The recent incident involving the Information Ministry's ban on the second segment of TV2 Mandarin news bulletin's two-part feature on the fierce competition between Chinese dailies only reinforces public perception that ruling politicians have the knack for being paternalistic to the point of insulting the rakyat's intelligence, especially when it comes to media coverage that they insist could spark controversy and 'confusion'.

Deputy Information Minister Donald Lim was quoted as saying that the special feature was dumped to avoid 'creating confusion in the community'. Such a drastic action necessarily raises a number of questions.

Firstly, what in the news programme concerned that could possibly create 'confusion' in the minds of members of the Chinese community? Incidentally, if 'the community' here is meant only the 'Chinese community', then it is an error of judgment on the part of the honourable gentleman because even though the issue is about Chinese dailies it nonetheless is, or should be, the concern of all Malaysians irrespective of ethnic backgrounds.

If it were true that this particular programme revealed the stiff, and allegedly unfair, competition that the major Chinese newspapers, namely Nanyang Siang Pau, China Press, Sinchew Daily, Guang Ming Daily, and the new kid on the block, Oriental Daily News encounter, then don't Malaysian viewers, especially the 'confused' lot, have the right to know? This is because such a keen contest, essentially triggered by the controversial acquisition of the Nanyang Group by Huaren Management (an MCA investment company), has an impact on press freedom and social justice as a whole especially when, as alleged, the latest Chinese daily faced a number of problems such as distribution hitches, intimidation and undercutting from day one.

Blacklisting columnists

Furthermore, would it be too 'confusing' for concerned Malaysians to know whether the blacklisting of certain columnists, including Chang Teck Peng who has been 'banned' twice, of the Oriental Daily News by the authorities has got to do with this 'stiff' competition? It was said that many of these writers were critical of the mainstream Chinese newspapers, and the MCA, among other things. If this was indeed the case, would it 'confuse' the viewers if they realise that this ban on the writers constituted an assault on Oriental Daily's attempt to be an 'independent' newspaper, and that this also violated freedom of expression and of the press? By the way, this curb on criticisms reminds me of a TV movie where one of the characters made a poignant remark, 'If you are brutally honest, you cease to exist.'

At the same time, would it further 'confuse' the curious viewers if they wondered whether the concentration of ownership of the major Chinese newspapers would affect press freedom given that these dailies are closely connected, politically and/or ideologically, to the powers that be? For example, MCA, a component of the ruling Barisan Nasional, has a vital stake in the mainstream Chinese dailies, namely Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press, and also the English newspaper, the Star - not to mention the other component parties and their corporate interests in other newspapers and other media.

And would this 'confusion' worsen if the viewers realised that this pattern of media ownership might reduce the range of media diversity that is crucially needed to represent a wide spectrum of views and interests in a multiethnic society that is supposed to practise democracy?

Consequently, wouldn't these newspapers generally be promoting the ideas and interests of the ruling party and its economic allies, and simultaneously ignoring voices of dissent, the opposition, and the marginalised? And if so, would it 'confuse' Malaysians if they understood why the mainstream media often would put, rather cynically, in the limelight marginalised groups such as the Orang Asli, and other political and cultural minorities (e.g. Malacca's Portuguese community and Kedah's Thai community) only on selected national events such as a general election or Merdeka Day as if to celebrate the 'Malaysian-ness' of our multiethnic and multicultural society?

Ministry directives

Would it build up 'confusion' in our society if Malaysians were told in the programme that the Home Ministry did issue directives (often via phone calls as this apparently was a conscious act to avoid leaving incriminating evidence) to the editorial department of mainstream dailies to censor certain matters?

Unless, of course, the deputy minister concerned is so convinced that most Malaysians, particularly those chicken-eaters (the avian flu virus may have a certain kind of impact), are incurably gullible, and thus easily let themselves to confusion. Besides, in a society such as ours where there is a view expressed a few days ago (by a reader of a Malay mainstream newspaper) that the recent spate of child rapes and sexual molestation has its roots in the reformasi movement of yore because it provoked the raw urges of the Malays concerned to rebel and turn violent, this concern for the public's 'confusion' may not, for all you know, be terribly misplaced.

Secondly, if there really is 'confusion' in the society over this issue, then shouldn't it be the social responsibility of the media concerned, particularly RTM, to provide enough intellectual space for people to discuss and enlighten the populace? Discussions conducted in a civilised fashion, as opposed to a political fiat that shuts debates, would normally help to clear the air about certain issues and controversies.

In thriving democracies such as Britain, the BBC and some of the major dailies provide space for writers, journalists and members of the general public to discuss issues pertaining to the media performance in their society. Surely the very purpose of such intellectual discourse is not to confuse but help inform and enlighten the public. In a sense, this would also help the media organisations concerned to check each other's excesses or mistakes without having outside forces such as the state intervene to supposedly impose discipline on them.

Extraordinary powers

Thirdly, a government such as ours that professes a commitment to build a knowledge-society only raises - from this RTM action and other media incidents - suspicion whether it is only giving lip service to the notion of freedom of expression and free access to information. It is imperative that the muzzles be removed once and for all.

Fourthly, the spiking of the second part of the TV2 feature and also the removal of Oriental Daily News columnists is a sad commentary of the further erosion of press freedom in this country. But more than that, it poses a question whether the 'extraordinary powers' of political intervention (via undemocratic laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act) that ministers, particularly those of the Home Ministry and the Information Ministry, possess would make the press or media council that is being proposed irrelevant or powerless to address effectively issues and professional and ethical problems that concern journalists and the media.

It is at this juncture that perhaps Malaysians would indeed be 'confused' to wonder whether the recent RTM gag by the deputy information minister is a deliberate attempt to make Malaysians ignorant of certain goings-on in the media industry and the society as a whole. 'Confusion' there may still be, especially if the viewers are left to wonder whether this ban is calculated to prevent people to know that the interests and position of the ruling party, especially the MCA, would be jeopardised if the programme were broadcast.

If there's a lesson to be drawn from this episode, it is that the interests and concerns of the ruling party don't necessarily coincide with those of the ordinary mortals. It follows therefore that the 'confusion' of the honourable gentleman is purely his own and his party's, and not one that is shared by the rakyat in general.