Oil price-hike demonstrators 'vanish' into thin air
The notion that the mass media are not necessarily mirrors of society has been made abundantly clear today. The deafening silence by the mainstream press, particularly the New Straits Times and The Star, over yesterday’s mass demonstration against the recent petrol price hike speaks volumes of the mainstream media’s commitment to reporting the truth.
The demonstration was staged by opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and other concerned Malaysians near the Kuala Lumpur City Centre in the shadow of the Petronas Twin Towers, a mega project. A crowd of around 1,000 (according to AFP) to 2,000 (Malaysiakini) people participated in the protest.
But what you see in the newspapers is not what you get in real life. It never took place – or so the newspapers would like their readers to believe.
Diluting the anger
Any journalist or seasoned editor with a hard nose for news would have recognised instantly that the demonstration deserved the attention of the media, the government, civil society, and concerned Malaysians. Yet, these newspapers consciously chose to ignore this legitimate expression of anger and anxiety over the price hike – as if such views, shared by hundreds of thousands if not millions of other Malaysians, didn’t matter at all. Had the media, including a daily that fashions itself as a ‘people’s paper’, been more socially responsible, they would have picked up this story. At the very least, reports of the demonstration could have provided feedback to the government as to how the public felt about the move.
Instead, what newspapers such as the NST have done is to run a couple of stories that suggest that the government is committed to controlling the prices of essential goods. Such reports have focussed on, for instance, the plan to set up more so-called fair-price shops and on the Perlis Menteri Besar’s call to civil servants to cycle to office – as if this would allay the fears of ordinary Malaysians.
In fact, blacking out the news of the public expression of fear and disgust runs counter to the spirit of good governance, transparency and accountability, which the present government professes to uphold. Surely, one of the ways of ensuring government accountability is to provide space for public scrutiny and even criticism of government action, where necessary. It is morally reprehensible of the press to abdicate this crucial role.
Besides, the anger and anxiety among demonstrators and other ordinary Malaysians is also because they were caught by surprise when the government rather sheepishly and suddenly announced the price hike. The government had not adequately prepared the people – nor had they revamped public transport - ahead of the price hike.
Perhaps the mainstream media (and, let us be clear, they have to second-guess the government) felt that blacking out such news would dilute the mass anger, by making individual Malaysians feel that not many other people share their disgust and dismay. Perhaps the idea is to make them feel that their individual anger is not representative of the broader public sentiment and thus prevent individuals from networking with others and vocally joining in to demand accountability.
"Let them eat cake"
The media’s damage control exercise wasn’t really helpful though. In fact, it may have sowed further aggravation among many Malaysians when deputy premier Najib Razak went on the air via all the major television stations in the country to try to ‘explain’ the reasons for the hike.
It was a PR exercise that was not even well executed. The Bernama chief editor’s management of the interview left much to be desired, and Najib’s ‘explanations’ raised more questions than answers. For instance, Najib called on fellow Malaysians to tighten their belts and change their lifestyle. It sounded a bit like “let them eat cake”, as the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of "a great princess" who told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread.
The interviewer could have asked Najib how on earth he expected low-income working class families to tighten their belts when many households were already living on shoe-string budgets. And why was his proposal targeted only at ordinary Malaysians? The interviewer could have asked: What about the ministers themselves? How about a substantial cut in their salaries? Better still, why doesn’t Pak Lah trim his bloated cabinet? Are the federal and state governments and government departments willing to cut down on unnecessary and wasteful ceremonies, which often involve merely ‘greeting’ ministers and other VIPs?
Najib was also reported as saying that Malaysians should, as part of their change in life-styles, rely more on public transport. All very well for him to talk - when ministers are chauffeur-driven everywhere, with a fleet of out-riders to boot. He should have been grilled on the deplorable state of public transport, which had been neglected in the drive to promote private vehicle ownership. The interviewer could also have asked if the ministers would be willing to show leadership-by-example by abandoning their petrol-guzzling limousines in favour of public transport? Have they experienced what our public transport is like, in the first place?
Which brings us to the next matter: Najib should also have been pressed on whether his challenge for Malaysians to change their lifestyles runs counter to the so-called ‘national car’ project, which celebrates private vehicle ownership. Would the government soft-pedal on its national car project now? And, pursuing this line of questioning, would the government be willing to see a drop in the toll collection of highway concessionaires, many of whom are ‘friendly’ to the ruling BN, if more Malaysians were to use buses, taxis and trains?
These are the kinds of issues one would have expected Najib and the interviewer to focus on and to enlighten ordinary Malaysians. Instead, by depriving citizens of the democratic space to express their sentiments and by indulging in PR/damage control, the mainstream media may have only further confounded and irritated the masses.

2 Comments:
Just one small correction. The "princess" whose famous line was "Let them eat cake ' was actually the Queen of France, and we know what those words led to.Perhaps people have not learnt the lessons of history and the causes of the French Revolution.It is a dreadful thought that the potential for this kind of situation still exists when people are pushed beyond the limits and a larger proportion of citizenry become destitute with continuous depletion of their basic resources till they have no more sustenance.There will be more beggars in the streets and violent crime will definitely increase, no matter how many policeman are put on the beat. Corruption will go on spiraling. Is this what the government wants?
Just a small correction/clarification to the "correction" above. Who really said "Let them eat cake"?
Check this out:
http://ask.yahoo.com/20021122.html
Dear Yahoo!:
Who said, "Let them eat cake"?
Boulanger
Dear Boulanger:
We're not entirely sure who said "Let them eat cake," but we can tell you that it wasn't Marie Antoinette. This flippant phrase about consuming pastry is commonly attributed to the frivolous queen in the days leading up to the French Revolution. Supposedly, she spoke these words upon hearing how the peasantry had no bread to eat. But biographers and historians have found no evidence that Marie uttered these words or anything like them.
Our old pal Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope explains the quotation was first written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Confessions. Actually, Rousseau wrote "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," which essentially means "let them eat a type of egg-based bread" (not quite cake, but still a bit extravagant). Rousseau claimed that "a great princess" told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread.
But Rousseau wrote this in early 1766, when Marie Antoinette was only 10 years old, still living in her native Austria and not yet married to King Louis XVI. So it's highly unlikely that Marie uttered the pompous phrase. Perhaps Rousseau invented them to illustrate the divide between royalty and the poor -- which is certainly how the phrase has been used ever since.
However, "Let them eat brioche" isn't quite as cold a sentiment as you might imagine. At the time, French law required bakers to sell fancy breads at the same low price as the plain breads if they ran out of the latter. The goal was to prevent bakers from making very little cheap bread and then profiting off the fancy, expensive bread. Whoever really said "Let them eat brioche" may have meant that the bakery laws should be enforced so the poor could eat the fancy bread if there wasn't enough plain bread to go around.
A recent biographer claims that "Let them eat cake" was actually spoken by Marie-Therese, wife of France's Louis XIV, 100 years before Marie Antoinette, but we couldn't find anything online to corroborate this. Ultimately, we will probably never know who uttered this infamous phrase.
Post a Comment
<< Home