Years ago, a veteran told me that Malaysian politics is mainly about the politics of issues. It was because the rakyat mentality was immature politically that issues could be created or blown out of proportion to rally the masses in whichever direction the propaganda machinery deemed fit. With the advent of Mahathirism, issues were created and publicized only when Mahathir dictated so; major cases in point being the 1988 Constitutional Crisis that resulted in the emasculation of the Judiciary and the 1993 Monarchy crisis that did the Royals in. The rakyat was still willing to vote Barisan Nasional in with more than 2/3 majority, GE in and GE out because the economy was thriving; the NEP was in full bloom and no one was going without. The non-Malays were resigned to the effects of affirmative action and had all but given up at the ballot box. I suppose abuses were not as blatant then although corruption and cronyism were already big concerns...the massive privatization and corporatizing exercises of government institutions, the IPPs, the toll hikes, the prime land conversions, the Daim machinations, etc. all affected our pockets without commensurating increase in service levels nor benefits. But we could at least see signs of development as in the Twin Towers, KLIA, Putrajaya, and other monuments. While most people dared only whisper about their displeasure, none had the guts nor to be fair, the platform to shout too loud and long. There was a pervading fear of litigation and the partiality of the judiciary. As organizations go, Aliran led by Chandra Muzzafar seemed to be the only one which dared to voice out and it had its publishing permit yanked a few times. The Aliran Monthly was a sort of Malaysiakini in the way that no issue was too hot for it to report. Two individuals stood out and both were journalists; the late K. Das and that forerunner of our Raja Petra Kamarudin, the late MGG Pillai. Yes! RPK had a predecessor! Neither lawsuit nor harassment could stop MGG Pillai and in the aftermath of the Correct! Correct! Correct! fiasco we now know he had no chance with the defamation suits he faced. I am glad MGG Pillai discovered the Internet before he passed away in 2006. His blog mggpillai.com was the Malaysia Today of its day!There were plenty of issues too in those days but apart from being fearful, the Malaysian public was naive, amnesiac and blindsided by the mainstream media. There was a perpetual news brown-out and when the Government faced any major controversy, there were total news blackouts or the media would spin to sway the rakyat. Back in those days, no Opposition politician ever appeared on TV or radio let alone was quoted or reported in the newspapers. Conversely, all we ever got to hear or read were that things were dandy and as they should be (and therefore fine). Each successive PM had his own Goebbels, starting with Mahathir who had Kadir Jasin and Dollah Ahmad; the infamous Kalimullah was there for the Preacher Man while Kamal Khalid did the hatchet work; now Najib has Johan Jaafar and his very own publicist in Azmi Anshar. The nature of media control had perceptible difference from one PM to another. In the case of Mahathir, it was more of misinformation and lack of information; this was extenuated by the fact that Mahathir made no bones about his dogmatic nature or his policies. Though his successor, Badawi was less Machiavellian he was in many ways worse. He took over on a media fanfare of promises; liberalization, tranparency, meritocracy and accountability. The very media tools that were deployed to blow his trumpet soon became tools to gloss over his abject incompetency. When his outright bumbling and the abuses by his coterie became too obvious, his propaganda team resorted to plain disinformation. Ultimately, his spinmeisters could not prevent his self-proclaimed nice, clean and pious guy image from rotting into plain "nasty, corrupt" and stupid. His “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang" quickly became "Cemarkan, Gemar-wang, Terbayang"...Temberang.
Why did it take 22 years to expose Mahathir's transgressions and only 5 for Badawi? Was it because Badawi was more liberal? Apparently not; it was because he could not stop the information communication juggernaut called the Internet. He was caught by his own "K-Economy" bull and could not rein in the bloggers and internet news portals until it was too late. He did however try at the end though.
In the last decade, the proliferation of internet users coupled with the intrinsic need to boost bandwith enabled the Internet to power the "Fifth Estate" in Malaysia as with the rest of the developed/developing world. Mainstream media (MSM) began to have an alternative and I dare say now during Najib's watch, the MSM is fast becoming THE alternative media to most educated Malaysians. The difference has been about censorship or lack of.
Najib has his work cut out for him. It is now coming to his 4th month in the hot seat and he has not only to hit the ground running (after years of Badawi "slumber") but also be seen to do the right things. He has after all come onboard with considerable baggage.
How will he make the rakyat see? Will he try to make us blind? Or will he turn out to be the ultimate magician dealing with illusory perceptions? Will it be misinformation or disinformation or both? Or can he surprise us all with absolute transparency? After his first 100 days, the latter seems a bridge too far or far fetched bridge whichever way one looks at it. After GE12, whatever the spin there is only one way for him and that is to deliver what is deemed good for the nation. Brickbats can turn to bouquets...and vice versa.
But what can we expect? Well, for one, Najib or his handlers have obviously learnt about the power of the Internet judging from the increased number of pro-establishment blogs and cyber commentators. Many Barisan politicians are also setting up their own blogs/websites but because most are not self-administered, they do not attract traffic. While Badawi and Barisan were caught with their pants down pre-GE12, now more than a year later, things in the Malaysian cyberspace have indeed changed. Established pro-government bloggers and "information" portals now routinely rebut anything they feel worth rebutting.
