只有FMT和Malay Mail有報導刊登出來。最令我感到失望的是當今大馬沒有記者出席，這是我認為最有可能了解這場辯論的核心價值的媒體了。
即便有報導總比沒報導好，但報導的重點落在主講人身上，對主辦方一筆帶過，更遑論對這場辯論想要傳達的訊息有所著墨了。
其實，為了這活動我用英文寫了開幕詞，裡面陳述了我對這場辯論的一些想像，呼籲大眾效仿，讓政策辯論成為大選時期政治參與的另一種可能。可惜，匆匆寫就（直到活動開始前一小時犧牲一半的午餐時間寫就），英文也不算很好，或許詞不達意，加上當天並未如想像般展示演說的魅力，媒體聽而不聞，其實也很難責難他們。
為了彌補，我事後修改了講稿，附於此文之後，希望能讓多一些人知道我想幹什麼。沒什麼大野心妄想一場活動能改變當下政治參與的趨勢，也沒有想做開風氣的第一人，因為政策辯論早已不是什麼新鮮事。我想要的是在既有的基礎上完善政策辯論的制度，讓大眾能夠更有效地議政，以及推廣公共說理的風氣，僅此而已。
開幕詞講稿：
Thank you everyone for coming. We are short of time, and I have many to cover, so I will have to skip the formalities.
I wanted to start my speech with a demonstration of opening statement, which is one of the three major sessions of policy debate that will start very soon.
It is uncommon for an opening speech to be a demonstration, but a demonstration will promote better understanding of what this debate is all about. Besides, what I wanted to say in this speech is like a policy suggested to all voters across Malaysia. So a demonstration is appropriate in my opinion.
Here's my opening statement:
I suggest that voters focus more on candidate's policy, and consider the feasibility of a policy instead of the affiliations of candidates during elections.
Before we design a policy, we must first identify and analyse the problem we want to tackle. There will be no need for a new policy if there is nothing we wanted to change. Hence, there are scores allocated for the necessity of a policy in this debate.
So what's wrong with the situation right now? As mentioned earlier, it is the lack of systematic and in-depth policy discussion in our society.
Most of you here must have been to political ceramah, since it was the most common and accessible way of engaging political affairs for voters during elections. I am sure you all aware that, a political ceramah don't usually talk about policy and actual solutions to the problems we have, they talk about visions. Most of the time, the audiences don't even have chance to ask critical questions, and unable to follow up, due to immense pressure from challenging speakers of the ceramah infront of their fans and followers. A ceramah is by design, not suitable for policy discussion.
However, the purpose of elections is to elect policy makers, and voters are like the interviewers for a company called Malaysia. If the most common way for voters to participate in politics does not involve systematic and in-depth policy discussion, how can we expect voters to make informed decisions when casting a vote? How can voters hold candidate accountable when we know so little about their plan? We should blame ourselves when candidate we elected don't take their manifesto seriously, the voters doesn't care about policies apparently.
Voters nowadays focus on who to support, but policy is the fundamental of changes, not the candidates. When we put candidate into parliament, it does not bring changes automatically, there must be policies for changes to happen.
Hence, it's necessary for voters to engage in policy discussions, if we want good governance, and bring about positive changes.
Now I will cover the effectiveness of my policy. Whatever the policy is, if it cannot solve the problem we faced, then it's pointless of having one.
In our case, I think this event will indeed, improve the quality of policy discussion in our society, for obvious reason. We are promoting policy discussions right now.
On top of that, our format of discussion is designed to ensure constructive, systematic and in-depth policy discussion.
Take a few examples, moderator can stop candidate from talking things irrelevant to policies, so the discussion stay on topic. Voters are also allowed to ask follow up question as long as it is relavant. We make sure candidate have limited time to answer, so more voters can ask more questions. And we design a scoresheet for feasibility of a policy as a guideline for candidate, so they know what a feasible policy looks like from a voter's perspective.
This format of discussion is definitely more effective than ordinary ceramah, and will improve overall quality of policy discussion if widely implemented.
I'm done covering the necessity and effectiveness of my policy, but it's not complete without comparing the benefits and cost. A feasible policy must be necessary and effective, and the pros must outweigh the cons.
I mentioned the pros earlier in this speech, including promoting better policy discussion, better governance, and better accountability.
The main disadvantage of this event is, it's not entertaining, and to some extent, it's tiring. But I believe most voters will agree, lack of entertainment and discomfort were never really a deal breaker in political participation. When we compare disadvantage of this event to the positive changes it will bring about, the pros definitely outweigh the cons.
I shall end my demonstration here, as I've covered the three main elements, namely the necessity, the effectiveness and the cost benefits analysis of policy discussion.
But it's not the end of my speech.
I want to end my speech here with gratitudes towards candidates that present today. Regardless of your affiliations and identity, I think all of you here deserve a round of applause because you are courages enough to accept our invitation. This shows that you're willing to take policy discussion seriously, and see it as an essential part of your job as a policy maker. I hope you come prepared, and stay open minded to various challenges from voters. Good luck.
Thank you.
沒有留言:
張貼留言