Caricatures: Double standards in ridiculous witch-hunt

On the day (23 February) the PM decided not to take action against the NST for running Wiley Miller’s syndicated cartoon concerning caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin was confronted with the issue of RTM having shown the caricatures in a news story. One of the things he reportedly said was:

the whole affair had been "good for the country" as it meant a continual process of learning about Press freedom and its dos and don’ts.

Gone was the holier-than-thou attitude shown towards the NST a couple of days earlier. Instead, he had to eat humble pie because the media in his very backyard were believed to have erred.

Apples and pears

Nonetheless, Zam had a point: let us learn from this chapter of the Malaysian media. So, what might the lessons be?

To begin with, Miller’s cartoon in the NST was different from the caricatures of the Prophet because it did not have visual depictions of the Prophet. The difference between the two is not in the category of apples and oranges, but apples and pears. Still, there is a difference. For people to collapse the two in the name of responsibility of the press is to abuse that concept. It would take press responsibility down the wrong, sorry path and cripple intellectual growth.

The pertinent question was: should the NST have run the comic strip at a time when protests of the caricatures of the Prophet were still fresh in the minds of millions. Just because of that alone, some might say no. But was it as simple as that?

A major part of the news media is presenting news in a timely fashion. Cartoonists are also mindful of that. Especially those, like Miller, who try to capture topical events in a wry, humorous way.

Imagine Mahathir sobbing at the UMNO general assembly in 2003 where he announced he would step down as PM and LaT drew a cartoon about it, say, a couple of months later. It would lose its moment, weakening whatever message Lat might want to get across. It would also not be funny.

Still, that does not mean the NST should unthinkingly have run Miller’s cartoon. Why? Because of what had transpired surrounding the caricatures. NST editors thus would have needed to make a decision. And they chose to go with the cartoon on the basis that it did not have any visual depiction of the Prophet.

Now, did the NST consider the cartoon might be read in ways different from how the editors had read them? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is the NST could not really predict how people would read the cartoon. Indeed, no one could - because predicting how the public would read something is far from an exact science. And that is not necessarily bad. A democracy of reading sometimes offers a way to deflate the arrogance or oppressiveness of a one-dimensional reading.

Thus, some Malaysians did not agree with NST. While it could be argued, as did the NST, that some of these Malaysians responded out of a political or personal agenda, one should not ignore that there would still be some who simply did not agree with the NST. Still, all of these peoples’ views amount to different readings—including even incorrect ones.

The NST’s apology was made to those they unintentionally or unexpectedly offended. The paper, in essence, admitted that the decision to run the comic turned out to be ill advised — a result of human error.

Shameless mockery

But that did not get the NST completely off the hook. A day before the apology, they reacted to many who took offence to the cartoon by running it again and challenging the public to see what was wrong with it. Apparently, the paper believed that only those with a political or personal agenda would find fault with the cartoon. This too turned out to be another mistake.

NSTP also made a police report against Jeff Ooi of Screenshots, claiming that he incited religious hatred by focusing on the NST’s publication of the cartoon. The NST had mentioned that some people had a personal vendetta for playing up the issue. Many knew that one of these people would be Ooi. But a personal vendetta cannot come out of nowhere. NST was as much a party to it. It takes two to tango.

Some might disagree with Ooi and think he made the mistake of playing up the issue. Just as many did not agree with the NST and found what it did offensive. For misjudging their response, the paper apologised. The point is mistakes were made.

In that light, a show-cause letter issued by the government to the NST was hardly appropriate. But the PM’s decision not to take action against NST was.

On the other hand, it is shameless of the NST to continue with the police report on Ooi. It makes a mockery of itself as a 160-year-old institution. It shows the bigwigs at the paper have acted like a cry-baby, running to the government to settle personal issues for them.

Double standards?

Since the PM has decided not to take action against the NST, what about Sarawak Tribune and Guang Ming then? All indications suggested that what they did were also a result of human error. The former even quickly apologised for what they did twice, unreservedly, and fired its onsite editor. Why then were the two dailies punished just because of human error?

And now, a Chinese-language afternoon daily in Sarawak, Berita Petang, has also been suspended for two weeks for the caricatures of the Prophet.

Meanwhile, in addition to RTM, TV3 and ntv7 may also have also erred in presenting the caricatures (they have both since apologised), and the Energy, Water and Communications Minister Lim Keng Yaik said action would also be taken if the two private channels were found to have erred. Would TV3, ntv7 and RTM be suspended as well if found guilty?

RTM should consider themselves fortunate because even though evidence suggests that they broadcast caricatures of the Prophet, the PM has decided to investigate the matter first before deciding on the next move. The PM and his cabinet appear to have denied Sarawak Tribune this basic presumption of innocence before being proven guilty. Was that not an error of judgement, too?

The witch-hunt has become quite ugly and ridiculous. And for what? Human error. All of it clearly calls attention to how ridiculous and unnecessary it is for the government to have so much power over the media through laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Internal Security Act 1960.

Remove media laws

Media errors are bound to occur. But to have laws that allow the government to suspend or take away the licence of the media in response is senseless punishment. And the way the witch-hunt is unfolding, Malaysia could very well be the laughing stock of the world.

Equally ridiculous are Malaysians who disagree with the media acting as a cry-baby but are quick to run to the government to take care of things for them. But the laws encourage such a retarded mentality. Just as the laws are a convenient tool that can be used against the media by those with a political or personal agenda.

So, the ultimate lesson from this chapter of the Malaysian media is that it is time the media laws are removed. Let media and civil society work things out.

That will give Malaysians a chance to cultivate an appreciation of freedom and responsibility. It will also offer a strong chance for the policy of transparency and accountability in governance to succeed unlike what is happening now, when that policy seems to be at best unfolding in fits and starts. And it will give real democracy a chance to take root and blossom — as opposed to what we have now: democracy Malaysian-government style or government-say-so democracy.