The following are a few generally pro-establishment blogs; Another Brick In The Wall, Barking Magpie, Demi Negara, OutSyedTheBox. Rocky's Bru, Mat Cendana, CanYouSeeIt...etc. Socio-political bloggers seem to fall exclusively only into 3 categories: pro-establishment, anti-establishment and middle-of-the-road observers. When a particular blogger shifts his loyalties or stance (as it is known to happen), it is all too obvious. One thing is clear though, not much can be kept hidden in the ultimate battle for voters and no matter what the spin, the Barisan government has to deliver or perish.
The MSM still retains relevance amongst large numbers of Malaysians and one only has to turn on the TV or flip the newspapers to know what the MSM is trying to sell these days (as in the previous days?). Perhaps we shouldn't buy.
The Teoh Beng Hock death is the latest controversial issue and it has seen unprecedented thrusts and counter-thrusts in both the MSM and cyberspace. After Utusan's infamous article which reeked of racism, in the TBH case it was Berita Harian's turn with the lead but if the following article by Azmi Anshar is any indication, we are in for very long ride. That is why it is a must read because the rebuttles by steadyaku47 and sincerely, malaysian heart are even more interesting. You be the judge:
They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching? Online Exclusive 2009/07/22 by Azmi Anshar
IN ordering the formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry today to probe the chary death of Teoh Boon Hock, the young DAP cadre whose body was found sprawled outside Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Shah Alam headquarters last week, the Cabinet committed the most pragmatic decision it could make in light of the over-the-top outrage generated, mostly by Pakatan Rakyat leaders and its band of noxious supporters.
The MACC wobbled daily from the toxic Pakatan demonstrations, from the defiant rants at the MACC’s office immediately after the death was discovered to Teoh’s funeral that literally accused the agency of murder, negligence or brutality, whichever contention was convenient, when police have NOT concluded their investigations as to how and why Teoh died. No other plausible causes of death and motive were entertained by this mob. It fact, they emphatically dismissed alternative speculations, no matter how reasonable it sounded.
To cap the week of rage and antagonism that literally criminalised the MACC, Pakatan launched an online petition calling for the RCI’s formation. They were almost certain of getting a favourable Cabinet response but the hyperboles and sly pre-emption that senior Pakatan leaders discharged seemed to have given the appearance that the goading provoked the Cabinet into agreeing to the RCI.
The Cabinet would surely have gone ahead with the RCI initiative without the Pakatan’s instigation, seeing that senior coalition leaders within the Barisan Nasional ranks had strongly endorsed the setting up of the RCI, some even before DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang could parrot his all-time favourite bellowing. But let’s not be surprised that Pakatan would claim credit for their RCI ingenuity.
But the Pakatan leaders’ pressing for a RCI had a disingenuous purpose: several of their Selangor assemblymen, one of whom was accused of maintaining links with gangsters, were under scrutiny for alleged misuse of public funds, in which Teoh was sought by the MACC to provide helpful insights and vital documents as to how the abuse was being put into action. Now that the RCI on Teoh’s death is going to be institutionalised, how will this affect the investigations into the misuse of public funds?
Here’s how the script might flow: the Pakatan people will be nudged aside from the glare of suspicion by the elephantine centre of attention that steamrolls with a RCI examination. And there is no guarantee that investigations will resume once the RCI completes its business.
The only way to hold the momentum of the investigations into the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen is that the RCI, in establishing its terms and references, embraces the MACC-Teoh element. This means all interview files, documents, statements, and that includes audio and video recordings, will be possessed and scrutinised by the RCI to surmise whether the misuse of funds had anything to do with Teoh’s death.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had just announced that this element will be present. Now anticipate the howls of protest, even if it makes sense to expand the scope of the RCI’s inquiry to include all possibilities. An inquest headed by a magistrate is also imminent to establish the forensics of his death.
The next phase of the RCI’s formation will assure a major disputation: the composition of RCI members. There are already demands that representatives from the Opposition be included. A name with a sagacious reputation cropped up - Tunku Abdul Aziz, the 75-year-old ex-Transparency International Malaysia’s founder. Too bad he can’t be in the RCI let alone chair it, simply because he is now a partisan party sycophant like any other party man or woman.
Again, sly pre-empts had been deployed. Then there’s the call that the composition of the RCI must consult Pakatan Rakyat. Another sly pre-empting ploy. All the Government need to do is put together a neutral team that has the consent of the King. That’s all.
Even before Najib had a chance to weigh in his options before today’s Cabinet meeting, he was already handed a “lost cause”, primarily from Lim Kit Siang who claimed the PM will lose credibility and wipe out his 65 percent approval rating if he does not authorise a RCI.
Fine. Now that Najib has announced the RCI’s formation, will Kit re-stamp the credibility factor back into Najib? Probably not. The last thing Kit wants to do is further inflate Najib’s approval rating. Kit will find other specious means to further pile the burden of attestation on Najib to prove that the RCI is “absolutely independent” and will do their job fearlessly.
