Penang state executive councilor for Islamic religion Abdul Malik Abul Kassim has lamented as “unethical” the practice of direct attribution of what is said on background by a public figure to media mavens.

Usually one of the more accessible of politicians in the Penang Pakatan government, Malik was caught in a media furore when his musings on background was retailed with direct attribution by a journalist who had approached him for comments on the Halimah issue.

Halimah is an Indonesian Christian who was arrested at a reflexology centre in Penang where she worked and was subsequently charged in a syariah court with committing close proximity (khalwat).

The issue has become the subject of a minor furore on web news portals and in social media, pitting critics of syariah against puritans of the faith.      

Malik was reported to have told a journalist who had contacted him for comments on the issue that the proprietor of the centre should have known better than to have an employee on the premises sporting a Muslim-sounding name.

The alleged remark predictably invited reactions ranging from derision to incredulity.

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was not amused and nudged his Pakatan colleague to explain himself which the second-term executive councilor, who also manages the domestic trade and consumer affairs portfolio, proceeded to do in a statement issued late yesterday.

Model of explication

The statement is a model of explication without evasion and should be quoted in full if only as refutation of the art of some politicians who are skilled at obfuscating while explicating:

“These days public figures speaking to journalists on background can be a hazardous undertaking.

“My first reaction (to the Halimah issue) was to tell the journalist (from a newspaper) in a short message service message that I would not like to make comments on a case that is being heard in the courts. This is the default position of people in authority on any matter that is being tried in a court, be it civil or religious. It is the safest stance to take because comments can prejudice the juridical process.

“Offering that stance, I thought the matter of my reaction to the issue of a supposedly Indonesian Christian being charged with khalwat would be reported as just that, a reluctance to hold forth on a case that is being tried in a court.

“To my surprise, my tersely crafted stance was extrapolated by the journalist to portray me as lamenting the folly of Halimah’s employer in hiring a person with a Muslim-sounding name for work at a place that would leave her exposed to prosecution for a Syariah rule violation.

“She later called me and I specifically told her I had messaged her my comment and did not want to elaborate. I don’t deny I did have a conversation with her on this issue but that was on background which the journalist, with due regard for the protocols governing such engagements, ought to have respected.

“Having been acquainted with her, I expected she would be ethical enough not to allude to our tele-conversation which was done on background; instead, for direct quotation, she should have cited my sms to her.

“I now empathetically state that the substance of the editorial in the web news portal fz.com is wholly misconceived. Further, I maintain that my tele-conversation should not have been quoted as I had verbally informed her of my reluctance to elaborate and instead re-asserted my earlier stance as conveyed by my sms.

“I regret my comments on background on the Halimah issue have been read out of context. I urge journalists to respect the protocols pertaining to public figures who they invite to speak on background.
    
“Though this incident has turned out to be a chastening experience, I will not allow it to spoil the good ties I have long cultivated with the media though I would, in future, be at pains to let them know what they are free to quote and what must be treated with staunch discretion.”