Rehman's argument against 'live' telecasts flawed

To televise or not to televise Parliamentary sessions live. That has been an issue debated since last April. The Barisan Nasional government opposes it. A few reasons have been given, specifically by Information Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, his deputy Zainuddin Maidin and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz.

One is that televising Parliament would be too expensive as it would cost RM10,000 per session. How that amount was arrived at remains a mystery; the mainstream press was happy with what the government dished out. Another reason is that live telecasts of under-attended parliamentary sessions would give a wrong impression to the public. The public might think their wakil rakyat was goofing off somewhere when he/she might actually have been called away to attend to some other more important issues for a wakil rakyat (are the public that dumb?). Yet another reason for opposing live telecasts was on the grounds of the “unparliamentary” behaviour or antics of the opposition in parliament.

Those in favour of live telecasts include the DAP’s Lim Kit Siang, the only focus of the media in the debate with the BN. Lim believes it will enhance democracy in the country. This will also help realize an aim of Abdullah Badawi’s government, namely to upgrade Malaysia’s Third World mentality in order to match the country’s First World technology. Lim also said that the cost of televising could be borne partly or wholly by sponsors or advertisers, but Abdul Kadir dismissed it outright, saying sponsors/advertisers would not be interested. It is unclear how Kadir arrived at that claim. Again, the mainstream press acted merely as a mouthpiece for the BN government.

Lim also disputed the BN claim about the opposition’s “unparliamentary” behaviour or antics and suggested that the BN is no less guilty of such behaviour. He added that live telecasts would actually help determine who or which party would act more “unparliamentarily” and deter such behaviour in future.

More recently, Deputy Information Minister Zainuddin suggested that RTM should bring back the program “Dari Dewan Rakyat” to present selective coverage of Parliamentary sessions. He also added that the program would focus on the drama in the goings-on in Parliament.

Lim responded by saying that the focus would undermine the very reason for the live telecast, namely to enlighten the public on issues brought forward, discussed and debated in Parliament.

Against this background, associate editor Rehman Rashid of the New Straits Times weighed in with his piece in his “Midweek” column on 2 June. In exploring the larger issue of openness or transparency in society and how far society should go with it, he concludes that it is not a good idea to have live telecasts because Malaysia is not ready for it.

Why not? In his words:

“If Parliament must remain the giant spittoon for all the invective we might otherwise be spewing at each other here in the outside world, so be it. But having everyone in the country witnessing such things as they happen may be more than the system can bear.

Until our parliamentarians learn to keep civil tongues in level heads as a matter of course and not heroic effort, it would be best to keep TV cameras out of the House.”

And for evidence of the “uncivil tongues”, he cited the recent case of DAP’s Karpal Singh and a BN parliamentarian calling each other “animal” in Parliament.

Rehman’s argument, however, raises a host of very troubling questions. Why does he assume that every parliamentarian is ever ready to wag their uncivil tongues? How often have Malaysians read or heard about such oral outbursts from parliamentarians, even taking into consideration that the media have a tendency to play up such behaviour?

And why does he assume the system cannot take it? Have we not read or heard about uncivil behaviour in Parliament in countries like India, South Korea, and Taiwan? Are their systems crumbling? Indeed, is it not true that despite some of the uncivil parliamentarian behaviour the systems in countries like India and South Korea are still regarded by various quarters as more democratic than that in Malaysia?

If we continue to allow parliamentarians to engage in uncivil behaviour, which goes un-televised, how can they change their ways? What more effective way than public shaming? And if they are not shamed by their uncivil behaviour captured on live broadcasts for the world to see and persist with them, would that not help the public to get a good glimpse of their wakil rakyat and decide not to vote for them next time? Or does Rehman also assume the public is too dumb to care?

Indeed, going by Rehman’s argument that we will only have live telecasts when we know for sure all Parliamentarians will check their uncivil tongues at Parliament’s door, that day will never come at all. How can we guarantee that parliamentarians will always remember to hold their uncivil tongues? And how fair is it to use the rare wagging of the uncivil tongues by a parliamentarian to tar all parliamentarians with such behaviour and punish the public by withholding live telecasts?

The most troubling part of Rehman’s argument is that he shows no interest at all over the issue that lies at the very heart of the argument by those who support live telecast: that it offers another way to enhance democratic governance in the country. Does he not agree with that view? Why not?

Rehman also argued that when TV cameras are barred from a courtroom to capture a trial in progress, why should they be allowed inside Parliament. Well, in case he missed this, more and more countries are now considering having TV cameras in their courtrooms as well.

Right now, the US leads other countries in “live” telecasts of court trials. And judges do have their rules for live coverage, e.g., cameras should not take pictures of the jurors. Despite that, live telecasts have been carried out.

So, why cannot we have live telecasts of Parliament subject to certain rules agreed upon by the BN and the opposition but without undercutting the aim of enlightening the public of the issues put forward, discussed and debated in Parliament? Singapore and many other countries comparable in economic development to Malaysia are able to find ways to do the live broadcasts. Why are some of us still saying “Malaysia tak boleh”?

In short, the many reasons given by opponents of live telecasts of Parliament are a big disappointment. If they are the best reasons they can come up with, then one cannot help but feel there is more to the BN’s opposition than meets the eye.

As for the mainstream media, they are willing just to give what the BN and DAP’s Lim have to say about the issue without helping the public to clarify important claims. For example, is it true that it would cost RM10,000 to do the live telecast of one parliamentary session? Are there really no sponsors or advertisers willing to help fund the telecasts? The media, too, have been a big disappointment.