This new RCI will be the third this decade, breaking a precedence of sorts when RCIs had been limited to two the most every 10 years since its advent in 1965. When it was first conceptualised, a RCI is supposed to look into issues of governance and administration - the 1965 RCI in reviewed public services salaries and conditions of service, then it looked into workings of local authorities in 1968 and explored the teaching services in 1971. But in 1988, the RCI’s character transformed as it began probing “unsavoury” aspects of life - accidents, deaths, catastrophe and tragedy, from the collapse of the Pengkalan Sultan Abdul Halim ferry terminal in Butterworth (1988) to the religious school blaze that killed students in Yan, Kedah (1989) and Sungai Buloh’s Bright Sparklers factory explosion (1991).
Then the RCI went up close and personal in 1999, investigating the black eye suffered by Anwar Ibrahim while in police custody, which then Inspector-General of Police Rahim Noor took the rap for unleashing a blow on Anwar’s eye that triggered a profound consequence for the nation to last a generation.
The RCI returned to governance in 2004, the study of police reforms that invited a string of determined protests by the police themselves that seemed to scuttle the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission promised by the Abdullah administration in 2006.
Then the RCI opted for a form of “surrealism”: the infamous Lingam Video Clip commission in 2007 that became one of the many impetuses that tore down the fabric of Barisan Nasional state governments and bore a hole into the coalition’s ability to govern federally in March 2008.
What was that old cliché about being careful on what you wish for because it might come true? Pakatan Rakyat, the DAP especially, might be feeling too euphoric at the moment to think of this RCI’s implications but let’s play the devil’s advocate here: will Kit Siang and Co accept the verdict of the RCI no matter what kinds of findings surface?
If you are to base last week’s rampage of putting the blame solely on the MACC and implicating senior Government leaders, Pakatan Rakyat minions will insist no less than a guilty verdict, that some MACC perp pushed Teoh Beng Hock out of the 14th floor to his death for no reason other than wanting to torture the young man. But what if the RCI finds a less gruesome result, that Teoh died other than all the claims of murder and brutality put together? Will the Opposition swallow their brutish smugness and leave it at that?
The portentous inference to come out of Teoh’s RCI is that the inquiry serves to be an overkill that trivialises the institution and the causes it was constructed to oversee, primarily because it drags down the pride of law enforcement, making it harder for them to patrol the streets and maintain law and order. This, however, is not to excuse the law enforcement agencies, whose reputation has taken a severe flagellation in the past years over perceived incompetence so terrible that confidence in their ability to do their job is a hard sell.
What is entrenched now is the disturbing culture of being declared guilty first, more so for law enforcement agencies caught in the wrong side of public perception, before innocence has to be strenuously proven. And this crushes every basic principle of human rights in the face of mob fury. It gives a new meaning to lynching, Malaysian-style.
**********************************************
The following is Steadyaku47's rebuttal:
Online exclusive - NST
It is now 9.49pm and as is my habit - after the day is almost done – and with ‘Desperate Housewife’ on TV that means that I will have to go to my PC for alternative entertainment. After having a look through The Vision – Uganda’s leading website – I then went to NSTP online just so that I will not miss any earth shattering news and happenings that UMNO wants me to know. An online exclusive caught my eye.
DAILY DISPATCHES: They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching?
IN ordering the formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry today to probe the chary death of Teoh Boon Hock, the young DAP cadre whose body was found sprawled outside Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Shah Alam headquarters last week, the Cabinet committed the most pragmatic decision it could make in light of the over-the-top outrage generated, mostly by Pakatan Rakyat leaders and its band of noxious supporters.
Immedietly I had to go to the dictionary when I came across ‘chary’ in the very first paragraph. It meant ‘sorrowful’. Impressed I press on – this reporter can almost be mistaken for a writer!
The next sentence contained another ambigious word (to me) ‘cadre’ which according to Webster means ‘Cadre (pronounced /'kaːdre/, from the French) is the backbone of an organization, usually a political or military organization. Generally it is applied to a small core of committed and experienced people who are capable of providing leadership and of training newer members’
Again I am impressed. This reporter must be worth his weight in gold to his Editor. He has used ‘chary’ and ‘cadre’ in the very first paragraph of this online inclusive. Must have gone to the same learning instituition as that Ketua Pemuda fellow – aisehman I mean during his primary years lah.
Next came ‘pragmatic’ which I was quite familiar with having had to salute many a PDRM mata mata with a ‘boleh selesai encik’ – not because I want to but I had to be pragmatic.
A few seconds later I came across another hard one ‘noxious’ – morally harmful; corrupting; pernicious:
Morally harmful and corrupting being the operative word – words that this reporter should be familiar with when working for Political Masters who are not from Pakatan Rakyat.
Suffice to say that at this juncture I said enough. Who is he trying to impress? Chary, cadre, pragmatic and noxious ..and we are not even past the first paragraph. Sheesh (as my late fellow blogger The Ancient Mariner would say)…I have other things to do then go on reading this pretentious idiot piece. I rather go torture myself and watch ‘Desperate Housewife’ ….with one eye open and one eye close of course.
