Whatever happened to the "Vision schools"?

On 27 April, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi came out with a plan to overhaul the education system to raise educational standards and enhance racial integration. The mainstream media dutifully reported on the plan but did not mention anything about the “Vision Schools” that were introduced a few years ago to promote racial integration. (To its credit, Malaysiakini pointed out Abdullah’s omission.)

As if that omission was not puzzling enough, the mainstream media like the New Straits Times, The Star and theSun continue to ignore Vision Schools altogether. The NST on April 29 interviewed several people - politicians such as Samy Vellu and Hishamuddin Hussein and educationists like Awang Had Salleh ­ about Abdullah’s plan but none brought up the subject of Vision Schools.

NST reporters were not the only ones ignoring Vision Schools. The editorial in NST on 29 April is also loudly silent on Vision Schools while it promotes Abdullah’s plan.

What is happening here? What has become of Vision Schools and their aim of racial integration? Why is everyone ignoring them?

By acting as though Vision Schools never existed, the mainstream media like NST are failing miserably in their responsibility to inform the public. There is simply no excuse for it.

NST carries report on risks posed by tilapia

Kudoes to the New Straits Times for carrying a report on the GIFT tilapia that the Worldfish Center in Penang is trying to promote. The NST report is an example of the type of report that is needed to highlight the threat posed by farmed tilapia towards natural fish stocks in Malaysia (see our diary entry for April 21).

Here is an extract from the NST report:


Fishermen not in favour of new tilapia species
Audrey Dermawan

PENANG, Apr 27:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists call it the “wonder” fish, but local inland fishermen here are concerned it will annihilate local freshwater fish species if it finds its way into streams or rivers.

The fish in question is a hardier breed of the common tilapia, named GIFT tilapia, after the technology — Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia — being used to develop it.

Described as disease-resistant and fast-growing, GIFT tilapia is being developed at the WorldFish Centre, an international reserach institute for fisheries and other aquatic resources, in Batu Maung here.

Penang Inshore Fishermen's Welfare Association (PIFWA) adviser P. Balan said most of the State's 6,000 inshore and coastal fishermen were against the centre's plan to introduce the new tilapia breed, expected next year.

"Based on our findings, the new tilapia breed is more carnivorous than the common tilapias and it will destroy local freshwater fish if ever it finds its way into streams or rivers.

"Introducing the new tilapia breed is as good as inviting trouble since it can annihilate our local freshwater fish population," he said when commenting on news reports that the centre would introduce GIFT tilapia in Malaysia.

He said the common red and black tilapia were already overpopulating the country's river system and affecting the survival of other local freshwater fish population. ...


We need more of these kinds of stories - stories that take a more critical look at biotechnology and the controversial issues surrounding genetic tinkering and genetic engineering/modification.

"Sleepy maid" story typical of negative portrayal of migrants

In page 3 of The Star, a report titled "Refund over sleepy maid" omitted some crucial information.

The report was about an expat homemaker being awarded a a RM2,894 refund after sacking a "sleepy" Indonesian maid who apparently could not wake up despite having two alarm clocks. The maid was apparently unable to wake up at 7.30 am despite having the two alarm clocks.

The most crucial information missing from the report is the number of hours' sleep the maid was allowed to have and what kind of work she had to carry out. Did she have to look after the employers' three-year-old twin daughters, cook for the family, take care of the laundry and ironing, clean the house, wash the cars etc?

This report is typical of many stories that paint a negative picture of migrant workers. We rarely read about positive stories involving migrant workers and their immense contribution to the Malaysian economy.

Neither do we read about the numerous cases in which employers heartlessly exploit migrant workers apart from the odd story or two that emerges when migrant workers decide to protest against their shoddy treatment.

This story in The Star also highlights the unequal power relationship between employers and migrant workers. The employers often have the agents at their beck and call to "retrain" and "lecture" the maids and even to threaten migrant workers with dire consequences if they fail to live up to what the employers expect.

And when the media step in to highlight only the employers' side of the story, the power imbalance becomes even more lopsided.

In contrast, the migrant workers have no one to turn to when they face ill-treatment, abuse or exploitation. When they face exploitation at the hands of employers, they cannot turn to the usually unsympathetic agents. The media are usually nowhere to be seen. Thus, few of the migrant workers' grievances ever come to the attention of the Malaysian public.

The only saving grace in The Star's story today is that it also highlights the common and exploitative practice of "recycling" maids i.e. agents hiring out to other employers the maids who were actually sent back to them for "retraining" or premature termination. But The Star report failed to probe how this practice can occur when a maid's work permit only allows her to work with a single employer. Is there corruption involved somewhere? The report failed to ask the obvious questions.

When was the last time we read a thorough, investigative story about exploitative employers and employment agents who earn fat commissions from the traficking of migrant labour?

What about a news feature story on the long working hours and exploitative terms of employment that migrant workers are subjected to? It is common for maids to have to wake up early in the morning and work late into the night - on their feet the whole day with barely any rest and often without any day off to speak of. Sometimes they are asked to clean up more than one house or work in their employers' restaurants, shops and offices.

When will the media report about the numerous cases of migrant workers being cheated of their wages because local employers refuse to recognise the contracts that the migrant workers signed with agents in their home countries before coming to Malaysia? Will the media highlight the weaknesses in the system and laws that allow such injustices to occur?

Or can we only expect stories that highlight sleepy maids and migrants involved in crime and other wrongdoings - stories that reinforce ingrained prejudices - while the employers and the agents invariably get off scotfree?

Blog visitor Prejudicer suggests that such bias is subconscious: "More prejudices are published by Malaysia newspaper: sometimes seem to be unconsciously done. Are we Malaysian always like this?"

Aliran's comments not carried in The Star

On Saturday, 24 April, a reporter saying he is from The Star phoned the Aliran office asking for comments on Suhakam's findings regarding police violation of the rights of villagers from Kundasang, Sabah where they were remanded in police cells last year.

The violations came to light in a Suhakam public inquiry whose panel comprised K C Vohrah, Tan Sri Dr Ramon Navaratnam and Datuk Dr Monir Yaacob.

We responded as follows to The Star reporter:

"The horrendous conditions in lock-up cells are a terrible nightmare for detainees. The detaining authorities seem not to realise that detainees do not lose their human rights while under detention.

"Cramming them into overcrowded cells under inhuman sanitary conditions is criminal breach of conduct that doesn't warrant mercy.

"The chief of the Ranau police station must be charged for conduct unbecoming of a human being.

"Magistrates are not sensitive to the abuse of human rights. In spite of numerous instances which had established that long remands are unnecessary, magistrates freely sign away the rights and freedom of citizens. In this case, where Suhakam had concluded that there was no need for the maximum 14 days remand, shouldn't the magistrate be required to apologise to the Kundasang villagers?"

Not a word of these comments was published in "The People's Paper".

When the mainstream media fail to report the facts...

On 21 April, a couple of PAS candidates filed petitions with the Penang High Court against the successful BN candidates in last month’s general elections. One of them was Abdul Kadir Rashid who ran (unsuccessfully) against candidate Abdullah Badawi for the Kepala Batas parliamentary seat.

