'Messengers' censor news on ISA fatwa request

Justice is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam. Muslims have always been reminded by the Islamic teachings of how central or integral justice is in their daily lives and social interaction. Indeed, Muslims are exhorted to exercise justice whenever and wherever required.

So when a group of 22 Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees challenged the Malaysian Council of Muftis on 18 Aug to make a stand, or fatwa, on the controversial Internal Security Act, some Malaysians were intrigued, if not excited.

The ISA, as we all know, allows for detention without trial, which seriously undermines natural justice, including the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This call for the muftis to make a ruling or fatwa on the ISA is an important milestone in the Islamic and political history of this country. The ISA, as ex-ISA detainee Saari Sungib argues, violates “principles of human rights and the rule of law enshrined in the Scriptures”.

But not so for large sections of the mainstream press. These newspapers, some of which pretend to be the rakyat’s carriers of information and knowledge, did not regard this issue newsworthy enough to merit any meaningful coverage.

A newspaper worthy of its name, on the other hand, would have provided conscientious and responsible coverage that would have been intellectually instructive and beneficial to all.

The mainstream press' apparently deliberate action to push aside or black out this ISA fatwa issue is revealing. It shows that our newspapers' idea of what is and isn't journalistically significant news may not necessarily coincide with what many Malaysians would consider to be news of crucial importance.

Readers of the mainstream media should therefore be wary of certain journalistic techniques used to marginalize certain issues, events and personalities.

This brings to mind the pro-establishment New Straits Times' recent categorisation of the news items in its main section into “Prime News” and others. Once again, it appears that the ISA fatwa request story did not qualify to be reported anywhere, leave alone in the so-called “Prime News” category.

Some of our mainstream editors are fond of arguing that their newspapers are only "messengers" of the news. What they actually mean is that they are mere stenographers (rather than journalists) who faithfully scribble down what ministers, other ruling coalition politicians or government officials have to say. This is a serious abdication of the journalists' responsibility to report the truth without fear or favour, to monitor the centres of power and to highlight human rights violations and cases of injustice.

In this case, we can clearly see that our mainstream media newspapers have not even lived up to their self-proclaimed role of "messengers". They have actually marginalised or blacked out news about the request for an official Islamic stand on the ISA.

So we can see our 'messengers' have exercised self-censorship and toed the government line. These newspapers decide for us what is fit for print, and they snip out what they consider to be politically incorrect. What do you call such newspapers? Certainly not even 'messengers'.

Clearly, this episode shows that the mainstream newspapers do not mind betraying their social responsibility to report the truth. They would rather put the interests and concerns of the powers-that-be over those of ordinary citizens. These newspapers are afraid that honest coverage of issues like this will arouse their readers' curiosity and sense of justice and lead to a public clamour for the repeal of oppressive laws such as the ISA.

Happily, unlike the mainstream press, news portal Malaysiakini did live up to its tag line of carrying "Only the news that matters" by reporting on the ISA fatwa request.

Will the axe fall on Harakah's Zulkifli Sulong?

Much is at stake when the PAS annual general assembly meets on 27 Aug. It's not just a matter of Harakah editor-in-chief Zulkifli Sulong and managing director Hishamuddin Yahya facing the chop. At stake is a larger issue: the shrinking space for dissenting voices.

Sections of the PAS membership are expected to call for the duo's resignations and for a restructuring of Harakah. According to a 25 Aug malaysiakini newsreport, some Pas members are apparently unhappy with the way the fortnightly party newspaper is being run. They are upset that some of the paper's contents have apparently gone against the grain of the party's general philosophy. An article by Farish A Noor that questioned the role of the ulamak was cited as a glaring example.

It is indeed understandable for PAS members to expect a party organ such as Harakah to be run like a party publication that reflects and respects the party’s political philosophy. But we would argue that the way the paper treats certain issues reveals to what extent the publication and the party appreciate freedom of expression, dissenting voices and a diversity of views.

One of the attractive features of Harakah thus far has been the space it has allowed (to some extent) for a broad range of voices to appear in the publication. This, in turn, has catered to the need for debates on certain issues - an essential aspect of a democracy. Ideas that are different from the party should not be censored, but challenged head-on in this publication. This would not only indicate an appreciation for democracy, but would also be a mark of political maturity.

Harakah risks losing a sizeable and valuable segment of its readership to whom it could toss certain ideas that may not find space elsewhere. In other words, the opportunity to engage in a useful dialogue regarding issues such as Islam and the state would be lost if Harakah decides to alienate itself from a more mature readership.

This would be a pity. In an environment where dissenting and critical voices are not welcomed in almost all of the mainstream media (thanks to the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the ISA, the OSA, etc), Harakah has a vital role to play in providing some democratic space for the voices in the wilderness to be heard.

Get real, Suhakam; don't take us for a ride

So Suhakam has taken the ‘initiative’ to set up a print media complaints committee. Bad move, guys. It sounds like a back-door attempt to set up the jinxed – and already rejected - Malaysian Media Council in the present oppressive climate.