**********************************************
...and perhaps a more eloquent response from sincerely, malaysian heart which does make for a sort of "ABC of Journalism" and left the NST rather naked by tearing Azmi Anshar's "exclusive" to shreds:
Is This the Standard of Journalism Practiced by the New Straits Times?(Disclosure: I am a member of Hartal MSM*, an advocacy group that calls for a Paper-free Tuesday -- "No buy, No lies")
- Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
- Its first loyalty is to citizens.
- Its essence is a discipline of verification.
- Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
- It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
- It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
- It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
- It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
- Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
From "The Elements of Journalism": What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect
When a news organization's editorial policy is dictated by its owners, the quality of its journalism is often the first thing to go out the window (followed closely by its credibility, reputation and circulation figures). The general level of integrity and professionalism in our news media notwithstanding, I have to say that this "online exclusive" op-ed piece from the New Straits Times (22/7/09), entitled "They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching?", is as egregious a case of journalistic misconduct as I have ever come across. Lest I be accused of making that claim just because I disagree with the article in question, please allow me share with you my reasons for saying so:
1) The writer made a significant error of fact by claiming that the purpose of the Royal Commission of Inquiry was "to probe the chary [sic] death of Teoh Boon Hock [sic]".
This is untrue. PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said (bold emphasis mine): "The Royal Commission will be set up according to specific terms, which is to scrutinise and study the procedures related to interrogations that are used by the MACC. It will also identify if there were any violations of human rights during Teoh’s interrogation."
The PM also made it clear that Teoh Beng Hock's death would NOT be investigated by the RCI,but by an inquest. He thus rejected the most critical component of what Teoh's family, Pakatan Rakyat leaders and civil society have been demanding all along.
Why is this error significant? Because the writer uses it to impugn the character and motives of Pakatan Rakyat and its leaders throughout the article, beginning with the headline itself. A major thrust of the article is to show that even when their demands have been met, PR leaders (ostensibly for selfish political reasons), will continue to criticize the RCI. Without this "misinterpretation" of the facts, his thesis cannot stand.
The full import of the PM's statement should have been quite obvious to the writer. He has misrepresented Pakatan Rakyat's position, and as of 1650 hrs on 24/7/09, this remains uncorrected.
2) The writer used at least two of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in argument, specifically:
a) he used emotionally loaded words, selectively. Against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, followers and their actions, he had this to say, without any supporting evidence (my emphasis in bold):
- band of noxious supporters
- toxic Pakatan demonstrations
- defiant rants
- this mob
sly pre-emption
- Pakatan’s instigation
- parrot his all-time favourite bellowing
- pressing for a RCI
- howls of protest
- partisan party sycophant
- sly pre-empts
- Another sly pre-empting ploy
- last week’s rampage
- Pakatan Rakyat minions
- brutish smugness
- mob fury
- lynching, Malaysian-style
For the cabinet and government leaders, he has this instead:
- most pragmatic decision
- strongly endorsed the setting up of the RCI
b) he attributed prejudices or dishonourable motives to his "opponents", again without offering any evidence in support:
"They were almost certain of getting a favourable Cabinet response but the hyperboles and sly pre-emption that senior Pakatan leaders discharged seemed to have given the appearance that the goading provoked the Cabinet into agreeing to the RCI."
"But let’s not be surprised that Pakatan would claim credit for their RCI ingenuity."
"Pakatan leaders’ pressing for a RCI had a disingenuous purpose:... Pakatan people will be nudged aside from the glare of suspicion..."
"Now anticipate the howls of protest, even if it makes sense to expand the scope of the RCI’s inquiry to include all possibilities."
"Kit will find other specious means to further pile the burden of attestation on Najib to prove that the RCI is “absolutely independent” and will do their job fearlessly."
"Pakatan Rakyat minions will insist no less than a guilty verdict, that some MACC perp pushed Teoh Beng Hock out of the 14th floor to his death for no reason other than wanting to torture the young man".
3) To further his attack on his "opponents", the writer has subverted the meaning of words, obscuring the truth. For example, he describes
Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a former vice-chairman of Transparency International’s Board of Directors no less, as a "sycophant", i.e. "a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favour by flattering influential people". To be sure, Tunku Aziz is a member of the DAP, but has the writer any evidence to show that Tunku Aziz has ever attempted to win favour by flattering influential people in DAP, Pakatan or anywhere else? If the favour of "influential people" is what Tunku Aziz sought, would the DAP have been the right party for him to join? One would have thought that there might have been much more "favourable" opportunities elsewhere, say, working for certain news media organisations.One more example: the writer characterised Pakatan Rakyat's response to Teoh's death as a "lynching, Malaysian-style". To "lynch" is to punish violently or to execute, without due process, for real or alleged crimes. Another definition is "to punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry." It is a crime punishable by law in Malaysia, and it is what the writer accuses Pakatan Rakyat of doing to the MACC. Can he show how, and by what stretch of the imagination, can Pakatan Rakyat's actions thus far be construed as a lynching?