According to Kadir, Abdullah violated Section 32(b) of the Election Offences Act of 1954 by failing to disclose his 1999 election expenses when he filed his papers for the recently concluded election.

A day later Keadilan President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail issued a press statement saying that, because of the petition, Prime Minister Abdullah’s position as member of parliament is in doubt. He should therefore go on leave pending a court decision.

Surely the petition by Kadir and Wan Azizah’s statement are newsworthy events as they involved the newly-elected prime minister. And if the media were concerned with the facts, what more legitimate or credible ones than that coming from a court petition and a lawfully elected member of parliament who is also head of an opposition party?

If not front page material, the stories should have been reported by the media.

But no, not according to the mainstream media. NST, The Star, and theSun did not carry a word on the petition or Wan Azizah’s statement. Why the blackout on both these legitimate news items?

On the other hand, if the petition had been filed by a BN member and the statement had been made by a BN member of parliament against the opposition, we believe the mainstream media would promptly, perhaps even generously, have covered the stories.

By ignoring both the PAS petition against Abdullah and Azizah’s statement, the mainstream media are actually encouraging people to ask all kinds of questions such as: why are they ignoring legitimate news? Why should such public facts on the prime minister be hidden from the public when he, himself, has been promoting his clean, ethical, transparent and accountable BN government? Is it a no-no to carry negative or adverse news relating to Prime Minister Abdullah?

Glossing over a stormy chapter in the Proton saga

Over the last few days, we witnessed Proton’s boardroom action going into high gear, what with a few of its directors threatening to resign if former premier Mahathir Mohamad was appointed as advisor to the troubled national car maker. There was apparently what was termed as a boardroom revolt over the appointment, but Mahathir eventually succeeded in being made the advisor.

Not bad for someone who wanted to retire from politics but later raised eyebrows when he was appointed "advisor" to the nation's "cash cow", Petronas, which remains unaccountable to the Malaysian public. Surely the position of advisor to Petronas is a powerful and influential post by all accounts. (We are sure Malaysians readers would want to know the extent of depletion in Petronas' accumulated funds/reserves during Mahathir's 22-year tenure as PM and how much of it was wasted on the ex premier's mega projects. But don't hold your breath in anticipation of a mainstream media expose.)

Despite the corporate storm that was unleashed over Mahathir's subsequent appointment as Proton advisor, the New Straits Times on Apr 20 published a report on the appointment in a business-as-usual fashion. Headlined “Abdullah confirms Dr Mahathir’s appointment as Proton adviser”, readers of the establishment daily could be excused for believing that life has been hunky dorey at Proton. And that’s the kind of “fact” that the newspaper chooses to select for its readers devoid of any background or context and omitting the fact of the boardroom revolt. The result: the NST report is a factual report, yes, but it certainly does not convey the whole truth as important facts were omitted. In fact, the paper's selective use of facts gives NST readers the FALSE impression that the appointment was largely routine and uncontroversial.

If rats could swim...

The Star on 19 April carried an AFP report on page 31 titled "Tropical paradise culls tilapia". Such a small report on page 31, when this news has frightening implications for those nations already trying to cash in on aquaculture and biotechnology.

Koror: The Pacific nation of Palau is exterminating thousands of the world's most widely farmed fish to protect its richly varied local species.

Tilapia, a primarily freshwater fish native to the Middle East and the Nile region, is confined to just four inland ponds in Palau, an archipelago east of the Philippines.

Its ability to reproduce quickly and eat anything means it would outcompete native fish if it escapes into Palau's rich natural enviroment.

"Tilapia has the potential to wreak havoc for a long time," said Tarita Holm, an eradication team leader. "Tilipia is worse than an oil spill.

Tilapia has caused major problems around the world, most notably in Africa's Lake Victoria. Holm said other Pacific nations also tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the fish.

Why should this news be of concern to us? Recently, Aliran Monthly carried an IPS feature article "Look Mom, it's genetically altered fish!" warning about the risks posed by tilapia fish. The article pointed out:

Much attention has focused on a species of fish known as tilapia, which is widely regarded as ideal for breeding. They grow fast, waste little food, and require little attention. Tilapia are said to be similar to rats in their ability to adapt and can take advantage of whatever they find to feed on - and that is precisely why they can pose risks to the balance of natural ecosystems.

Of greater concern to us is that the Penang-based Worldfish Center has been promoting Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) in this region. This GIFT fish is basically derived from the selective breeding (using biotechnology shortcuts) of tilapia over several generations and such fish is being promoted in Malaysia and in the region.

Now this is a story that the local media should be pursuing. Why is the Worldfish Center promoting tilapia, when it poses serious risks to the ecosystem? Few people are aware that a private Norwegian firm, Genomar ASA, has claimed the lucrative commercial rights to the GIFT fish.

Why have our media failed to discuss the dangers of farmed fish like tilapia, in particular? And why do our media not look more critically at the much-touted claims and benefits that biotechnology promises?

From a broader perspective, why is there no serious discussion of the uncertainties and health risks posed by genetically "improved' or modified food in Malaysia?

Is it because the corporate media like The Star is largely pro-business and do not want to undermine the claims of the biotechnology and GM industry, seen as an emerging and potentially lucrative industry in this part of the world?

Why has there been no serious and ongoing attempt to educate the Malaysian public about the importance of proper labelling of food items containing GM ingredients?

It is obvious that the mainstream media are so reluctant to be more critical of the biotechnology industry's claims. There is a vast amount of scientific literature out there pointing to the risks posed by GM food and debunking some of the unsubstantiated claims of the biotechnology industry.

Have our media prostrated themselves before Big Business (the biotechnology industry) by failing to look more critically at its claims and to present the other side of the story?

When the facts don't tell the whole story...

New Straits Times associate editor Rehman Rashid reportedly said at the Asia Media Summit 2004 (NST, 21 April) that the job of reporters is not to change the world or think for the readers. Rather, they are to help the readers think for themselves by getting the facts and presenting them clearly.

While he certainly has an important point about respecting facts, why does this journalistic attribute still leave much to be desired in the mainstream press, including the paper he works for?

Selective facts

At last month’s election campaign, what the media did was basically giving us the facts of the Barisan Nasional campaign. What BN leaders had to say very much hogged the print space and broadcast airtime.

Opposition parties were hardly covered. On the few occasions they were, they were seen associated with something negative or, if not negative, given very short shrift.

This was quite unlike coverage of the BN - especially candidates Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak. The media did not appear to have the slightest problem with finding the space or airtime to present their remarks, sometimes in toto. The coverage also typically appeared on the first two pages of the papers or the first three items of TV bulletins.

The media cannot claim the opposition parties had little to say at a time when they were election campaigning.

As examples, let us compare the coverage of the MCA’s “slip-up” in Bukit Bintang during the campaign with that of beer-drinking in the vicinity of a PAS operations room in Terengganu.

