Abdullah's vanilla ice-cream and real journalism

The Sunday Star and New Sunday Times were unusually bulkier, heavier this past Sunday, 31 October. Why were even more trees sacrificed for newsprint? Well, 31 October 2004 marked the end of the first year of Abdullah Badawi’s tenure as Prime Minister. If you were expecting a report card on his premiership, however, you would have been sorely disappointed - for what the mainstream papers offered was a congratulatory card.

Perhaps a year is a good benchmark to pause and assess the PM. The NST and The Star thus both had their special pull-out sections for the occasion. The former actually offered the section in three parts! theSun merely used its usual Weekend commentary section for it.

Vanilla ice-cream, anyone?

Both the NST and The Star were replete with good feelings about PM Abdullah. They appeared to have not shaken off that feel good feeling that prevailed over their coverage of the week-long run-up to the election of 21 March. They chalked up the BN’s victory as a huge personal achievement for Abdullah, a resounding affirmation by the rakyat of his quieter, kinder and gentler style of leadership, unlike that of Mahathir’s. And, of course, the papers could easily recall what a glorious victory it was, with 90 per cent of Parliament ending up under BN control.

Nothing was made of the fact that it was the shortest run-up – a paltry eight days - to the election ever. And, of course, not a whiff of a suggestion that polling day was the most scandalous ever and that it had tarnished the PM’s victory. Remember the many foul ups and the frustration experienced by thousands of voters? Or was all that too inconvenient to record for posterity.

Other than PM Abdullah’s big election achievement, both the NST and The Star opined that he was on the right track with regards to his vision and plans for the country.

Still on the subject of the PM’s character as though to emphasize his good intentions, The Star’s Wong Chun Wai spun us a folksy yarn – how the PM’s “chaste choice” of only vanilla for ice cream “speaks volumes of Pak Lah” as the real thing because all other flavours have “artificial colouring.” Hmm, how about Pak Lah’s penchant for golf?

A year is a long time in politics

So caught up with telling us about the PM’s vision and policies were the NST and The Star that they assumed Abdullah was justified in using a whole year to get that message out. But does a leader need a year to do that? Is it not a bit much?

In the real world, a leader in the private or public sector who uses that much time would at least encounter directly or indirectly some unkind speculation. A growing number of team members would get quickly disgruntled. A CEO of a corporation in a highly competitive global economy would have long been given the sack.

In countries where the media are freer and more independent, the press would have long wondered about the strength of commitment to the vision and plans when the leader needs so much time just to get the message across. Brendan Pereira’s piece in the NST on 31 October about how it was now time for the PM to walk the talk appears dated by at least three months.

Indeed, it is not like the PM has been lacking the means and avenues to get across his vision and plans. He has been reportedly surrounded by young, ambitious, intelligent and dynamic advisers as epitomised by his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, all savvy with political spin. The mainstream media have been on tap to generously and unabashedly promote the PM’s vision and plans starting especially in the run-up to the general election in March 2004. Are the papers now saying that they have actually failed the PM? Or are they trying to cover up for him?

All quiet on the anti-graft war front

Unlike the NST and The Star, theSun suggested that something was not quite right with Abdullah’s leadership. Its main piece by Gunasegaram referred to the perception in recent months about how the early promises of the PM’s have gone very quiet. For example, the issue of graft in high places. Right after charges were made against two high profile individuals – Eric Chia and Kasitah Gaddam – there was a promise (made prior to the March election) that more people in high places would be charged. But those citizens who have not yet given up hope are still waiting for some action to materialise.

The way the major fight against graft (along with other issues) has gone, coupled with the problems the PM appeared to be having within UMNO as shown during party elections in September led Gunasegaram to say:

“Clearly Pak Lah has opted for the soft approach, the path of least resistance... But clearly too this does not seem to be working as well as it should sometimes.

"Where are the open tenders at all levels? Where is the greater responsibility and efficacy of government bodies and others such as local councils? Where is the move to dismantle patronage in the system? And where is the change to give the Anti-Corruption Agency more power to act? And is it really possible that vote-buying in Umno and elsewhere be rooted out without the help of the ACA and the police.”

As opposed to the yarn given by Wong in The Star about the PM’s preference for vanilla and how that “speak volumes of Pak Lah” as the real thing, what Gunasegaram has done by raising the above questions is to get at the real test of the PM’s character. Does that not speak louder than the “volumes” of words? And does that not serve the readers or the country far better?

Uncritical “ordinary Malaysians”

The NST and The Star also had people from the corporate world as well as foreign ambassadors commenting on PM Abdullah. Is it any surprised that they only had good things to say? Perhaps theSun had the good sense not to bother at all, although the paper could surely have made better use of the space given to some of the PM’s quotes.

The NST and The Star also interviewed other Malaysians. The NST was interested in the views from local artistes like musicians and performers. The latter gave a thumbs-up view of the PM although now and then a concern might be raised. For example, Indie musician Pete Teo wanted more relaxation on censorship and wondered how it would fare in the future under PM Abdullah.

The NST also singled out the youth as it carried the views of five youths, all of whom gushed forth only positive things about the PM. The paper appeared to connect up with the PM making an effort to appeal to the youth while election campaigning back in March.

Meanwhile, The Star, showing more interests in ordinary Malaysians, provided views of 22 individuals of different ages from many different walks of life and different parts of the country. What did they have to say? Well, not a single one had even the slightest scepticism or doubt regarding the PM, with most still focusing on his character, recalling the many “ordinary” Malaysians who commented on it in the run-up to the March election.

Is it possible at all that no “ordinary Malaysians” at all have even a whiff of a critical view? Or were such views simply too inconvenient for The Star to include.

NGOs do not exist

But what is most disturbing is that The Star and the NST did not care to include the views of any of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Some may take exception regarding Chandra Muzaffar’s piece in The Star as he is president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). But as respectable as it is, JUST is really not focused on Malaysia. The views were thus strictly those of Chandra’s and it is no secret that Chandra is an admirer of PM Abdullah.

But where are NGOs like Suaram, Aliran, HAKAM, ABIM, Consumers Association of Penang, to name a few? Why were they excluded?

Although theSun gave fewer pages to examining Abdullah’s first year as PM than either The Star or NST, it at least carried a couple of pieces on NGOs. One featured Transparency International (TI) Malaysia with views from its president, Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim. The other was on interfaith dialogue with views from Inter-faith Spiritual Fellowship and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism.

The exclusion of NGOs by NST and The Star is truly inexcusable, especially NST, because its special section examining Abdullah’s first year in office offered the most space. The exclusion was, however, not unusual as both papers have the tendency to treat NGOs like pariahs instead of organisations made up of caring Malaysians who work hard, often with very meagre resources and no pay, to contribute to a vibrant civil society, which is crucial for the enhancement of a freer, more equal and democratic Malaysia for all.

Finally, one could easily notice how the special pull-out section on PM Abdullah offered by the NST and The Star are chock-full of ads offering congratulatory messages to the PM. This, together with the fact that both papers’ content offered what was essentially a congratulatory card to the PM - instead of a report card about his performance - shows that the whole thing not only benefited the PM, but also the papers in the form of significant advertising revenue.

But at least the advertisers had more honesty than the papers because, unlike the so-called journalistic content of the papers, they did not pretend to be anything other than unabashed supporters of Abdullah.