The irony is that the exact opposite may be argued, without any need for verbal obfuscation. Teoh Beng Hock was either a witness or a suspect in an alleged crime, and was, prima facie, in the custody of the MACC. If the reports of Halimi Kamaruzzaman's, Tan Boon Hwa's and Dariff Din's experience of the MACC's interrogation methods are reliable, then there is probable cause to suspect that Teoh too, may have been the victim of high handed interrogation tactics. Did Teoh's interrogators limit themselves to asking questions? Was psychological or physical violence used on him? Is it true that during his 10 hour interrogation, "officers dragged him to a window on the 14-story building and threatened to throw him out," as the Phillipine Daily Enquirer's website, quoting anonymous, "well-placed sources and officials close to the MACC", reports?
Considering the state of law enforcement and criminal investigation in Malaysia, with our history of suspicious deaths in custody, routine denial of access to counsel, allegations of politically motivated selective prosecution, the lack of real transparency and accountability, and our government's apparent inability to institute reforms (such as the IPCMC), isn't it reasonable for Malaysians to be asking those questions? All this, plus the inescapable fact that whatever was done to Teoh was done in OUR NAME, makes it a moral imperative that we actively work to uncover the circumstances surrounding his death. Asking our public servants tough questions, exploring the possibility that they have behaved criminally, and being very skeptical about the answers they give us, is not lynching, it is demanding that they be accountable to us.
By turning the very meaning of this word on its head, this "journalist" from the NST has insulted the memory of all who have suffered lynching at the hands of the powerful. He has made a mockery of the idea that our government and law enforcement authorities are accountable to the Rakyat; he seems to have chosen to serve power, rather than be an independent monitor of it.
With Malaysia at the crossroads in the aftermath of 8/3/08, advocacy journalism has become a "weapon" in the political "war" to determine which path our country takes. It is a genre of journalism that intentionally (and transparently) adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for a social or political purpose. It is certainly not new, and it is not disreputable per se; The Economist is an example of a publication that practices it quite well.
However, while advocacy journalists may justifiably eschew their newsroom colleagues' credo of objectivity (i.e. being neutral and not taking sides in their reporting), this does not absolve them of all standards of ethical journalism. Here is the bare minimum that they have to meet (adapted from here andhere):
1) They must acknowledge and declare their editorial position and bias up front. Doing so will inform readers as to where the writer is coming from and allows them to employ their critical faculties accordingly. Working to promote a particular point of view without disclosing one's true stance is shilling.
2) They must be truthful, accurate, credible and ensure that every statement they make is factual and based on evidence from neutral sources. In other words don't spread propaganda, don't take quotes or facts out of context, "don't fabricate or falsify", and "don't judge or suppress vital facts or present half-truths". Requiring that media outlets refrain from spreading untruths and falsehood is not too much to ask for, is it?
3) Even if they do not provide equal time for their opponents' views, they must at least understand & address their opponents' relevant points & criticism - they must never ignore, trivialize or distort them. They must be fair and thorough.
4) They must use honest arguments & never resort to the crooked thinking and dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments. Avoid slogans, ranting, and polemics. Instead, "articulate complex issues clearly and carefully."
5) They must not allow their bias to turn into rose coloured glasses, or worse, a blind spot. They must not spare their own cause the tough, critical questions and scrutiny.
Without adhering to these most basic of standards, the resulting media "product" will be nothing more than propaganda, and bad one at that.
Had it come from a political party's media mouthpiece, the article might have been just bearable. After all, political propagandists and shills may rightly claim that they are not bound by any ethics, and are not obliged (or interested) to help citizens seek the truth. They may thus abandon even the pretence of reasoned discourse and honest logic, and to please their masters, may be as chauvinistic and as partisan as they please.
However, coming from the New Straits Times, the news outlet that is Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print, one which claims that "Our goal is to be the preeminent provider of news, information and entertainment and to achieve total customer satisfaction through our professional and highly regarded workforce that values quality, integrity, innovativeness and personal service", it is nothing short of an abject disgrace.
It stands to reason that the NST's lofty goal will remain out of its reach so long as its journalists (and editors) choose to behave like members of the oldest profession, and not as members of an honourable one. Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that they will keep on plying their trade quite profitably, so long as we Malaysians keep availing ourselves of their services.
Sincerely,Malaysian Heart
* Hartal MSM is a mediawatch group which had its beginnings in December 2007 in the People's Parliament, an initiative convened by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim. The group seeks to promote a free and fair media as an impetus to Malaysia's stalled nation-building process.
So there you have it; a most blatant attempt at misinformation and disinformation in the MSM. What can we conclude?
Jacqueline Ann Surin (jacquelinesurin@thenutgraph.com) of online news portal Nut Graph has been keeping track of Najib's media policy. In a series of articles dating from April 2009, she asked and saw answers to the right questions.
Please read: What media freedom, prime minister? (April), Where’s the BN’s commitment? (May), and Controlling the media (July)
**********************************************
What media freedom, prime minister?
