Min wage and biotech: Hello, journalists, wake up!

As we have noted on several occasions earlier, the mainstream media think they do developmental journalism for the welfare and progress of Malaysians but, in reality, they largely serve the Barisan Nasional government. For further evidence of it, consider two recent news reports, one in The Star and the other in the New Straits Times.

"Minimum wage against country's philosophy" - Excuse me?

The Star reported on 22 June that Human Resources Minister Fong Chan Onn said Malaysia would not set a minimum wage scale. Why not? “(B)ecause it was against the country’s philosophy”. And what is that philosophy? It is having market forces determine the scale. He also added that “the imposition of minimum wage scales in several countries had led to many companies folding up because they did not want to continue operations under such circumstances. This in turn created unemployment...”

And that was it. Nothing more.

But has the country been truly sticking to the philosophy of having market forces determine prices (including wages)? Consider the following three practices that are all too well known to Malaysians:

* the legislation or restriction of prices on essential items like flour and rice.
* the monopoly status granted to certain business such as the airport limos and budget taxis at KLIA.
* the long known practice since the 1980s - but only recently publicly admitted to by Works Minister Samy Vellu - of selecting concessionaires to build highways without open tenders.

Anyone with a Form Five education can say none of the three practices is consistent with the market-economy philosophy. Yet, the media just let the glaringly contradictory statement from the Human Resources Minister go unquestioned, unclarified.

Are reporters and editors dumb?

Now, what is wrong if they were to say, for example, the Minister did not clarify how his reasoning about sticking to the market economy as the national philosophy squared with many other business or economic practices that simply deviate from it?

So, are reporters and editors dumb? Less than likely. A more likely explanation has to lie elsewhere. And that is the mainstream media are more interested in serving the Barisan Nasional government. They would slavishly transcribe what was said by this or that BN leader and even offer uncritical support for policies that the BN government is trying to undertake. But they would not care to offer clarifications for statements that sound contradictory, inconsistent, confusing or downright insulting to the intelligence of an ordinary person.

Singing the praises of biotech

Moving on now to the second recent example, this time from NST. First, a bit of background. As the media made clear, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has taken a strong interest in promoting the biotech industry in Malaysia. It has become his ‘baby’. NST has been at the forefront of helping the PM to promote it. So much so that it has not entertained any whiff of a discussion about some of the social, cultural and environmental perils that such an industry could spawn as has been well documented (for more on this, read our 13 June piece).

And so it was that, on 21 June, NST gave lavish space to Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Jamaludin Jarjis in the form of an excerpt of an interview with him presented in Q&A fashion. It was no more than a platform for Jamaludin to sing the praises of the biotech industry and why the PM was right to pursue it for Malaysia. (In the light of the fact that PM Abdullah is believed to have had a hand in the appointment of Kalimullah Hasan as NST ‘s Group Editor-in-chief, he must be glad to see his effort paying off yet again.)

Consider the seven questions the Minister was asked. Five were of the “What about this or that” type of questions: What are your immediate plans for this industry? What are we willing to offer (to attract biotech investments into the country)? What is the status of the National Biotechnology Policy? What is the status of the Brain Gain programme? How are we going to develop and strengthen local talent?

These are hardly probing questions. For the Minister with a doctorate degree, he would be able to address them even in his sleep.

Indeed, one cannot help but wonder whether the reporters had done their homework before the interview by reading up on the brochures or publications of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation to get answers to the above basic questions to use as a springboard for asking probing questions. Hard to imagine the Ministry not having such publications since the Minister appeared so gung ho about the biotech industry.

Hello reporters, wake up!

In any case, of the seven questions, only two then can be loosely considered probing questions. The first was: “Biotech has its risks. Companies might leave if their innovations turn into a disaster, that cause diseases or environmental destruction. Do we have legislative safeguards?”

The Minister’s response: “Obviously, Frankenstein, through movies, has caused the misconception about biotech. Even in an affluent society like the United States, the people have a misconception about biotech. So it is important that our Government educate people about biotechnology. It’s a noble thing, especially when you are doing something which is natural, like creating yeast from tapioca.”

The reporters immediately went to the next question (which will be discussed next). Hello! Did they not notice how the Minister dismissed their question about negative effects as having stemmed from fiction! Either they were ignorant of some of the negative effects that are well documented in research reports (which are certainly not fiction) or they feebly threw in the question hoping to convince those inadequately informed about biotech that they did ask the Minister at least a tough, probing question.

The reporters’ second probing question: “Will we consider going into genetic modification of food?” The answer from the Minister: “We should go into pharmaceuticals first, not genetic modification. Even if we go GM, we should do a lot of our tests first. We want to keep it natural.”

Talk about double-speak. And, typically, the reporters did not appear concerned with how the Minister answered their questions. No follow through to get at a more precise or clearer explanation. The reporters were either afraid of the Minister or more interested in having their question asked and answered, and moving on.

Latching the barn doors after the horses have bolted

These two recent examples from The Star and NST are, however, not showing something new about the mainstream media. Far from it. Back when Mahathir was the prime minister, his push was for development of, first, the heavy manufacturing industry (as in steel and automobile) and, second, the information industry (or the grandly touted Malaysian Super Corridor).

Hardly any meaningful discussion was entertained at the outset concerning how both industrialization programmes could result in social, cultural and environmental peril. This lack of discussion meant that measures to prevent such negative consequences were often not included as an integral part of the programmes.

The negative consquences were well known were well-known even then e.g. the congested roads (because of the push to sell Proton cars at the expense of a more integrated, efficient, and affordable public transportation system) and the digital divide). Only after the negative consequences started to materialise did the administrators and politicians begin wringing their hands in a show of concerns and start having more meaningful discussions while scrambling for ad hoc measures.

Journalists, remove your gags!

The mainstream media may argue by saying that they are practising the developmental media approach, which is much needed for Malaysia to propel the country into developed nation status. Until the country becomes developed, they argue that they cannot afford to engage in critical reporting of the government, unlike that found in many of the developed nations.

But why should asking BN leaders to clarify their statements of contradiction or to consider the negative social, cultural and environmental consequences of their programmes from the outset not be part of the developmental approach? In fact, it is very much a part of it.

If the idea of development is to make sure that Malaysians of various creeds, colour and class benefit from the programmes, such questions need to be asked and debated at the outset. That way, measures to deal effectively with the likely negative consequences could be made an integral part of the programmes.

The poor bear the brunt

This is unlike the norm now where negative consequences of policies that crop up later are frantically attended to and dealt with in an ad hoc fashion, often unsatisfactorily. This kind of approach is also unfair to the poor, who would have to bear the brunt of the negative consequences while the rich can always find ways to escape or cocoon from themselves using their wealth.

And so, the mainstream media’s idea of developmental journalism very much amounts to serving the BN government – to give ample and prominent space to B leaders' words and deeds and to offer praise and support to their policies.

Inconsistencies, contradictions, and confusion over BN statements or policies are simply ignored or dismissed. All the while, the media fail to ask probing, critical questions - which they regard as going against the development and progress of the country - and are proud to serve as the propaganda tools of the BN.