May 3 on our minds
It is an event to remind concerned Malaysians that theres still a lack of press freedom even after so many years of independence from the colonial British. If anything, press freedom is on a slippery slope what with a battery of laws that confront citizens, particularly those who view society in a critical fashion. This is in addition to a worrying pattern of media ownership. The existence of a hobbled media denies the citizens easy access to the media and their right to information.
To start with, the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) very much governs the print media industry as a whole. The survival of a publication not only hinges on the economic factor (whether it makes enough money), but also and sometimes, more importantly on whether it has irked the Home Minister and his government. For, as we all know, the minister has wide discretionary powers to grant, reject or revoke publishing permits without even having to state reasons for doing so. Similar fate haunts Malaysian printers who are also subjected to annual licensing.
As long as this law exists, Malaysians would still see in our midst the likes of Ahmad Lutfi Othman who had experienced rejections of his publishing permit applications. The untimely demise of Detik, al-Wasilah and Eksklusif comes to mind. These publications tried in some ways to provide a variety of print media as well as information that is needed by Malaysians.
Cardinal principle
It is also under this law that party organs operate precariously. Harakah, the political newsletter of opposition PAS, has seen its publishing frequency being slashed by the Home Ministry from twice weekly to twice a month after its alternative news and incisive analyses caught the imagination of many Malaysians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and which had caused some degree of ideological discomfort for the ruling coalition. Not only that, the popular organ has its sale being restricted by law to members of the party concerned. Predictably, its circulation has dipped substantially.
This new ruling by the government has indeed violated a democratic principle of giving a political party the freedom to propagate its political philosophy to the general public. In a Malaysia where the mainstream media tend to sideline the opposition in many ways, this principle is undoubtedly cardinal.
Another serious implication arising from the PPPA is that most of the publications in the market, despite their increasing numbers, by and large reflect a similar viewpoint that often sings praises of the powers that be. For some publications, this political coyness, which often takes the form of story-spiking and self-censorship, goes to the extent of them being unabashedly servile to the political masters.
Blackouts
Increasing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few and, worse, who are close to the political leadership further compounds this situation. Government ministers and ruling politicians get centrestaged while voices from the margins, such as opposition parties, non-governmental organisations, the poor and the weak, are not easily or often, if at all, entertained by these mainstream media. Hence, communication is not effectively democratised for the benefit of all Malaysians via the mainstream print and broadcasting media.
For instance, the blackout by the mainstream media on the recent hunger strike committed by certain Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees not only deprives Malaysians of news and information of public importance, but also further blackens the already tainted credibility of the media concerned. The hunger strike deserves a media highlight because it was aimed at conveying an important political statement to the general public: among other things, detention without trial is as undemocratic as it is unjust.
Furthermore, in the wake of the barbaric Sept 11 attacks, Malaysia has witnessed the unveiling by the government via the mainstream media of a number of so-called militant groups that were often associated, categorically or implied, with the al-Qaeda movement. These people have been detained under the all-powerful ISA.
Malaysians concerned with the future of the country obviously have demanded that these so-called militant individuals be brought to justice so that the country would also eventually know the underlying causes for such a disturbing political development. Similar question should also have haunted the mainstream media. Such a demand to investigate the roots of a political and/or ideological problem, incidentally, is not dissimilar to the one posed by our leaders to the US government soon after the terrorist onslaught in 2001.
In this regard, Malaysians also deserve to know fully of the allegation which was revealed by the mainstream media made by a visiting American Muslim that a former senior minister in the Malaysian cabinet had allegedly contributed large sums of money to certain Islamic organisations in the US. Casting unnecessary doubts and creating needless anxiety in the minds of the people should not be the role of responsible and credible media.
Media owners and laws
Structural changes that dailies such as The Sun and Nanyang Siang Pau, for instance, recently underwent not only meant that they separately have come under the control of certain media owners; this transformation also helps in some ways to smooth the blunt elements in a newspaper. Equally important, media owners under these circumstances could act in such a manner that impinges upon the dignity and professionalism of journalists.
Apart from the PPPA, other laws such as the Official Secrets Act and the ISA have devastating effects on writers, journalists, editors and their professionalism. Collectively, these laws have impeded the flow of information in the country and in many ways helped create a culture of fear among Malaysians in general, a fact that has provoked many a concerned Malaysian to call for the repeal of these laws.
Neither do multimillion-ringgit suits, instituted against journalists and writers and newspapers, help improve freedom of the press and of expression. If anything, they only reinforce the narrowing of democratic space and, consequently, silence critics and well-meant criticisms. This is another form of social control.
Media council
But all is not lost. The advent of the Internet in Malaysia in the 1990s hitherto helps widen the democratic space to a certain degree. Websites, especially after the unceremonious dismissal of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, have sprouted overnight, catering to the various intellectual and political needs of concerned Malaysians. This was also the time when news portals such as malaysiakini came into existence.
Having said that, though, there had been attempts to frustrate these news portals. For example, journalists from malaysiakini have yet to be granted the crucial press accreditation cards. This denial of press cards by the Information Ministry means that malaysiakini journalists are barred from certain media conferences and other official functions organised by the government, the cumulative effect being that the news portal is generally perceived to have a soft spot for the opposition and other critics of the government. In other words, it is not balanced and fair in its reporting.
These developments are indeed disturbing to Malaysians who care for press freedom. As if to allay such fears, the government in recent years has proposed for the setting up of a media council that, at least theoretically, would redress some of the pressing problems that the press face.
However, the manner in which this very idea of forming a media council is being discussed left many, including the otherwise silent National Union of Journalists, wary of the true intentions of the government. There was less transparency in the way discussions were conducted. It didnt really soothe the anxiety of concerned Malaysians when Zainuddin Maidin, the parliamentary secretary of the Information Ministry, promised that the proposed media council would be modelled after the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, or Suhakam, especially if one is to be reminded of its recently constituted membership.
Editorial independence
What is at stake is the composition of the proposed media council, which by and large would determine its degree of independence. Given the nature of media ownership and the present editorial leadership in many of these media organisations, it is feared that the media council would be largely made up of those whose interests and political views align with those of the powers that be.
Not too long ago, the head of the pro-establishment New Straits Times (NST) made it clear in his On the record column that Media freedom is the freedom of its owners to advance their personal, political, class or communal interests. (NST, March 13). There seems to be an inability to appreciate the vital value of editorial independence that is sorely needed by a newspaper worth its salt.
If this reflects the overall philosophy of the people running the media industry as a whole, then there is cause for concern as this has serious implications upon the nature and composition of the proposed media council. For if the media council is dominated by people who are imbibed by this worldview, then it would become a convenient, albeit indirect, tool of control on behalf of the government.
There is also one more factor to consider: the undemocratic laws as mentioned above that impinge upon the working of journalists and the media as a whole. Unless this is seriously factored into the media council debate, wed be back to square one.
Dr MUSTAFA K ANUAR habitually reads in between the lines of what is offered by Malaysias media. At the same time, hes easily distracted by the comical, the artistic, and the political (and theyre not necessarily mutually exclusive) particularly in the context of Malaysian society.