15 Apr 09 : 8.00AM By Jacqueline Ann Surin
ON 6 April 2009, three days after he was made prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak spoke about a new way forward in policy, politics and the media.
To many in the media, his rhetoric about a "vibrant, free and informed media" was welcome, especially in an environment where government control of the traditional media is established through legislation and ownership.
Truth is, however, seasoned media practitioners are sceptical that these words really mean anything beyond a public relations spin. Indeed, one doesn't even have to be all that experienced a journalist to be cynical.
Since assuming office on 3 April 2009, Najib's administration has shown that creating an environment for a media that "allows people to hold public officials accountable" and that is not fearful of doing so, is perhaps not topmost on his mind.
Barring Merdeka Review
On 9 April 2009, Chinese-language online news site Merdeka Review was barred from entering the prime minister's office in Putrajaya to cover the announcement of the new cabinet line-up.
No reasons were given. The officer who was responsible for relaying the instruction "from the prime minister's office" was himself clueless. He was just a "coolie", he said when The Nut Graph called him for an explanation.
When pressed for his full name and position in Najib's office, he ended the call abruptly. It sounded very much like he feared reprisals from speaking to the media about an instruction from higher-ups that he was merely carrying out.
What is interesting to note is that according to Merdeka Review's editor-in-chief, the online news site has never been prevented from covering a government event in Putrajaya before this.And despite having written an open letter to the prime minister to seek an explanation, no response has been forthcoming as of 4.30pm on 14 April 2009.
No press conference
But Najib did one other thing on the day that he announced his cabinet line-up that leaves journalists wondering about his sincerity in wanting media that are "empowered". Apart from barring an online news site — the new media that Najib so glibly talked about embracing both at the Umno general assembly and in his 6 April speech — our sixth prime minister also pointedly did not hold a press conference after announcing his cabinet.
Instead, he held a special briefing/meeting with editors of selected media outfits. The new media were, of course, absent from this private session with the prime minister. Bernama — the state-owned wire service — was naturally among the invited, as were some other editors from the traditional media.
Why didn't Najib hold a press conference to field questions from the media after he announced his cabinet line-up? Wouldn't that have shown that he was willing to be held accountable for his decisions about the new cabinet? He did, after all, promise Malaysians this: "I will always stand up and be accountable for the decisions I make as your prime minister."
Did Najib choose not to hold a press conference when he announced his cabinet on 9 April because that was the same day that Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar were sentenced to death for murdering Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu?
Both former prime ministers Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi held press conferences after announcing their cabinet. They took questions from the media, and while their replies may not have been satisfactory, at least they demonstrated a willingness to be questioned. Or to use Najib's own words, to be held "accountable".
Worse, by only inviting selected media to a private meeting after his announcement, Najib is demonstrating that he is only willing to engage with friendly media.
Bernama's report, for example, didn't ask any hard-hitting questions of our new prime minister. For example, why did he appoint his cousin, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein as home minister? Why wasn't Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin appointed? Why wasn't the number of women increased in accordance with Malaysia's international obligations under a United Nations treaty? How has the cabinet become leaner when there are more deputy ministers now than before?
But one shouldn't blame Bernama. It is, after all, a state agency that can hardly be expected to be independent and fearless in its reporting of government. And Najib, we can be sure, was well aware of that.
Not hopeful
Truth be told, seasoned journalists are not optimistic about Najib and how he will treat the media. To be fair, Najib should, of course, be judged by his actions as he himself has asked of the rakyat.
But it is precisely his actions that have led to a sense of disquiet among the media fraternity.
Even before 9 April when Najib's office barred Merdeka Review and then chose not to have a press conference about the cabinet line-up, he was already part of a decision to bar six online media from covering its 59th general assembly.
There are other anecdotes that reveal that Najib will not take dissent from the media in his stride.
One seasoned journalist says her newspaper has been told before to watch their journalists because they were perceived as pro-opposition. A radio station was also recently told to watch its steps.
My own memory of Najib's displeasure with the media dates back to 18 July 2007, the day after he announced that Malaysia had never been a secular state. theSun, where I was assistant news editor, ran reactions to his statement on the front page. For this the paper was warned because apparently Najib, who was then acting prime minister as Abdullah was away, had "hit the roof". The paper subsequently backed off from reporting or discussing Najib's statement in order to not lose its publishing permit.
Granted, these are anecdotes. Nothing can be proven in such instances, especially not Najib's direct involvement in such directives to the media. After all, nearly all of these directives are not in black-and-white, as evidenced by the decision to barMerdeka Review.
But even without these anecdotes, Najib's office has proven in the last few days that the prime minister may say one thing, but his actions may mean something else altogether.
Indeed, he should be judged by his actions. One can only hope that he will remember that as much as Malaysians will of their new prime minister.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Ann Surin will only believe Datuk Seri Najib Razak's promises on respecting media freedom if the government sets up a Parliamentary Select Committee to review all media-repressive laws. Till then, she knows that talk is cheap.