As we mentioned last month, only theSun (among the English dailies) reported on the MCA’s “slip-up” in Bukit Bintang. What happened was, during the campaign, folks in the area were upset with an MCA poster that used a derogatory reference to mothers in the party’s attack of DAP. The MCA took down the poster and dismissed the “slip-up” as an error on the part of its China printer, but not before the DAP got wind of it. The latter demanded an apology from the MCA to the people in Bukit Bintang and held a press conference, at which, some of the members of the public also raised other complaints against the MCA.

The Star and the NST did not carry a word on the facts of the event. Neither did any of the TV stations.

On the other hand, almost all the mainstream media covered the story about the three Chinese men drinking beer in the vicinity of a PAS operations room. The story cast a negative light on the credibility of PAS as an Islamic party and was exploited by the BN, with Najib Razak leading the BN in skewering PAS over it.

So, just reporting the facts alone is insufficient, because which facts are selected and how they are handled (the slant) by the media are also important factors to consider. In fact, two different reporters writing about the same set of facts can produce two vastly differing news reports, depending on each writers' value judgements, political opinions, and cultural upbringing. Equally important are the facts that are omitted - which can often radically change the complexion of an article.

It should also be emphasised that “media” here does not refer just to reporters (as was the focus of Rehman) but also editors. This is because reporters could have gathered the facts and presented them clearly in their reports, but the editors have the final say on whether the facts - and which facts - see print. And so, editors, too, must respect the facts in order to help readers think for themselves.

But based on the examples given above, the selective presentation of the facts by the NST and The Star is evidence of their bias. Their behaviour arguably amounts to thinking for their readers (as in vote for BN) as opposed to helping the readers think for themselves (as in here are the facts on the various parties contesting to help you to be well informed about which candidate or party to vote for).

The Big Picture

Another related matter is that facts must also make sense to the readers. And in order for that to happen and to help readers to thnk for themselves, the facts should be adequately presented or put in context, especially the historical context.
Readers must be given the Big Picture. Take as an example the prime minister’s directive to BN elected representatives to declare their assets every two years in order to help check graft and create a clean BN government.

That was the fact given by all the mainstream media, which basically acted as a mouthpiece for Abdullah. But what was missing is the historical context, namely, the fact that the policy of asset declaration was already practised under Mahathir’s premiership.

Without giving the historical fact of the policy, the media did not help the readers think about comparing Abdullah’s policy with Mahathir’s ­- especially why Abdullah’s policy would have a chance at checking corruption where Mahathir's failed. That Mahathir’s policy did fail is obvious given that Abdullah, in his strong focus on fighting corruption, did not mention that his policy was a continuation of Mahathir’s.

But International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz did tell the media that Abdullah’s policy was already practised under Mahathir as prime minister. (This came only a day after the media reported on Abdullah’s policy.) As we highlighted in an earlier piece, neither NST nor The Star reported that fact; only theSun did although it did not help readers with any attempt at analysing and comparing the policies.

Whether or not Rafidah offered the remark, the media should present all the facts of Prime Minister Abdullah’s asset-declaration policy and its historical context.

It is too simplistic to tell reporters to just get the facts and present them clearly. While that is a very important part of journalism, reporters and editors should also keep in mind other equally important aspects as well ­ that the facts should be presented fairly and adequately, not selectively or devoid of context i.e. important and critical facts should not be omitted either. Only then would readers be well informed enough to think for themselves.

Time for mainstream media to do some "national service"

In the wake of recent revelations of alleged rape in the national service, it's time for the mainstream media to look critically at this call-up. So far, we've been given anecdotes and diary accounts of how the trainees spend their time in their camps, often enjoying what they do and light-heartedly griping about the hitches. And if there are more serious comments about the 'teething problems', they often come from the ministers and other such "approved" sources.

It is the responsibility of the mainstream media to highlight some of the concerns and criticism of the national service coming from the parents and other quarters. One needs only to surf a number of websites to get a sense of how disturbed parents and others are about this ill-hatched national service.

Regular blog visitor Lucia adds: "Highlight criticism of national service? You must be kidding! Since when do the mainstream paper like to publish criticism of the government from the public?"

More on the "Asia Media Summit 2004"

Apparently, this "media summit", which is unlikely to focus on the importance of press freedom, is organised by the Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD), the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), Malaysia, and News World Asia.

The Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD) is a regional inter-governmental organisation servicing countries of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP) in the field of electronic media development. It is hosted by the Government of Malaysia, which is not known for its liberal views on press freedom, to say the least.

The summit is sponsored by Petronas, whose advisor is of course former premier Mahathir Mohamad, who made it to the Top Ten Enemies of the Press listing compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists for three years. The other sponsor is Malaysia Airlines.

This summit appears to be largely establishment-oriented with little room for alternative voices, and obviously not really interested in press freedom issues, which are so important in this part of the world.

Adds blog visitor Chong: "The local press will just highlight the "Bolehland" of press practice that is an icon for all developing countries. Malaysia's benchmark for press freedom is the less free environs which are a-plenty in the Third World, and that's what the nation's leaders and so-called journalism practitioners will sing: praises to themselves and their political masters.

"Of course our representatives are heavyweights carrying Tan Sri and Datuk appendages in front of their names but without any worthwhile publications on the press, its role and responsibility and other more important topics.

"Might as welll call it a PR and Tourism Summit!"

Of human rights, press censorship and the Asia Media Summit 2004

Some 15 supporters of sacked deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim and reformasi activists were arrested by police when they gathered peacefully yesterday at Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) in Kuala Lumpur. The gathering, which attracted about 70 people, was in conjunction with Anwar’s conviction on April 14, 1999 to six years’ jail for corrupt practice.

Among those who were arrested were big guns from Parti Keadilan Rakyat such as Tian Chua and Dr. Sanusi Osman and other reformists, people who were merely exercising their right to peaceful assembly.

The above event, which has political significance, however did not make it to today’s local newspapers, such as the New Sunday Times and the Sunday Star. It not only failed to appear on the front pages of these dailies but was also crowded out by other reports in the inside pages.

Incidentally, the NST’s front page was filled with stories of jobless graduates, the US-Iraq conflict, and a huge pix of powerboat racing at the Putrajaya Lake; while the cover of the Sunday Star was packed with two stories of problems with the controversial National Service and of Tawau beauty Amber Chia who was selected as one of the faces of "Guess" in its Guess Watches Timeless Beauty International Model Search in Switzerland.

If the social responsibility of a supposedly respected newspaper is to inform and educate the general public about issues and events that concern the ordinary people, then the newspapers concerned have certainly failed in their collective duty. Worse, the conspicuous omission of this report can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt on the part of these newspapers, which often pretend to be the mouthpieces of the ordinary people, to make the general public ignorant of certain important issues and events. Sometimes what is omitted (or censored) says a lot.

Furthermore, it is highly likely that the ‘sensitivity’ of the Anwar issue in the eyes of the government had prompted the press concerned to black out yesterday’s gathering at Suhakam, which is indicative of a press that is pliable to the extent of eroding freedom of expression and of the press. In contrast, online newspaper malaysiakini covered the event.

