If the 'great Malaysian debate' on the Internal Security Act (ISA) came across like a political talk-show than a challenging of stances, it was not just because of the conditions attached to the police permit.

Apparently, organisers DAP Socialist Youth (Dapsy) and the moderator - Transparency International chairperson Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim - were not aware of the arrangement for the two speakers to wind up their speeches before the event concluded.

As a result, there was no interaction between Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz and parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang after they had each presented their arguments for 45 minutes.

The unprecedented debate, held on Monday night in the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall attracted more the 1,000 people. Some had expressed surprise that there was nothing more than speeches, and asked if the winding-up segment had been cancelled.

Contacted today, Tunku Aziz said both speakers had agreed before the debate that the event would end in two hours, rather than the original duration of three hours.

"Both agreed that this was just a platform to air their views from the government and the opposition sides," he said.

Tunku Aziz said this was not a 'debate' as such, but an opportunity for representatives from two political camps to make their stand on the ISA.

'Use discretion'

The initial schedule was that each speaker would be given 45 minutes, followed by a 30-minute question-and-answer session, and 15 minutes each to wind up. However, the police prohibited questions from the floor as part of the 11 conditions set for issuing the permit.

Organising chairperson, Dapsy national secretary Anthony Loke Siew Fook, professed ignorance of the cancellation of the winding-up session.

He said he was informed that only the question-and-answer session had been cancelled.

"I spoke to the moderator before the debate started and asked if questions would be entertained, but he said the police had barred this. I didn't know the winding-up session had been cancelled too," Loke said.

Out of respect, Loke said he asked the moderator to exercise his discretion as the person who had full control of the debate.

Loke agreed that the organiser and moderator should have a clearer understanding of the arrangement for future events.

Declining to discuss the matter further, however, he pointed out that the objective of the event had been achieved.

"We have proved to the police that we have the ability to hold a public debate in an organised and peaceful way. We hope the police will be more open to future applications," he added.