The manufactured outrage against The Star

“By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.”

- Oscar Wilde

COMMENT | From the New York Times archives (Oct 29, 1987) - Malaysia shuts down 3 papers: “The Malaysian government, saying it feared a racial explosion, closed three newspapers today, including the country's liveliest English-language daily, The Star.

“In the last two days, 63 politicians and leaders of citizens groups have been detained in a sweep against critics of the administration of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Among them is Lim Kit Siang, leader of the main opposition party, Democratic Action Party.”

Back then journalist friends of mine told me to think about the families of employees that were affected by this clampdown, the uncertainty, financial and otherwise, they faced because of the actions of the government of the day. My response was, why should there be any uncertainty when the The Star has a rich sugar daddy - the MCA - to cover the expenses of those involved for actions taken by their partners in the ruling coalition?

As a member of good standing - at least I think I was a member in good standing - with the establishment, I knew how things worked. We all did. Back in the good old days, where the mainstream propaganda organs of the establishment were the only source of information, The Star every now and then profited from its reputation as the problem child of the state. This enabled it to command, by virtue of luck more than any sense of journalistic integrity, the respect of a compliant citizenry.

Let's not forget that Utusan Malaysia kicked out former National Union of Journalists president Hata Wahari for pointing out the fact that the mainstream press was indeed biased in favour of the establishment when reporting the news, or to quote Hata, "all mainstream journalists, especially of Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and The Star should return to their true function as deliverers of objective information to the public, and not as tools of propaganda for the government, or any political party or individual, for their personal gain."

What is the appropriate reaction for journalists and members of the public when a propaganda organ of the state is sanctioned, not for its reporting but because of a “mistake” that the state it serves deems offensive?

Let us just unpack this mess.

1) The supposed “confusing headline and picture”, which apparently could be seditious.

I am not going to sugarcoat this. If this was any other religion, would this picture be considered seditious and would the concerns of believers of that religion be taken into consideration? The home minister claimed that - “It is highly inappropriate for the picture and the headline to be published on the same page, and it has caused confusion, misunderstanding and prejudice against Muslims, which could imply a connection with terrorism.”

Really? What “causes prejudice against Muslims” is when a university lecturer accuses an established opposition party of having a Christian agenda without offering any proof. What causes prejudice to Muslims is when the state organises an essay contest on an opposition politician which entails libelling the politician as racist and anti-Islam.

What causes prejudice is when Muslim politicians object to a chief minister of a state attending a buka puasa event and claiming he should embrace Islam if he wants to attend. What causes prejudice are unilateral conversions, smear campaigns by “Malay” propaganda organs, disappearances of religious figures, and unequal treatment before the law...