Glossing over a stormy chapter in the Proton saga

Over the last few days, we witnessed Proton’s boardroom action going into high gear, what with a few of its directors threatening to resign if former premier Mahathir Mohamad was appointed as advisor to the troubled national car maker. There was apparently what was termed as a boardroom revolt over the appointment, but Mahathir eventually succeeded in being made the advisor.

Not bad for someone who wanted to retire from politics but later raised eyebrows when he was appointed "advisor" to the nation's "cash cow", Petronas, which remains unaccountable to the Malaysian public. Surely the position of advisor to Petronas is a powerful and influential post by all accounts. (We are sure Malaysians readers would want to know the extent of depletion in Petronas' accumulated funds/reserves during Mahathir's 22-year tenure as PM and how much of it was wasted on the ex premier's mega projects. But don't hold your breath in anticipation of a mainstream media expose.)

Despite the corporate storm that was unleashed over Mahathir's subsequent appointment as Proton advisor, the New Straits Times on Apr 20 published a report on the appointment in a business-as-usual fashion. Headlined “Abdullah confirms Dr Mahathir’s appointment as Proton adviser”, readers of the establishment daily could be excused for believing that life has been hunky dorey at Proton. And that’s the kind of “fact” that the newspaper chooses to select for its readers devoid of any background or context and omitting the fact of the boardroom revolt. The result: the NST report is a factual report, yes, but it certainly does not convey the whole truth as important facts were omitted. In fact, the paper's selective use of facts gives NST readers the FALSE impression that the appointment was largely routine and uncontroversial.