Different coverage of DAP, MCA ceramahs

How media cover an event, along with their absence of coverage, sometimes raises more questions than enlightening the public, even inviting speculation about their motivations. Take for example a couple of ceramahs at a night market in SS2 this past Monday (25 February).

Malaysiakini, in its coverage the following day by Soon Li Tsin, gave a picture of a rousing DAP ceramah, featuring, among others, Lim Kit Siang and Tony Pua. The latter is running for the first time for the Petaling Jaya Utara parliamentary seat against two-term incumbent MCA Chew Mei Fun. The rally began with a crowd of 200 and swelled to about 500, according to Soon.

Soon’s piece gave more focus to her interviews with several of the people in the crowd, all having a generally favorable response to the DAP speakers. She offered a brief summary of what the speakers covered, such as:

The much-anticipated Pua … charmed the crowd with his wit and toothy smile as he pointed how the country’s economy is ailing and the quality of Malaysian education dwindling compared to our neighbours.

Soon’s article ended with the observation: “It was DAP’s night at the SS2 corner…”

Pauline Puah’s report of the DAP rally appeared in theSun on 27 February. But her piece began with the ceramah held by the MCA’s Chew, also in SS2 on the same night, just 50 metres from the DAP’s. Strange that Malaysiakini did not have a report on it. Why not?

Puah’s piece gave roughly the same amount of space to Chew’s and the DAP’s ceramahs. Her focus on Chew included an exchange between Chew and a man in the crowd. She wrote:

At one juncture when Chew touched on MCA’s contribution to the development of Chinese schools, an unidentified man shouted: “If you are Chinese, you go back to sleep.”

Chew coolly countered: “This is their (DAP’s) attitude, they can say whatever they want but we are not allowed to say things we want.”

The man shot back at her: “I am an MCA member!”

Chew said in disbelief: “You can say whoever you are.”

Chew was cool? If so, she left behind the impression that she was arrogant. Her attitude is that anyone from the public who is critical of the MCA must be from the opposition or the DAP. Whoever that man might be, is it not part of her job to be patient and try to explain her position with reason and persuasion instead of telling him off? That she never thought the criticism could come from an MCA member raises the question: What kind of party is the MCA? Sounds like one in which leaders like her do not tolerate criticism from ordinary members.

In her focus on the DAP rally, Puah noted the crowd size of only about 200; she did not have anything on that for Chew’s ceramah. She also provided a quote from Pua asking the crowd to judge his performance on whether he would defend the rights of Malaysians (which the crowd reportedly cheered) and commented on Lim Kit Siang’s trademark fiery speech making. Finally, Puah reported that while Pua agreed to endorse the Women’s Candidacy Initiatives (WCI), the MCA’s Donald Lim Siang Chai reportedly by ignoring her request to speak to him.

Whatever the differences in theSun’s and Malaysiakini’s coverage of the DAP rally, the real oddity here is the conspicuous silence of the New Straits Times and The Star. Neither gave the DAP and MCA ceramah any coverage.

But why not? SS2 is almost in the backyard of both dailies, especially The Star, which is owned by MCA. Is the PJ Utara parliamentary seat not important? Or is it because the DAP ceramah attracted a larger crowd and was a lot more rousing than MCA’s? Because that is what Malaysiakini and theSun have in common despite differences in their coverage.