It is in this light that one is made to wonder about the ‘wisdom’ of Malaysia convening the colossal Asia Media Summit 2004 tomorrow, apart from trying to show the world that the country is able to assemble – in the usual Malaysia Boleh fashion – an assortment of big media players in the international scene. Is there really something worthwhile for the world’s media to emulate from Malaysia’s emasculated mainstream media especially in the wake of their circus performance during the recent general election campaign? Perhaps this is why the Sunday Star’s columnist Bunn Negara did not address the issue of press freedom in his article ironically titled, “Time for media to take stock” (Focus, pg 29).

Burmese asylum seekers targeted; media ignore their plight

This is an issue that has not received enough coverage in the mainstream media. This open letter to Abdullah regarding the plight of Burmese asylum seekers comes from the Bandung Legal Aid Institute, Jakarta and appears to be written in the true spirit of ASEAN solidarity:

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Prime Minister's Office
Federal Government Administration Center
Bangunan Perdana Putra
62502 Putrajaya
Malaysia

Dear Sir

RE: Burmese asylum seekers targeted in a series of arrests

I am writing to you in concern at the information I have received about the recent spate of targeted arrests of Burmese in Malaysia. On 14 April 2004, 30 Burmese were arrested while queuing up outside the UNHCR office in Kuala Lumpur, while those of other nationalities were left alone by the police. Of the 18 male and 4 female Chin asylum seekers who were arrested on 11 April, two (a 13-year-old girl and a 52-year-old man) are said to be refugees recognized by the UNHCR.

The Malaysian government is bound by the principle of non-refoulement, a part of customary international law that applies to all states, to protect the rights to life and protection of all those who seek asylum. Malaysia's immigration law however, makes no distinction between refugees and illegal immigrants. All those seeking asylum therefore, risk imprisonment of up to five years, six strokes of a cane, a fine of up to 10,000 ringgits (about USD 600) and deportation.

I urge the Government of Malaysia to sign and ratify the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Optional Protocol and to implement its provisions in domestic legislation.

Yours truly,

LBH Bandung
===================================================
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Bandung
Bandung Legal Aid Institute
(LBH Bandung)

Key reformasi website hacked; incriminating falsehoods inserted

A prominent reformasi website, Black 14 (www.black14.net), has complained that its website has been hacked. The anonymous site, which is encouraging Malaysians to gather at Suhakam on Apr 17, said that information that was damaging to the reformasi movement's image, had been inserted into the site, including false statements urging people to bring along arms. Its archive files, covering a period of five years, were also irretrievably damaged by virus.

This is an extract from the Black 14 press release, which has been circulating via e-mail:

PENAFIAN LAMAN BLACK14.NET

Kami dengan ini mengumumkan bahawa laman kami telah di godam / hack dengan memasukkan beberapa masej yang memberikan imej buruk kepada laman ini, perhimpunan black14 dan gerakan reformasi secara amnya.

Perkara ini telah berlaku selama dua hari. Kami amat menyesali perkara ini. Malah kejadian ini telah diambil kesempatan oleh beberapa media untuk terus memburukkan lagi imej gerakan rakyat ini.

Kata laluan laman telah disalin secara sulit dan ditukar. Server kami dimasuki. Setelah menyedari perkara ini kami berusaha mendapatkan semula password kami melalui pengendali server yang berpusat di luar negara. Alamat email kami yang tertera dilaman tersebut sepatutnya b_lack14@yahoo.com juga telah ditukar.

Selepas itu lebih malang lagi kami terpaksa memadamkan kesemua simpanan fail dalam server kerana fail – fail tersebut telah dimasukkan virus. Arkib yang dibina selama lebih 5 tahun ini hilang begitu sahaja.

Kami memohon maaf dan bertanggungjawab penuh diatas kejadian tersebut. Kami dengan ini menafikan sekeras- kerasnya bahawa kami terlibat dalam mengarahkan senjata dibawa dalam perhimpunan aman pada 17 April ini. Rakyat diminta tidak tertipu dengan cubaan mengelirukan rakyat ini.

Kami sedang berkerja keras menyiapkan semula laman dengan mempertingkatkan sistem keselamatan. Laman akan beroperasi semula selewat – lewatnya jam 9.00 malam ini.

The Star, the Superstar and Sarah

More reactions to The Star's coverage of Beckham and Malaysia Boleh, this time from commentator Martin Jalleh:

“Sarah tells why”—was the headline that stretched across the front page of The Star on 14 April 2004. It was very telling indeed…on the newspaper.

Malaysians, especially with children, saw stars when they read on the front page of The Star the lurid details of Sarah Marbeck’s alleged sex romps with David Beckham.

The day before, The Star had, through its correspondent in Australia, shone in full sympathy and sensitivity for Sarah’s family in Australia.

“The Beckham saga: Press hounds model’s family in Perth” contained a plea by the model’s father to respect his family’s privacy. It was worth several stars for decency.
The article was accompanied by the picture of The Sun, a tabloid in UK, with the caption: “MAKING THE HEADLINES: The front page of ‘The Sun’ yesterday, which focused on Marbeck’s claim that she had slept with Beckham.”

Alas, one would be a starry-eyed dreamer to expect The Star to show restraint and continued respect. And so, the following morning The Star “made the headlines” and followed The Sun (UK). It repeated the gossip which the News of the World had exclusive rights to.

It has been quite a while since Bolehland has outdone the world in records. A star-studded sex story would be a superb and sensational stimulant. There is no further need for star-gazing.

Never mind if model Sarah Marbeck (and what she has allegedly done) is not quite the right model to the young—what they should be proud of is that she is “Malaysian-born”.

Never mind about the “moral” of the story. Who cares about morals these days anyway? What is more important is a “Malaysian-born” managed to sleep with “the most famous father, family man and husband in the world…”

The Star has no doubt achieved a record of sorts too. For the first time a sex romp between a football superstar and a model took precedence and priority over all national and international news on its front page.

“The People’s Paper” was in fact telling the people that the most important news for the day was that Sarah Marbeck has claimed that she had sex with David Beckham over a two-year period.

The Star is sold and read in primary and secondary schools throughout the country. But that too did not matter to the paper. A sex romp by a Malaysian-born would be really something different to read about.

The Star does not really care about Beckham or Marbeck, what beckons it to serve such trash on its front page is profits—and it has the cheek of insinuating that Sarah revealed all because of the money. Having been at the beck and call of the powers that be the paper appears to have lost much sense, wisdom and priority!

The Star Boleh!

Star stoops to gutter journalism with trashy Beckham-Malaysia Boleh story

So it looks like The Star is playing up the alleged Beckham affairs just because one of the women happens to be a "Malaysian-born" model.

One would expect this sort of reporting from the gutter tabloid press. For The Star to put this sort of trashy news on the front page of the daily yesterday speaks volumes about the mentality of the paper's editors. Or maybe the tabloid believes this news item lives up to the spirit of "Malaysia Boleh".

The screaming headline "Sarah tells why" is followed by the rider: "Beckham said he loved me, says Malaysian-born model" Sarah Marbeck.

