Nada Tinggi Prabowo ke Anies: Saya Tak Takut Tak Punya Jabatan, Sorry Yee

Summary

In this intense political debate, candidates respond to questions about ethical violations and the process of political candidacy. Candidate Prabowo addresses allegations of ethics violations, arguing that legal actions have already been taken, and emphasizes that it is the people who will ultimately decide the outcome. Meanwhile, Candidate Anis criticizes the prevailing 'ordal' system in the country, highlighting its negative impact on meritocracy and ethical standards, especially in hiring and public appointments. The debate touches on deep issues of fairness, democracy, and the power of the people's vote in determining the future leadership.

Takeaways

• 😀 Candidate 2 defends the legality and finality of decisions regarding ethical violations, stating that legal processes and authorities have already acted.
• 😀 Candidate 2 emphasizes that if the public disagrees with him, they have the power to vote him out, highlighting the democratic process as a safeguard for ethical accountability.
• 😀 Candidate 1 critiques the societal phenomenon of 'ordal,' describing it as a systemic issue that undermines meritocracy and ethical standards in various fields, including politics and education.
• 😀 Candidate 1's critique of 'ordal' includes its damaging effects on fairness and its widespread impact, from schools to government institutions.
• 😀 Candidate 1 compares the prevalence of 'ordal' to a national corruption of ethics, illustrating how it hinders progress and ethical decision-making.
• 😀 Both candidates stress that the ultimate decision-making power rests with the people, reinforcing the concept of democratic accountability.
• 😀 Candidate 2 suggests that the legal authorities have already taken appropriate action regarding the alleged ethical violations, leaving no room for further debate.
• 😀 Candidate 1 suggests that unethical practices are not just limited to the political sphere but permeate all levels of society, contributing to a general breakdown in ethics.
• 😀 Candidate 2 responds dismissively to questions about ethical violations, focusing instead on the idea that the decisions made by authorities are final and non-negotiable.
• 😀 Both candidates seem to position themselves as defenders of democratic processes, with Candidate 1 advocating for ethical reform and Candidate 2 defending legal rulings.

Q & A

What event prompted Pak Prabowo's registration as a presidential and vice-presidential candidate?

Pak Prabowo registered as a presidential and vice-presidential candidate with the KPU on the 25th, following a decision by the Constitutional Court (MK).

What was the significance of the MK's decision regarding ethics violations?

The MK formed a panel that concluded there had been significant ethical violations in the decision-making process, raising concerns about the ethical integrity of the MK's decision.

What deadline was given to Pak Prabowo after the MK's decision?

Pak Prabowo had until November 13th to make a decision regarding any changes in his candidacy after the ethical concerns were raised.

How did Pak Prabowo respond to allegations of ethical violations?

Pak Prabowo stated that from a legal perspective, there were no issues, and that the ethical violations had been addressed. He emphasized that the decision was final and could not be changed.

What did Pak Prabowo say about his position and willingness to sacrifice for the country?

Pak Prabowo expressed that he was not afraid of losing his position and was prepared to sacrifice his life for the country, highlighting his dedication to the nation's interests.

What was the main critique voiced by the opposing candidate in the debate?

The opposing candidate criticized the prevalence of 'ordal' (a form of bureaucratic or procedural hurdle) in various aspects of life, from job appointments to education and public services, suggesting that it was damaging the meritocratic system and ethics in the country.

How did the opposing candidate connect the issue of ordal to the political situation?

The opposing candidate pointed out that ordal was not only pervasive in society but also present in the highest political levels, which undermines ethics and transparency in the decision-making process.

What example did the opposing candidate give regarding ordal in the education sector?

The opposing candidate shared an example where teachers mentioned that appointments and promotions in their sector were based on ordal, which undermined merit and fairness.

What was the opposing candidate’s view on the power of the people in a democracy?

The opposing candidate stressed that in a democracy, the highest power lies with the people, and that the people would be the ones to judge whether the candidates were truthful or corrupt, especially during the election on February 14th.

How did Pak Prabowo conclude his argument in response to the opposing candidate’s critique?

Pak Prabowo concluded by asserting that in a democracy, the people have the ultimate judgment, and if his candidacy was flawed or unworthy, the people would be the ones to decide his fate in the upcoming election.