If you recall, independent journalists, Charter 2000, Initiatif Wartawan and even the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) had shot down the proposal to set up such a council at this time, mainly because they felt that repressive laws and regulations that hindered press freedom should be repealed first.

What’s more, some of the establishment personalities behind the move to set up Suhakam’s print media complaints committee do not exactly inspire confidence.

Come on, guys, everyone knows that the real problem in Malaysian journalism is the pressure – unseen, but often felt – on journalists and editors to refrain from reporting the frank and brutal truth. Dissent and critical reporting is frowned upon; instead, self-censorship prevails. Everyone know that what ails Malaysian journalism is the concentration of media ownership in the hands of ruling political parties and business entities friendly to the powers-that-be.

No wonder Malaysia is only ranked in 104th place in the latest press freedom ranking list issued by the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF).

We applaud the National Union of Journalists’ president’s principled stand in criticising this Suhakam proposal. We sure don’t need another Code of Ethics – as if that is the panacea for all our journalistic woes.

In fact, the NUJ already has an excellent code of ethics adapted from the International Federation of Journalists Code. It is worth reproducing:

1. Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalists. To defend the freedom of the Press, to deal with the professional conduct of its members and to maintain high ethical standards in journalism.
2. In pursuance of this duty he will defend the twin principles: freedom in the honest collection and publications of news; and the right of fair comment and criticism.
3. The journalist reports only in accordance with the facts of which he knows the origin. He will not suppress essential information of falsify documents.
4. He will use only fair methods to obtain news, photographs and documents.
5. Any published information which is found to be harmfully inaccurate he will do his utmost to rectify.
6. He will observe professional secret regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.
7. He will regard as grave professional offences the following: Plagiarism; Calumny, slander, libel and unfounded accusations; The acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.
8. He recognises in professional matters, the jurisdiction of his colleagues only; he excludes every kind of interference by governments or others.

Note that item 1 of the Code stresses respect for the truth and the defence of press freedom. Sigh, if only editors and journalists in Malaysia could be allowed to live up to these ideals.

Suhakam is going about it the wrong way. We don’t need a new committee to pile on more pressure on our hapless journalists. What Suhakam should tell us is how it intends to broaden the space for press freedom and to encourage journalists to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It needs to tell the government in no uncertain terms that press freedom should be upheld and that repressive laws must be repealed - NOW. If the government is not willing to listen, then what is the point of being Suhakam commissioners when your views are consistently rejected or fall on deaf ears? Might as well resign.

The last thing we need from Suhakam is more committees – especially one that would allow certain personalities to realise their ‘cherished’ dream of a Malaysian Media Council, which most thinking journalists and press freedom activists have already rejected in the current repressive climate. Get real, please, Suhakam, and don't take us for a ride.

"Prime News", NST-style

It’s been a week since the New Straits Times introduced a new format (on 9 Aug) that is supposed to help the readers to identify the purportedly important news that they shouldn’t miss. Under the label of “Prime News”, some local, national and international news items are bundled together and showcased in a few pages after the front page of the newspaper. This, says its editorial note, “is a compilation to help you navigate the complex world we live in.”

This may be seen as one of the ways – no matter how superficial – a newspaper can draw more readers or hold on to existing ones in a keenly competitive media environment. But what it essentially means is that this establishment daily is trying to tell readers explicitly if not not brazenly what it deems to be important news that must be read. Incidentally, today’s NST (August 17) announced that the paper would come in two physical versions by September 1: the usual broadsheet edition and a tabloid version. This cosmetic change, which will be introduced in the Klang Valley initially, indicates the newspaper’s desire to test whether a tabloid version would be more marketable than its existing broadsheet version.

Traditionally, a newspaper rates its news items in a number of ways, indirectly or subtly telling its readers what it considers to be important and not-so-important news. For example, how bold its headlines are, the positioning of a news report on a page, the placing of a news item on page one as opposed to being buried in the inside pages, the use of photos (big or small), the use of catchy headlines, etc.

Put differently, newspapers do have their editorial preferences – which mainly hinge on the paper's political inclinations and economic concerns – and the way the pages are laid out reflects these preferences. But such subtlety in the layout is not as patronising as telling readers in no uncertain terms what constitutes the important news.

Those concerned about press freedom may interpret the NST's move as a way of further marginalizing voices of dissent and of government critics by “quarantining” them - if at all they appear - in the domain outside the “Prime News”. In other words, this is an attempt to give further legitimacy to statements by people in the government and their supporters through this new "Prime News" category.

On the other hand, there are others who may argue that this new formatting may well be a feeble attempt by this establishment newspaper to "smuggle" in a little space for news items relating to government critics and dissidents. This could be done by placing the non-establishment news outside the “Prime News” pages.

For example, in yesterday’s (16 Aug) NST, there were two items on Umno and the BN in relation to the forthcoming Kuala Berang by-election in Terengganu on page 5 in the “Prime News” section. On page 6, however, there was a half-page interview with Pas president Abdul Hadi Awang with a banner headline, “Pas will rise again in next polls” as well as a huge photo of the Islamist party leader.

In today’s NST (August 17), the Eric Chia trial was placed outside the “Prime News” category.