It is almost as if the paper is taking pride in the fact that the model is "Malaysian-born", even though the family has long since migrated to Australia and Sarah Marbeck intends to remain in Australia.

Inside on page 3, in another report titled "Differing views on Marbeck", The Star embarks on its own brand of "investigative journalism" in obtaining comments from Marbeck's friends and former associates. If only the paper showed this much initiative when investigating human rights violations, abuse of power and cases of corruption.

The Star's only consideration seems to be increased circulation, never mind if the paper caters to the lowest common denominator. It would seem that the paper probably believes that sex sells, more so if there is a cultural pop icon involved.

The sad part of it all is that real issues and news items are marginalised so that "infotainment" can take centrestage. It's not as if there are no serious issues worthy of frontpage attention. There could have been serious discussion on the government's anti-poverty drive. Or there could have been some response to the Selangor government's outrageous proposal to allow the rich to buy low-cost houses and rent them out to the poor. Or the paper could have highlighted the ongoing massacre of Iraqis in Fallujah and serious human rights violations in Palestine.

But no, The Star's editors think Beckham is worthy of frontpage coverage just because some "Malaysian-born" model wants to go public and make a fortune from her revelations of Becks' alleged infidelity. What kind of values are we imparting to the young here?

Regular blog visitor Lucia adds: "Yeah, I suppose The Star is mighty proud that a Malaysian had made world news so it just had to headline the news and give so much attention to it.

"Well, sex always sell, and coupled with a famous name AND with a Malaysian to boot, The Star lost no time in sensationalising it and capatilising on it. You have to hand it to The Star - they are smart. :) "

Dormant opposition party websites now turned into porn sites

Two websites believed to be formerly used by Malaysian opposition parties have now been turned into porn sites.

They are www.partirakyat.org and www.partikeadilan.org

A "whois" search (using networksolutions.com search engine) of "partirakyat" reveals the following registration details:

Domain ID:D101483375-LROR
Domain Name:PARTIRAKYAT.ORG
Created On:21-Sep-2003 15:09:08 UTC
Last Updated On:21-Nov-2003 04:04:42 UTC
Expiration Date:21-Sep-2004 15:09:08 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R39-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:2EF83D2A736E3D5E
Registrant Name:Melnikov Dmitri
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 58
Registrant City:Saint-Petetsburg
Registrant Postal Code:196602
Registrant Country:RU
Registrant Email:pelmen@l6l.net

A "whois" seach of partikeadilan.org reveals the following registration details:

Domain ID:D87164058-LROR
Domain Name:PARTIKEADILAN.ORG
Created On:02-Jun-2002 03:28:52 UTC
Last Updated On:11-Dec-2003 23:10:43 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Jun-2004 03:28:52 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R48-LROR
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:ODN-351808
Registrant Name:Randy Weyforth
Registrant Organization:VCRs-R-Us
Registrant Street1:PO Box 44167
Registrant City:Baltimore
Registrant State/Province:MD
Registrant Postal Code:21236
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4106421304
Registrant Email:randy@headjunk.com

Now the question is why would Messrs Melnikov Dmitri of St Petersburg and Randy Weyforth of Baltimore use the domain names of "partirakyat" and "partikeadilan" for porn websites. Unless there is more than meets the eye here....

(The real Parti Keadilan Rakyat is now using the domain name www.partikeadilanrakyat.org)

Blog visitor Suresh says: "They are effectively spammers. Nothing funny about the registrations done. The two political parties made the huge mistake of not protecting the rights to their names.

"There is no excuse. It only cost RM270 for a 10-year, hassle-free registration of the domain name to protect their image."

Unreturned postal ballots: "Political parties" or "opposition parties"?

Election Commission Chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman came out with a particular piece of evidence obtained through the EC's internal probe into "irregularities" in the recent elections. It concerns 67,000 postal votes not returned to the EC. TheSun, New Straits Times, and The Star carried the story on 14 April. The Star, however, gave a different picture from that of the other two papers.

Both the NST and theSun (as well as Malaysiakini on 13 April for that matter) reported that Rashid alleged that some political parties might have used their candidates' agents to collect unreturned ballots, marked "X" against the party's symbol, and then claimed after the election that votes in their favour were removed from the ballot box.

The operative words here are "political parties" because Sa'odah Elias' report in The Star mentioned "opposition parties", instead. The opening two paragraphs in her report are as follows:

"The Election Commission has uncovered a ruse by supporters of opposition parties who misused unreturned ballot papers to claim that votes for their parties were deliberately chucked out.

"EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman said these people collected unreturned ballot papers, particularly those meant for postal voters, and then marked them in favour of their parties."

Why the major discrepancy between The Star and other papers?

It is highly doubtful Chairman Rashid said one thing to NST and theSun and another to The Star. So, why is The Star report different?

Now, could it be The Star had a reason for mentioning "opposition parties" instead of "political parties"? If so, this should have been made clear in the story. But nowhere was the reason given.

So who was responsible for collecting the unreturned ballots? "Political parties" or "opposition parties"? Can we expect the media concerned and the EC to issue a clarification?

The press should also be asking all kinds of questions about postal ballots. How is it possible for "candidates' agents" to collect unreturned ballots from the police, military and others to whom the ballot papers were sent? Why the need for postal ballots when these people can vote just like other ordinary Malaysians? And are we going to see greater transparency and tighter supervision of postal ballots in the next general election?

Media fail to compare Abdullah's asset declaration policy with Mahathir's

A day after Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi issued the directive to elected BN representatives to declare their assets every two years in order to check corruption and create a clean BN government, International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz said the policy was nothing new as it was already practised during Mahathir’s premiership.

Well, how is Abdullah’s assets declaration policy different from Mahathir’s? More importantly, will it check corruption?

Mahathir’s policy apparently did not help to check corruption. If it did, it does not make sense that Prime Minister Abdullah is still focused on fighting corruption as a major part of his administration.

None of the English dailies - ­NST, The Star and theSun - ­bothered to look into the questions and tried to clarify for the public. Indeed, only theSun covered Rafidah’s remark on 6 April, although the story was somewhat buried, appearing as a small column on page 2.

Rafidah’s remark surely could not be dismissed as lacking newsworthiness. Appearing only a day after Abdullah’s directive, it was highly topical and raised questions, like those mentioned above, regarding the policy.

One might even read her remark as giving Abdullah’s policy a brush-off. Or, was it another of her efforts to dispel the idea that she was involved in graft, as might be harboured by some?

Questions, questions, questions. A credible media would easily become curious and eagerly want to find out the answers. Not our mainstream media, which were interested in promoting Abdullah and his “clean” Pak Lah image rather than offering any serious analysis of his assets declaration policy.

ASA looking into blog report: we wait with bated breath

Just after the election, we highlighted a notice from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of Malaysia in the newspapers. The notice urged Malaysians to report to the ASA any ad that was irregular or improper. We commented that this was a classic case of latching the barn doors after the horse had bolted as most of the unethical ads had already appeared before the polls.

