It would appear that Prof Hamdan Adnan has lately assumed the role of ambassador or media liaison chief for Suhakam. He appeared to have stepped into this role about a month before the announcement that several of the first-term commissioners would not have their appointments renewed.

There is, perhaps, a perception that the fact that Hamdan hails from a teaching post in UiTM and holds positions in consumer groups makes him more accessible. At a recent end-of-April function at Kuala Lumpur organised by Era Consumer and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, he confessed of being 'confused' by his role as commissioner and consumer rights advocate in Fomca and Era Consumer.

Of course the government of the day does not appear in the least concerned about the public perception of the commission. The second Suhakam report remains in the possession of Syed Hamid Albar, undelivered to Parliament. The government also saw fit to appoint former Attorney-General Abu Talib Othman as the new chairperson of Suhakam despite a huge public outcry.

The prime minister was seen on national television as dismissing the 100-day disengagement of 32 NGOs with Suhakam. The Suhakam recommendation on peaceful assemblies, which is actually an abridgement of the right to assemble anywhere in peace, was nevertheless ignored by the government. Suhakam by the way, had some NGOs happily endorsing its version of 'permitted' assemblies.

We can surmise from the trivialisation of public concerns that the current government is in fact dismissing Suhakam and its role as a human rights tribunal. Perhaps Suhakam was really intended to contain and control a level of dissent that would otherwise burst onto the streets as acts of civil disobedience. It took only two years for the truth to emerge.

Media management

The public is encouraged and persuaded to support Suhakam by continuing to give feedback and criticisms and filing complaints. Commissioners hold press conferences after receiving memoranda and such, with promises that matters would be looked into, visits made, repressive laws reviewed, dialogue with errant bodies to be initiated, human rights principles pontificated upon.

The hive of activity feeds a perception that something is being done.

When a commissioner starts to explain at length a version of why things are not moving in ways as desired by complainants and civil society groups, we may also begin to wonder whether we are being brought into a major public relations exercise, the hype on Suhakam being one example.

I am reminded of this when author and human rights advocate, James Gomez of Singapore spoke in KL recently, about discussions in the Singapore media and announcements of greater media freedom in Singapore by the People's Action Party (PAP) regime. These continue to be mere talk, a kind of 'media management' by the state on the issue of freedoms. It creates an impression of a Singapore glasnost, a work in progress.

According to Gomez, the media management actually cloaks the continued restrictions on speech and expression on all matters political through surveillance and legislation which are ongoing. But the hype about freedom is the one that captures the imagination and that outweighs the ongoing intimidation and surveillance.

In his new book, Internet politics: surveillance and intimidation in Singapore, Gomez suggests that a police state is not only where the authority and power of the police have become so great and uncontrollable. A police state is also one in which the executive uses the police and other instruments of the state from the bureaucracy, judiciary and other agencies and tools at its disposal to monitor and control civil and political activities of its citizens and others on its territory and beyond.

Hype as truth

An interesting outcome of the polizeistaat is the public acceptance of government propaganda that the island must be ruled with a firm hand with those who dare to raise challenge to the regime as rabble-rousers and disloyal citizens. Thus defining Singapore as a police state is unacceptable to many Singaporeans because the state propaganda has been successful. This propaganda assists its citizens to accept that intimidation is necessary, to accept government hype as truth.

A current example of media management Malaysian-style is the hype around the proposal of a Media Council. Journos are promised autonomy and self-regulation. However, no one who is involved in the discussions on the Media Council wants to talk to the press on what the Council is about, not even to the National Union of Journalists. You would think that national security and public order issues are at stake. But wait, media freedom, free speech and expression may well be national security issues.

The government is seen to be supportive of media freedom by mooting the Media Council. Meetings with editors, selected journos and politicians take centre stage in the press with no real information to the public and journos themselves on what the fuss is about. The hype may well go into the next World Press Freedom day.

In the meanwhile, the memorandum signed by individual journalists handed to Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi last year, to demand among others the repeal of several repressive laws on media freedom, like the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) and the Official Secrets Act (OSA), is ignored. The memorandum has been around for some years now.

The journos' memo has proved intriguing to Zainuddin Maidin. An elaborate plan for him to access the memo via Suhakam is in the offing. It is such a surprise to us all that the memo only caught his attention this year. The spin on government's concern on media freedom continues.

Suhakam has promised to look into the matter. Suhakam would investigate the concerns of journalists and perhaps in its report next year recommend the repeal and/or amendment to the PPPA and OSA. Parliament which has ignored the recommendations in Suhakam's first report and has not seen the second report, may or may not see the third report and may or may not ignore the recommendations contained therein. Abu Talib Othman remains as chairperson of Suhakam.

The persecution of Ahmad Lutfi Othman would be on schedule. Malaysiakini journos would still be barred from covering government events. The Internal Security Act stays because we are inundated by at least 100 more suspected militants (not to be read as terrorists) and at the last count in Parliament, 7,200 deviants.

The next general election will take place, with constituencies newly delineated and amendments to election laws passed without a hitch. The first past the post system (which seemed to rest easy even with opposition political parties) returns the same government to power. The system perpetuates itself.

Maybe we are not so different on this side of the causeway after all. There is a certain Singaporean-ness in us.

SALBIAH AHMAD is a lawyer. Malaya! as the name for this column was inspired by the meaning of 'Malaya' in Tagalog which means freedom. The events at the end of 1998 in KL offer a new inspiration. Malaya! takes on the process of reclaiming the many facets of independence.