Information Ministry parliamentary secretary Zainudin Maidin (aka Zam) might have sounded silly when he recently declared in a parliamentary debate that Malaysia is still "not developed yet". But once the guffaw over this gaffe subsides, one would realise that his sentiment may well be shared by many a politician in the government, now and then.

For such a 'contention', if you can call it that, is the one that has for many years served well the interests of the powers-that-be in their attempt to justify the state's control over broadcasting and print media, and also its imposition of certain restrictions on civil liberties.

In the years of yore, political leaders in a relatively newly independent country, such as Malaysia, often pointed out the importance of concentrating the people's attention and channelling the country's energy towards the coveted national project of 'development'.

'Excessive politicking', we were often warned, would only divert the people's attention away from the vital objectives of building the country.

While there might have been some virtue or validity in this precautionary measure in the crucial, initial years of nation-building, the successive years suggest that this move had not benefited the majority of the people in many ways.

If anything, the many years after independence have shown that the ruling elite has been prone to exploiting this rationale to protect its own interests by controlling mass media of communication and at the same time clamping down on criticism, debate and dissent.

Intelligence ridiculed

One is compelled to hazard a guess whether Zam in this present day was so hard pressed to defend the denial of access to government broadcast media RTM to the opposition, especially in the run-up to a general election, that he fleetingly refused to acknowledge the fact that modern and technologically advanced Malaysia has attained, at least in the material sense, a respectable degree of 'development'.

In an instant, the much-touted Multimedia Super Corridor, the KL International Airport in Sepang, industrial estates, etc flew out the window.

Certain Barisan Nasional politicians, in their desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable, can be quite patronising towards the ordinary people. They would, with a straight face, insist that the rakyat are not yet ready for open debate and a higher degree of press freedom because, so goes the insinuation, the latter are intellectually unrefined, emotional and politically naive.

These politicians have over time acquired the knack of ridiculing the intelligence of the people, including the so-calledorang kampung.

The multiethnic and multicultural nature of a society such as ours also comes in handy. It provides an 'excellent' and convenient excuse for the ruling elite to restrict press freedom and curb certain civil liberties.

Hence, Zam's swift reminder: "Developed countries do not have the racial and religious composition that we have in Malaysia."

It is one thing to say that there are certain ethnic and religious sensitivities that one has to take cognizant of and to be careful about in Malaysia, and it is quite another to insist on a blanket ban on issues relating to ethnic groups of public import and concern that the government deem 'sensitive'.

For it begs the question, 'sensitive' to whom, really? There are indeed issues that relate to certain needs, grievances, frustrations and worries of certain ethnic communities that are quite universal in nature, of which public airing is not only legitimate but also at times urgent.

Experiences of other multiethnic societies seem to indicate that ethnic tension, if not clashes, could have been averted or reduced had the various ethnic and cultural groups been given adequate opportunity to express their views on issues of public importance, and also to air their grievances via the mass media in the hope that these eventually get the redress they rightly deserve.

Pent-up feelings and frustrations, if not attended to, may one day explode into something that is uncontrollable and could cause irreparable damage to the larger society.

Social injustice

Hence, for example, a group of estate and plantation workers, who are incidentally predominantly ethnic Indians, may need adequate space in the media to express their unhappiness over an employer's (who happens to come from a different ethnic background and is probably politically 'well-connected') lack of attention to the squalid condition of their living quarters and the poor and dangerous conditions at workplace.

At the very least, if the media could take the initiative to report this as an essentially employee-employer problem, then they may well be able to pre-empt any possible attempt by any politician (or anyone for that matter), eager to reinforce his/her ethnic credentials, to unnecessarily communalise or ethnicise this issue to the extent of raising 'ethnic temperature' for his/ her own political gain.

In this and other issues, the media would be able to help correct social injustice, the seeds of much social and ethnic unrest, even though this may at times mean having to step on the toes of the powerful and the rich.

The only catch here is whether the media concerned are willing to face the 'wrath' of the privileged class, and this may well be the parameters of press freedom that many such politicians and also certain journalists have often tried to allude to.

There's one more thing about that 'undeveloped' assertion. Zam's blinkered view of the world needs correction here: Many of the so-called developed countries have long 'gone multiethnic and multicultural' primarily because of migration of people from the South into these countries.

Despite, and perhaps because of this, press freedom and civil liberties are jealously guarded by the people in these places. So if Zam is trying to imply that Malaysia is 'unique' and hence its citizens require a 'uniquely Malaysian' way of coming to terms with democracy and freedom of expression, he's off the mark.

Made in Malaysia?

But Zam's contention is not necessarily the preserve of politicians. Certain journalists, among others, harbour such thoughts too. This is why, for instance, Balan Moses wrote in the New Sunday Times (Sept 15, 2002) that 'press freedom is contextual'.

What was implied here was that press freedom in the country should be custom-made, taking into account the multiethnic composition of the society. Otherwise, he warned, the country would be 'torn asunder', after promptly equating press freedom with social chaos.

Surely journalists such as Moses, supposedly curious creatures, could have at the very least raised searching questions such as, would a higher degree of press freedom really jeopardise the security of the people, or would it instead 'endanger' the status and interests of the powers that be?

Is press freedom so alien (or western) a notion that it would simply not sit comfortably with our local culture, value system, ideals and sense of justice?

Or would press freedom likely to trigger off a call for a greater degree of transparency, accountability and justice on the part of the ruling elite?

Be that as it may, it looks like one has yet to wait as suggested by an otherwise nationalist and anti-imperialist Zam for international institutions such as the World Bank to declare our country 'developed' before we can all celebrate and enjoy an improved scale of press freedom and other civil liberties.