Blog visitor Cheong nonetheless brought our blog report "Johnny-come-lately misses the boat" to the attention of the ASA.

To: asa@macomm.com.my
Cc: alirankn@hotmail.com
Subject: MISLEADING/OFFENSIVE ADS??

What is your response to the understated article?

I don't suppose I am the first to bring to your attention.

tq

--------------------

The ASA's response:

To: cheong
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: MISLEADING/OFFENSIVE ADS??

Dear Sir

The matter has been forwarded to the ASA Chairman for instructions.

We will keep you informed of the outcome in due course.

Regards
Secretaries
ASA

------------------------------

Well, we wait with bated breath for the response from the ASA chairman.

RTM needs more than just extra funds and staff

RTM needs RM385 million and an additional 1,000 workers to improve its services, according to newly-appointed Information Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir (formerly Minister of Cuture, Arts and Tourism).

He also reportedly said: “We want to set a high standard, style and benchmark for other stations to follow. The Government should set the standard for the private sector and it should not be the other way around” (New Straits Times, 7 April, page 4).

Hardly anyone will dispute the minister that RTM is in dire need of improvement. However, we think his ideas for achieving it are inadequate because he was focusing only on the hardware side of the RTM problem, as in acquiring the latest digital technology and refurbishing the studios.

A different mission needed

We hope he will also consider the software side, which is arguably more important. RTM should work on improving its programs especially in two major areas.

First, RTM programs should not be a slave to ratings in order to chase after large
advertising ringgit. Since funding for RTM comes largely from taxpayers, the national
broadcaster should be free from the mentality that grips private, commercial TV stations of airing frivolous entertainment to draw the attention of viewers to be sold to advertisers.

Rather, it should acquire or develop entertainment-based programs that go beyond merely jostling for public attention. The programs should also be educational and get the public to think critically or consider the various aspects of an issue.

As long as the programs are created with high production values, educational does not mean lacking in entertainment. It is not one or the other. For example, the children's programme “Sesame Street” shown on US Public TV, which does not carry commercial advertisements and is largely funded by tax dollars, is educational, fun and entertaining. This wonderful program has been a tremendous success since the 1970s in providing educational points in an entertaining way to children not just in the US but also throughout the world.

In other words, RTM should avoid offering programs aimed at the “lowest common
denominator” of the mass audience and pander to their wants. They should challenge the audience to think for themselves and in a critical way. That is the essence of interactivity.

After all, we already have enough private TV stations jostling for large audience and
advertising ringgit with their “lowest common denominator” programming.

If abandoning the “lowest common denominator” approach means RTM programmes are more elitist, that should not be a problem, should it? Given that the private, commercial stations are slaves to ratings and always on the lookout for attention-grabbing programmes, only RTM is in a good position to offer programs that are food for thought, thanks to the taxpayers. RTM should take full advantage of that.

In short, RTM should be different or have a different mission from those of the private stations. This will add to the diversity of TV programmes for the viewers.
The second area of programming RTM needs to work on concerns the news and current affairs programmes. RTM currently needs a lot of work in this area.

The main problem with these RTM programs for the longest time now is that they are
mouthpieces or cheerleaders for the Barisan Nasional. That is a blatant abuse of tax money.

Taxpayers are not all BN supporters. Even in one of its most resounding victories in the election on 21 March, the BN managed to capture only about 63 per cent of the popular votes. There are also many non-BN supporters and they are just as Malaysian and patriotic. It will be the height of conceit if the BN thinks it has a monopoly on patriotism or what it takes to be Malaysian.

People from the opposition parties as well as civil society groups and non-governmental organizations are also tax-paying Malaysian citizens. They, in their own way, also toil diligently and peacefully to help create a better Malaysia for all.

Their views and activities are also important and RTM should not ignore them, as they have been doing. They should also stop the childish behaviour of covering opposition parties only in connection to negative events.

Yes, the views of the opposition, activists and NGOs often differ from those of the BN but is that a reason for RTM to deny them air time? Is the BN afraid of differing views? Do BN members think they are the only ones who have all the right answers?

Benefits of fair and balanced approach

By incorporating news and views from other than the BN in their news and current events programmes, RTM will go a long way in cultivating something that is shamefully and sorely missing in the mainstream media--a fair and balanced approach to journalism. Such an approach will have at least four major benefits.

First, it will bring about news and current events programmes that are not so predictable to the public and a turn-off for them. It also treats the public as adults and respects their intelligence. Surely, this will create additional appeal for the programmes; no one likes to have their intelligence insulted.

Second, the public will be well informed to think and decide for themselves when the programmes offer differing views. This benefit cannot be overestimated today when information has become a major part of the globalised economy and culture. When people are informed and challenged to think and decide for themselves, they will be empowered to be more independent thinkers. This brings with it an untold amount of other benefits. For instance, people will be motivated to be creative, and we all know how important creativity is to the economy and culture today.

Yet another benefit of programmes offering different views is that people would have
adequate information to decide on voting for a political party or candidate during an election. The winning candidates can then genuinely take pride in their victories knowing they were well earned. They will be truly respected and admired by the public as well.

The fourth major benefit of RTM taking a fair and balanced approach to news and current events programming is that it will help achieve Information Minister Kadir’s aim for RTM--to set a “benchmark for other stations to follow”. So far, the other stations have very much ignored news or views not from the BN or acted as though they could not be bothered with them. RTM could help change that if it were to take the lead in fair and balanced journalism.

The taxpayer-supported national broadcaster can be improved and even made into a path-breaking broadcaster if it is willing to offer programmes that are fair and balanced as well as educational and thought-provoking.

How many cabinet ministers do we have?

33, right? Well, that's what most reports said. But not according to this picture in The Star of 1 April 2004 (page 28). This picture is captioned: "The A-TEAM: Abdullah (centre) and his new Cabinet line-up posing for a group photograph before he led them to their first Cabinet meeting." Now, count very cafefully: 1, 2, 3, ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 people!

Well, they did say our cabinet had been expanded. Going by this picture, it looks like the "A-TEAM" is still expanding, huh!

Arrests of two men from MCA

Something smells really fishy in the way the mainstream press ­ in particular, the MCA-owned The Star ­ reported on a couple of police arrests in the past week.

One arrest involved a Datuk who was KL’s gaming and vice king. The other a Labuan man.

However, theSun, The Star and New Straits Times did not publish their names. Why?

These are not minors; they are both in their forties. They are also businessmen. When Eric Chia was arrested, he was named at the outset. The papers did not offer any reasons for not giving the names of the two here. Why the discrepancy then? What laws or restrictions are there to justify the discrepancy?

Could it be because the two men arrested are actually from the MCA?

The Labuan arrest also raises a number of other questions.

To begin with, while The Star reported that the man was merely an MCA member, the other two papers did not consider him as such. Specifically, theSun said he was a “top-ranking Labuan MCA official” while NST referred to him as a “top-ranking Labuan MCA leader”.

Indeed, the MCA's Star appeared to be deliberately trying to bury the fact that the Labuan arrest actually involved a top-ranking MCA leader when one reads its report on 4 April.