**********************************************
Where’s the BN’s commitment?
8 May 09 : 10.00AM By Jacqueline Ann Surin
THERE was some cheer for me on World Press Freedom Day this year. It was provided by a press release from the Selangor government.
To commemorate the annual celebration on 3 May, Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim spelt out clearly what his government was doing to promote press freedom.
In early 2009, less than a year after the Pakatan Rakyat swept into power in the state, Selangor formed a taskforce on freedom of information (FOI) comprising state assemblypersons and civil society.
"The taskforce's first project is to study the possibility of legislating a Freedom of Information Act. The state hopes that an act that promotes FOI in Selangor will be tabled and passed in the state legislative assembly [at the] end of this year," Khalid promised.
Additionally, he said, the state government would be organising a public consultation themed Freedom of Information: A Right to Reclaim on 19 May to discuss the intended FOI Act with a cross-section of stakeholders.
"I sincerely hope that the public will make full use of this consultation as all discussions and feedback will be collated and duly considered when the Bill is tabled," Khalid said.
Equally important, Khalid is taking steps to ensure that any FOI regulation can be operationalised. The state government, he said, would train civil servants, especially those dealing with the public, on FOI.
"This is to promote awareness among civil servants to be more responsible and to understand their role as trustees [of] public documents," he said.
Now contrast that with the Barisan Nasional (BN) leadership, whether at the federal or state levels.
Selected media
Most recently, it was the Perak administration, under the leadership of BN's Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, which decided that only selected media outfits could cover the 7 May 2009 state assembly sitting.
No online media were on the list of 13 which were allowed to report on an event as important as a historic state assembly sitting in a state that is facing a constitutional crisis. Not only that, the 13 media identified were clearly either government-run or owned by companies aligned to the BN.
And yet, BN's appointed Menteri Besar Zambry had no problems declaring: "I believe in freedom of the press." In his defence, he said the earlier decision to limit the number of journalists was to ensure their comfort.
Not quite a Freudian slip, but Zambry's incredible statement does reveal that comfort was definitely on his mind when the decision was made to limit the media's access to an event of public importance. Question is, whose comfort was he thinking of?
See, serious journalists can and do endure all measure of discomfort when chasing a story. Covering a packed state assembly sitting is hardly uncomfortable compared to staking out politicians in the hot sun or in a thunderstorm, manoeuvring through floods or land slips, or covering an epidemic or deaths at the site of a disaster.
Perchance, Zambry was thinking of the BN's comfort? And if so, what does it say about the BN that it would feel discomfort by having all media, including those it cannot control, cover the state assembly?
Indeed, if comfort due to the assembly's available space was really the problem, how did Zambry so quickly resolve the matter such that all media and even bloggers were eventually invited to cover the sitting?
Zambry's assurance that all media could cover the state assembly sitting in the name of "press freedom" was also lacklustre. Speaker V Sivakumar, from the DAP, had beaten Zambry by earlier assuring all media that they would be able to cover the Perak sitting.
In a game show, Zambry would have gained no points. In a real democracy, he should be shown out of political office for being dishonest. In Malaysia, who knows?
Where's the commitment?
While PKR's Khalid and DAP's Sivakumar are demonstrating what it really means to respect press freedom, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has shown no inclination to even provide a road map towards a "vibrant, free and informed media".
If nothing else, the new administration is demonstrating that talk really is cheap.
Not only that, the likes of Zambry, and Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, who has been making threatening remarks about bloggers and online commentators, demonstrate that there is little understanding among BN leaders about what press freedom entails.
Indeed, in his message for World Press Freedom Day,United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said he was concerned that some governments were suppressing internet access and the work of online journalists and others who use the new media.
"Not surprisingly, blogging has flourished in countries where restrictions on media are toughest," he notes.
It doesn't seem, though, that the BN government understands this about the changing media landscape in Malaysia. I would even wager that the BN has no intention of enabling an environment to promote media freedom. After all, a truly vibrant and independent media would make it difficult for any government to abuse power for as long as the BN has.
Hence, despite calls for a road map from civil society, it's hardly surprising that there is a lack of commitment from the Najib administration about how exactly it will create an environment that promotes a "vibrant, free and informed media."
There is no doubt that not everyone within the PR is totally clued in either. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng continues to defend his decision to bar the New Straits Times, while Utusan Malaysia is routinely prevented from covering PR press conferences. Lim cites malicious and inaccurate reporting as justification.
Still, at least there are some PR leaders who are clued in. They, at least, are taking active steps to make sure press freedom isn't just populist rhetoric by a new administration hoping to secure the people's goodwill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Ann Surin knows what it feels like to fear being shut down by government. Having worked in two newspapers previously, she understands the meaning of absolute power under the Printing Presses and Publications Act. The Act, which allows government to dictate what the press can and cannot write about, is still firmly in place despite the BN's rhetoric.
