NST spins the ISA via "objective reporting"

On 6 November 2005, the New Sunday Times, in a two-page report, took readers down memory lane to the terrifying days of Operation Lalang. Remember? That was when 106 people were detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in a political crackdown that began on 27 October 1987. As you can see, the Times did not publish this report on 27 October this year; perhaps it didn’t really want to give special emphasis to this date or lend it any political significance.

Carrying a banner headline, ‘9/11 changed Hu’s view of ISA’, the report provided the views of four ex-ISA detainees regarding their detention during that dark period: former DAP deputy organising secretary Hu Sepang; veteran Chinese educationist Datuk Sim Mow Yu (under a smaller headline, ‘Sim taught detainees Chinese during his stay’); UMNO member Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (‘Tajuddin bears no grudges’); and activist Dr. Mohd Nasir Hashim (‘When you play with fire, you will get burnt’).

The introduction to this report essentially tries to justify the use of the repressive ISA. It says that the political turmoil that preceded Operation Lalang compelled the government to suspend “the civil liberties of the 106, including 14 from the ruling Barisan Nasional”. It didn’t quite acknowledge the fact that the very law itself violates the civil liberties and human rights of all Malaysians.

In the interview with Hu Sepang, the report attempts to give the impression that there was a split in the DAP at that time, when Hu was still a member of the party.

But the punch-line was saved for the last three paragraphs:

"But having been through that detention, what does Hu think of the use of the ISA today?

"I am in favour of it (ISA) although I had opposed it vehemently after my release.

"The turning point came after Sept. 11. After that, many countries including the US and Britain, introduced similar legislation.”

Of course, the report didn’t say that two wrongs don’t make a right.

The other three interviews basically tell of the ex-detainees’ harsh experiences. It is noteworthy that the Nasir interview ends with these two paragraphs:

“I am not a romantic, nor am I a rabble-rouser trying to gain popularity. I did what I did because I believed in it.

“And I knew from the very beginning that when you play with fire, you will get burnt.”

This implies that Nasir knew that his criticism of the government would eventually land himself in detention without trial; as if that was something that the reader – and Nasir himself – should accept as a ‘given’.

One may argue that all these came from the horses’ mouths, and therefore they are the mark of genuine, “objective” journalism. But wait, the structuring of the sentences and the reports give the message a different spin altogether. For instance, why was Hu’s interview centre-staged? Well, it provided the paper an excellent opportunity to try to justify the ISA as reflected in the banner headline mentioned above. It was an opportunity too good to be missed – putting a spin on the nastiest piece of work in our statute books.

So much for “balanced” journalism.