The first paragraph described the man only as a “prominent businessman” (theSun indicated that he “was said to be a top underworld boss in Labuan”). Nowhere was the MCA mentioned (in The Star) until the seventh paragraph (out of a total of eleven in the report). Even then, the paper referred to him merely as an MCA member.

But that is not all.

Over in NST, the last two paragraphs of the page 4 report (on 5 April) state:

On reports that a top-ranking Labuan MCA leader had been detained for alleged involvement in vice activities, he (MCA President Ong Ka Ting) said MCA had 10.3 million members, many of whom also hold posts outside the party.

“We do not know what these people do outside....” he said.

It becomes quite clear now why The Star alone stated that the Labuan man was only an MCA member. It nicely synchronised with MCA President Ong’s point that the MCA could not know what all of its 10.3 million members do outside the party.

Still, one has to wonder about the journalistic integrity of NST for letting Ong off the hook for saying the Labuan man was just an MCA member.

If NST does not have any journalistic self-respect, at least have some respect for the public. We can appreciate Ong’s point if the Labuan man was merely an ordinary MCA member. But he was no ordinary member, was he, NST?

Since the man was “a top-ranking Labuan MCA leader”, how, then, could the MCA President be allowed to get away with his response to the media?

Hmm...could it be because both UMNO-connected NST and MCA-owned The Star are part of Barisan Nasional?

And all along since the election on 21 March, the mainstream media have been blaring on and on about Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s code of ethics for elected BN representatives, including efforts to create a clean BN cabinet and government.

If The Star and NST could not even do a credible and ethical job of reporting on these two recent arrests of MCA leaders who are not part of Abdullah’s cabinet, how can they be trusted to perform credibly and ethically if or when cabinet members were found to have been involved in any wrongdoing?

Blog visitor Tua Kia writes: "Aliran rules! Thanks for keeping this up! How can I contact the webmaster/blogger?"

Well Tua Kia, the bloggers can be contacted at alirankn@hotmail.com

The JI four's "confessions": TV3 indulges in trial-by-media

Any decent and thinking person watching TV3's airing of so-called "confessions" by four alleged members of the alleged regional terror group Jemaah Islamiah would have been outraged. Edmund Bon, the lawyer representing a few other JI detainees, felt repulsed at the broadcast and sent this to us. His comments were partially reported in The Sunday Mail. To its credit, Suhakam has also slammed TV3 for airing these "confessions."

We reproduce lawyer Bon's comments in full. It is great to see a lawyer standing up for human rights and justice. His piece is slightly long but definitely worth a read:

"In a press release, TV3 called it making history “again by filming an exclusive interview with four JI detainees now under the custody of Indonesian police” (see Malaysiakini report “TV3's ‘confession’ flick irks Suhakam”, 2 April 2004).

I do not wish to be part of that “history” and hence, I am compelled to place in proper context the “confessions”.

The participants. They are Malaysians detained in Indonesia. They were arrested at different times. The manner and precise details of their arrests and detentions are sketchy and not fully known. How they have been treated since their arrests have not been revealed or tested in a court of law. Whether they have had access to lawyers and have been advised of their rights are other questions unanswered. The point to be remembered is that the participants are not free men. They are men under arrest and detention.

The venue. It was held in a police building of the Indonesian authorities. The background looks posh and stylish but it is only in fact a police station. The police control it. The participants were under the supervision, direction and rule of the police. There was no escaping. It was a controlled environment.

The TV crew. The crew were despatched from a Malaysian television station, TV3. There were two men asking the questions, with presumably some others as film crew. Their presence could only have been possible with the assistance of the Malaysian and Indonesian authorities. The men had laptops and were neatly dressed. Beneath those suits however, they knew what they wanted to get. They acted more like interrogators than journalists. They acted as if they were Special Branch officers, in nice suits, interrogating suspects. The questions were leading questions, as if the answers were already known. The answers forthcoming from the participants appear to have been scripted and rehearsed. There was no turning back for the participants. They were not full, candid and frank “confessions”.

The governments. The governments of Malaysia and Indonesia were not represented during the confessions. This is not unexpected, they had to hide behind the scenes. However, it is tacit that their approval was given and they knew beforehand what was to be aired. Would they allow suspected members of JI to state that there was no such organization as JI or deny the existence of JI’s activities and give reasons for that? Would they allow suspected members of JI to state they were tortured, coerced or induced by promises into “confessing”?

The programme. It was a gimmick. There were no “confessions”. It was a scripted interview. All of them acted and played their parts. Why this was done is unclear but one can speculate that the authorities are trying very hard now to justify their allegations of JI terrorist activities and JI’s existence.

The world knows that they could not do it at the Bashir trial and he, being the supposed head of JI, is going to be released in April 2004 whereas his poor purported “followers” in Indonesia such as the participants and many others in Kamunting will linger on in detention. If nobody could or can do it properly through the courts of law, why not now through trial by media?

Detention without trial of Bashir’s “followers” in Indonesia and Malaysia emphasizes this simple fact – there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt which will stand in a court of law justifying incarceration of these purported JI members for their purported terrorist activities.

The content. This is a laugh, really. The questions are leading, and the answers scripted; yet, the participants do not say anything we did not already know from the propaganda of the security forces of America, Malaysia, Indonesia and other States. This propaganda swirls like a tornado trying to convert any other remaining unbelievers of terrorism and JI. But the truth remains, and I have said it many times before, that a lie told a thousand times, twisted another thousand times, would soon “become” or “be believed” as gospel truth.

And yet, if I was to tear the “confessions” apart, what offence have the participants committed? No, I did not know about the plans or actions regarding the Bali or Marriot bombings but after that (after that when?), I knew it was wrong. Where is the offence? We all know the bombings were wrong. Charge them and imprison them if need be on proper charges. Let them have a fair trial before an effective judicial and legal system, and one not politicized by State(s’) propaganda.

If that’s all the authorities have on these four men - which has convinced them to detain them for terrorism-related offences - then shame on Indonesia and Malaysia. If that is about all Malaysia and Malaysia’s supposedly efficient Special Branch have on our friends in Kamunting, then now I understand why no charges have been brought against them to date. I say they are friends because no one, unless he is GOD, is to judge and throw the first stone punishing another before he is properly tried in an effective trial with full rights accorded to him as an accused person.

The legal implications. Firstly, TV3 may have committed contempt of court. The issues covered are sub judice. There are 10 detainees in Kamunting who have filed habeas corpus applications in the Malaysian courts. The applications were dismissed recently by the Kuala Lumpur High Court. Their appeals to the Federal Court are still pending. They are alleged to be members of JI. Among the issues covered in these applications are whether there is evidence JI exists and the alleged terrorist activities of JI. It is my view that TV3’s programme of the “confessions” would tend to influence the Federal Court to decide against the detainees.

Secondly, let us ask the right questions about the “confessions”. Safe? Reliable? Tortured out of them? How do we know? How do we test? Are we to treat every person being detained - either pending trial or not - like this? The issue is – can one being detained ever be allowed to “confess” anywhere other than in a court of law, on the same very issues of his detention? If so, why have a justice system because we can bypass that.

