Chandra’s criticism: Star, NST, must give Anwar right to reply

As expected, The Star, like many other mainstream newspapers, today splashes news reports about the 12th general election. Its front page, for instance, shows a picture of members of the General Operation Force casting their postal votes, something that has become controversial these days, in Sarawak .

At the top right hand of the front page is perched a little teasing headline, together with a picture of ex-Keadilan leader Dr Chandra Muzaffar: “Disaster if Anwar is PM”, to remind readers that the seemingly important story is located in the inside pages, i.e. page N18. In this report, Chandra was quoted as having said that Anwar, the de facto leader of Keadilan, has changed his tune, and therefore could not be trusted as a leader.

Speaking at a forum organised by The Star-Asian Centre for Media Studies, Chandra listed a few examples to show how unreliable Anwar was as a politician, stretching from the days when Anwar was Education Minister. He pointed out it was Anwar who switched the term ‘Bahasa Malaysia ’ to ‘Bahasa Melayu’. Chandra also castigated Anwar for his role in handling the Kampung Jawa clash in Penang between the Hindus and Muslims. Further, he talked of his ‘bitter experience’ with the Opposition when he was still in Keadilan.

Although the forum was participated by others, namely columnist-lawyer Karim Raslan, Social Strategic Foundation’s Dr. Dennison Jayasooria, the International Islamic University’s Prof. Syed Arabi Idid, and Insap deputy chairperson Rita Sim, Chandra appeared to have been foregrounded by The Star for the obvious reason that such a public statement not only could cast suspicion in the minds of voters about Anwar in particular and his opposition colleagues in general. The prominent coverage also appeared to be aimed at setting back the surge towards the Opposition in the run-up to the general election. In short, it provided ammunition with which the incumbent BN could paint the town red.

Chandra also expressed his fear of serious polarisation in the country: “My fear is that this coming election will reinforce and aggravate the ethnic polarisation if a large number of non-Malays vote for the Opposition, and worse if a large percentage of Malays vote for the Opposition. This will cause Umno to be very cautious in making any changes to the ethnic question and addressing issues related to religion.”

Such an argument only raises further questions: in the first place, isn’t the increase in polarisation due to ethnic-based policies and practices of the past Umno-led administrations, as alluded to by Chandra himself? If so, how on earth could Umno be relied upon to make meaningful changes that could redress problems related to ethnicity and religion? And why was there the emergence of amorphous groups such as Hindraf that articulate legitimate grievances (to a large extent) from a particular ethnic community?

Secondly, how can ethnic polarisation worsen if both the non-Malays and the Malays vote for the Opposition? If anything, a multi-ethnic ruling coalition and a multi-ethnic opposition would lessen polarisation and ensure that issues raised are debated in the interests of all Malaysians. Is it only the Barisan Nasional that can resolve ethnic issues and polarisation? The record indicates otherwise.

If, as rightly pointed out by Chandra, the issue of trust and honesty is vital, then shouldn’t we, or rather forum moderator Wong Chun Wai, also ask whether leaders such as keris-wielding Hishamuddin can be trusted to be one of the country’s leaders. After all, didn’t Hishamuddin change his political stance pertaining to the issue of Chinese and Tamil schools in the country in the run-up to the general election? Isn’t that political expedience of the highest degree? Hasn’t his tune changed? Wasn’t it in Umno that you had a few politicians talking of unsheathing the keris and threatening to bathe it with Chinese blood? Did this escape Wong’s (or Chandra’s) memory?

Mainstream newspapers normally do not cover events that are organised by their rivals in the context of stiff competition for advertising revenue and readership. But these are apparently desperate times, which call for desperate measures. And so you had the New Straits Times (NST) reporting the above-mentioned forum, the teasing headline of which appeared on its front page today: “Former Keadilan deputy president claims Anwar ‘Deceiving Malaysia’…”

Apart from carrying journalistic reports of the election campaign (which are mainly biased towards the BN), the NST today also carries political advertisements and advertorial. The advertorial focuses on the so-called development successes of the previous Perak state government.

The Star today carries again a full-page political advertisement: “Warkah Untuk PM” (Letter for PM). The ad informs readers that there is a place for them to express via email their “hopes, opinions and suggestions for action to be taken”.

While the intention is noble, the timing is rather questionable given that the PM and his administration have been given some four years to listen to the complaints, hopes, fears and dreams of Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds.

And as if to indicate civil society and mass involvement in this endeavour, we’re told that the website is managed collectively by Yayasan Kajian dan Strategi Melayu, National Council of Women’s Organisations, Federation of Malaysian Consumer Associations (Fomca), Kongres Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Dalam Perkhidmatan Awam (Cuepacs), Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia , Tabung Amanah Muhibah and Yayasan Pekerja Malaysia.

The fact that you had lawyers making the March for Justice, Bersih and its massive street demonstrations and Hindraf with its KL rally says a lot about the listening capability of the BN politicians.

Finally, would it be too much to expect The Star and the NST to provide to provide Anwar with a right of reply instead of their usual practice of blacking him out in their coverage? Basic journalism and fair-play would demand that.