**********************************************
Controlling the media
24 Jul 09 : 8.00AMBy Jacqueline Ann Surin
JUST before Datuk Seri Najib Razak became Malaysia's sixth prime minister on 3 April 2009, I was asked by a Malaysiakini reporter whether I thought there would be further media restrictions under his administration. Some sectors of society imagined, rightly or wrongly, that Najib would control the media even more than his predecessor, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
My answer then was that it was hard to predict what exactly Najib would do. Whether or not there would be further media restrictions would depend as much on Najib and his advisers as well as on civil society, I figured.
But more than three months have passed since Najib assumed office. Whether or not media controls have worsened, one thing is certain: the evidence demonstrates that media control continues under Najib's administration.
These controls have twin objectives. Rather alarmingly, though not unexpectedly, one of the objectives is to unashamedly protect the image of the Najib administration at all costs. The other objective is to unfairly disadvantage the Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
"Shoot" the journalist
Where's the proof? One of the most recent incidents of clear media control was when ntv7 talk show host-cum-producer, Florence Looi, was issued a warning letter by her management and downgraded in her responsibilities.
What exactly did she do to warrant such disciplinary action? She asked two guests on her current affairs show, Point of View, to rate Najib's performance in his first 100 days. One of her guests, Malaysian Insider consultant editor Leslie Lau, gave Najib a "C" or "D".
Looi was taken to task for asking a legitimate question. Stranger still, she was taken to task by her superiors because apparently, such questions violate ntv7's "editorial policy".
I'll be happy to wager though that had Lau given Najib an "A" or even a "B" rating, Looi would not have gotten into any kind of trouble. Really, it's hard not to look at what happened to Looi and surmise that a journalist was punished for doing her job honestly and professionally.
Malaysian journalists for certain don't experience the same kind of violence that our Filipino counterparts do when it comes to reporting the truth. Filipino journalists are often murdered or physically threatened as a way to silence them.
While Looi's life is not being threatened, a similar principle is at work in the ntv7 newsroom as in the Philippines. Looi was punished so that she, and her peers in the TV station, would learn to keep silent when reporting critically about those in power. The method used by ntv7 may be mild in comparison to the methods employed in the Philippines, but the intention is the same.
Protect Umno
Just as importantly, what kind of media organisation actually imposes a policy against asking legitimate questions about and of politicians, especially the prime minister who needs to be the most accountable public servant in the country? Answer: the kind that is owned by Media Prima — a company that is closely linked to Umno.
Indeed, there have been other instances that suggest rather convincingly that the Media Prima management running their stable of media companies is consciously "protecting" Umno politicians from adverse publicity. Even before the incident with Looi, the company applied a blanket ban about news regarding the mansion in Shah Alam that former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo is building.
Even earlier, about two weeks after Najib became premier, the four private TV stations under Media Prima — TV3, ntv7, 8TV and tv9 — were ordered not to name political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, Najib's close aide, when reporting on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case.
Government-controlled
Apart from politically linked media companies protecting Umno's image, government-run and controlled media such as RTM are also ensuring that nothing besmirches or threatens the Najib administration.
Hence, the rather peculiar set of guidelines that RTM issued to its nine radio stations after Najib came to power. Merdeka Review reported on 15 May 2009 that a notice banning seven "sensitive" matters from being discussed on air was issued to prevent "controversy". The banned topics were opposition politics (ostensibly this refers to the PR), sex, race, language, religion, the monarchy, and issues of morality in current politics.
More recently, Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, who is the political secretary to Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and also the PR state assemblyperson for Seri Setia, had his invitation to appear on an RTM talk show rescinded for no apparent reason.
To be fair to Najib, he may not even be the one issuing these directives to the media. In all likelihood, these directives in both the private and public media are being issued by others to ensure that entrenched political interests are served.
Having said that, though, the prime minister surely cannot be oblivious about what is happening, especially when these incidents of media control have become public information as a result of online media coverage.
So, if Najib really wanted a "vibrant, free and informed media", what is he doing about the restrictions that continue to hamper the media from doing its work without fear or favour? What has he done to publicly demonstrate that media control by the government or by political parties is not what he desires for this nation? Unfortunately, nothing.
It would be a mistake for the rakyat to assume that just because the prime minister speaks of a free and vibrant media, this then is really what he intends to have in this country. There really is no evidence at all, since Najib came to power, that that is what his administration is interested in.
They say silence is consent. This is especially true when it involves a person in power who can speak up to rectify a wrong. Najib is, for all intents and purposes, the most powerful man in the country right now. His silence about continued media restrictions speaks volumes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Ann Surin has the highest respect for her counterparts in the traditional media who continue to report fairly and fearlessly despite the restrictions they face because of oppressive laws and political party ownership. She was a print journalist for 14 years and has many memories of government and political control of the media.
Al-Fatihah En Mohd Hamdan Abdul Rahman 
With the seat vacant, the Election Commission will have to call for another by-election within 60 days - the eight of such polls since March 2008 general election.Permatang Pasir, which is one of three state seats in PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim's Permatang Pauh parliamentary constituency, is the sole PAS seat in Penang.In the last general election Mohd Hamdan, who bagged 11,004 votes, defeated Ahmad Sahar Shuib from Umno (5,571) by a majority of 5,433 votes.