Coercion? Inducement for less time in detention or for immediate release? Did TV3 ask and air who had special treatment before the “confessions” were aired? TV3 did not ask and air who had special “rights” in detention to meet his wife at a hotel. TV3 did not ask and air who had special “rights” to be on the phone with people overseas. Why not? Would that have made a difference? Perhaps.

The criminal justice system is meant to ensure that “confessions” given are voluntary and free. That is an accepted safeguard. Use that system.

The history. There are too many questions unanswered with regards to the programme. There have been ISA detainees who have “confessed” on air only to retract their “confessions” later after release. To repeat the oft-used examples, Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs [1989] 1 MLJ 69 and Teo Soh Lung v. Minister of Home Affairs [1990] 2 MLJ 129 are two reported cases where duress was alleged by the detainees to coerce them into making “confessions” on air. This danger is too real to be ignored; too glaring to be unnoticed.

The human rights issue. Quite simply, the human rights question is: why now? It appeared that only until after the participants were arrested and detained did they wish to “apologise” and “repent”. What did they go through while under detention to only want to “apologise” and “repent” now, when before that they were purportedly running around trying to blow up hotels or like action? But the human rights standard as agreed by the international community is envisaged in Article 95 Standard Minimum Rules For The Treatment of Prisoners and which reads:

“Without Prejudice to the provisions of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, persons arrested or imprisoned without charge shall be accorded the same protection as that accorded under part I and part II, section C. Relevant provisions of part II, section A, shall likewise be applicable where their application may be conducive to the benefit of this special group of persons in custody, provided that no measures shall be taken implying that re-education or rehabilitation is in any way appropriate to persons not convicted of any criminal offence.” (Emphasis in bold mine)

Has this been breached? Has TV3 ensured this was not breached before interviewing and airing the programme?

The bottom line is this – charge them or release them. Do not showcase human beings in front of nationwide audiences for them to be judged on an unfair basis whereby the programme is entirely skewed and lopsided with no counteractive measures available.

Give them a fair trial – it is as simple as that. Human rights norms demand in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that anyone arrested or detained be brought promptly before a judge to exercise judicial power and that person shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to release.

The reversal. I do not agree that TV3 was right in making the programme and airing the same. Suffice to say, I am instructed that there are untruths, factual inaccuracies, embellishments, concoctions and falsehoods in the statements made by the participants. The damage is however done.

Although I again state that it is not right to air such a programme, TV3 must be responsible and ethical to balance the damage and soften the blow. TV3 must now go to Kamunting and air a programme featuring four suspected JI terrorists being held there to allow them what they wish to say in refutation or in addition or in denial or in support of the “confessions” of the participants.

Wan Min Wan Mat (although he is supposedly to be in Kamunting, he is not there but at a place unknown), Idris Salim and Roshelmy Shariff are among those being held by Malaysian authorities suspected of being JI members and who have been implicated by the participants of the programme. There are among those who must be given a chance to say something, if they wish to, and let me say in anticipation that I believe they do.

The result. TV3 calls it history. Only in Malaysia probably will we find a supposedly independent and free television station proclaiming history being made after making a mockery of human rights and assassinating detainees without trial, via trial by media.

The crux. Ask yourself these three posers after watching the programme to see if you can satisfy your conscience: what is a human being, how are human beings to treat each other in society and is this the type of society we want to live in?"

Seeing is believing - or is it?

Blog visitor Jo sent this to us along with some comments: I am going to complain though, about the picture they put on the cover of StarMag on 28 March. That was clearly doctored (and badly done at that). As I have mentioned elsewhere, I don't have much regard for The Star's art dept.

The pic was of a bunch of scantily-clad females hanging out of a car, carrying BN flags while zooming around the streets of Terengganu. (Out goes PAS and back come the spaghetti straps?)

What gave the picture away was that the car was zooming fast enough for the flags to berkibar in the wind, despite the car having only pulled away from the kerb for two feet!

A Proton Wira loaded with five adults going from zero to sixty in one second! Shame on
Schumacher! And, the shadows of the girls fell on a billboard 50 feet away. Wow, what a powerful spotlight the photographer has!

Anyways, what good is complaining gonna do? We all know Star is a government newsletter, er, I mean, newspaper.

On further perusal of the cover picture, I noticed some words printed in microscopic print below the pic: "Photo composition & touch-up THANA"

HA! The truth IS out there!

Apparently, this picture is a composite of two superimposed photos. The photo of the girls was taken on election night while the other pic of the hill and "Allah
pelihara Terengganu" was put in the background to show that it was Terengganu.

Shows you things are not always what they seem.

Malaysian radio sings the BN tune

While the radio showed definite bias towards the Barisan Nasional during the period monitored (17 Feb - 21 Mar), a more disconcerting factor was the lack of any debate on English language radio.

From the day Parliament was dissolved, voters were urged to vote, generally in terms that brought the BN to mind. However, never once was any indication given of what the issues might be or why voters should turn out to vote.

Alongside this was blatant propaganda for the BN parties, which reached a nadir on 26 Feb, on Red 104.9, which broadcast the Umno deputy president’s appeal to voters to vote for the BN. However, across the entire period, other items considered newsworthy were that BN component parties had started, or were ready to start, campaigning (e.g. Red 104.9 on 18 Feb, Radio 4 on 24 Feb etc), the PM (or caretaker PM) would visit various states (e.g. Red 104.9 on 20 Feb, Radio 4 on 21 Feb etc), and the BN’s seat allocation (eg Light n Easy, 29 Feb).

PAS was mentioned neutrally thrice, but was referred to negatively four times (e.g. members defecting, the weak electoral pact with Keadilan) – a total of eight mentions, one was in relation to the PAS member who pulled out after nominations and the allegations that he was bribed (Mix FM 17 March). DAP was mentioned once (briefing its candidates), the same number of times as Parti Socialis Malaysia. Prior to Parliament’s dissolution, Keadilan was the only opposition party mentioned, and that was only in terms of members defecting.

The BN was sometimes mentioned more often in a single news broadcast than the others over the entire period monitored.

All news presented the BN as the party or coalition of government. The ministers remained ministers, the PM was never referred to as the caretaker Prime Minister. Even when the results were announced it was in terms of whether BN had won or lost.

Another matter of broad concern, is the amount of time given up to news broadcasts, and the proportion of local news. Red 104.9, for example, has news bulletins five times a day, sometimes with only one local news story. Each newscast lasts around five minutes. Radio 4 had the most in-depth news broadcasts, with hourly bulletins, and longer broadcasts at peak periods. Despite listening to the radio for around six hours daily each day over the election period, there was not a single current affairs programme (excluding news) on during that time, nor was one advertised.

Judging from the news bulletins and other programmes broadcast, Malaysian radio promotes a materialistic, individualistic mentality with little room for non-commercial decisions. It does not help to prepare an electorate for making informed decisions about which party they want to run the country.