Only time will tell whether this is a fresh move to marginalise other voices or to create some room for them.

Awas! Star editors at work

Ever wondered why the letters in The Star are always on "safe" topics? In recent years, The Star has rarely carried Aliran's statements in full. If at all Aliran statements are carried, only a couple of sentences are used - usually at the end of a news report, where it is least conspicuous.

So it was a pleasant surprise to see Aliran's latest statement carried in the paper's Letters to the Editors section yesterday. But a closer look reveals that it had been heavily edited. The bits in bold letters had been omitted by The Star's editors.

In particular, the editors omitted the crucial point about how it was so necessary for responsible leaders and concerned individuals to embark on a concerted effort to rein in disruptive elements. Also omitted was the point about how Aliran's efforts at promoting inter-religious dialogue, including its long-standing call for an inter-religious council, had not received much support in the past.

So here is a "lesson" on how The Star edits its letters: The safe bits are published and anything remotely critical (in bold) is omitted.

Aliran Media Statement

Every man must go to heaven in his own way

There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to reach out and embrace each other as fellow Malaysians and children of a compassionate God. It is this commonality that should unite us as citizens and enable us to live as brothers and sisters in spite of our adherence to different faiths.

Our religious upbringing and background and the lessons of virtue imparted by our various traditions should guide us to be models of moderation, compassion and tolerence which are rooted in the core value of justice.

But it doesn’t seem that easy.

There are certain exponents of every faith who are bent on being the spoilers by proclaiming that theirs is the only way in absolutist terms and exclusive rights. In their bigotry, they drive in the religious and ethnic wedges that keep us apart rather than bringing us together.

In the light of this, it is very timely for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to assert, “This is why I believe it is important to call for moderation in our respective religions. If we fail to do so, we risk having our religion hijacked by those who promote hatred and violence.”

It is precisely for this reason why it is so necessary for responsible leaders and concerned individuals to embark on a concerted effort to rein in these disruptive elements. They are few but bold and loud and abrasive and therefore get to be noticed and heard. They come across as the dorminant voice of the community.

It is rather unfortunate that the many who who do not share their views or support their extremism and who are in the majority do not speak up or stand up to oppose these disruptive elements. By not speaking up or standing up in support of good values and opposing these disruptive elements in our midst we indeed give them the free licence to hijack and portray our religions in the negative light of intolerence and extremism.

If only earlier efforts in forging unity, tolerence and religious understanding and cooperation undertaken by various individuals and NGOs had received the much needed support, perhaps we need not be in this difficult situation we find ourselves in today.

In 1980, Aliran organised a seminar on “Belief in God” which brought together leaders and individuals from various religions to blaze a common path of tolerence, accommodation and understanding. This seminar produced a book, “One God Many Paths” which is now out of print

On various occasions we have called for the setting up of an Inter-Religious Council which could promptly and sensitively address any religious strife that is bound to emerge occasionally.

As recently as last year, the Bar Council made a bold and valiant attempt to establish a similar council but its efforts were thwarted by certain views and individuals.

It is in light of this that we welcome Abdullah’s passionate plea, “What we need more than ever today is a concerned effort to initiate inter-faith dialogue.”

This is the only way to sideline and marginalise the extremist elements out to cause trouble. This is the only way to drive home the truth that it is not your way or my way that is important. What is important is the right way that accommodates and tolerates our commonality in our shared destiny.

Let each man be aware of the wisdom in these words, “All religions must be tolerated …every man must go to heaven in his own way.”

P Ramakrishnan
President
4 August 2004

NST's biotech debate comes two months late

Two letters published by the New Straits Times in the past few days merit attention. They show why “developmental journalism”–which amounts to “government-say-so” journalism, in practice, with our mainstream media--does not help anyone and can even tarnish the image of the people in government.

The first letter ran on 3 Aug came from a reader, H.P., who pointed out some negative effects of genetically modified (GM) foods. The following were cited to make the case:

a) most European farmers and consumers have opposed GM foods because of “growing (scientific) evidence” of the negative impact on health, the ecology and agricultural biodiversity
b) recent studies showed dangerous signs of DNA transfer from the GM foods to the human body
c) the failure of GM cotton in Indonesia (and the impact on the farmers and economy)
d) the agricultural economy in Argentina wrecked by GM soya beans

H.P. hoped that the government would pause to consider the ill effects of the biotechnology industry before rushing headlong into it.

The second letter appeared a couple of days later. It is from Kelvin Keh, executive director of the Malaysian Biotechnology Information Centre (Mabic). He disagreed with H.P. and specifically refuted only point (a) above. Keh said H.P. gave only one side of the picture regarding the situation in Europe, saying:

“What should have also been mentioned is that Europe has, in its recent past, endured a string of food and health scares that have left public confidence at an all-time low. Added to that is the strong campaigning of anti-GM groups in Europe.”

But then what accounts for the apparent success of the anti-GM campaign? GM foods are typically pushed by big multinational companies that are often a lot more well endowed financially than the many anti-GM groups put together. Surely these big corporations often with a global reach can outspend their detractors in the PR campaign? So, why is their campaign not as strong? Are the European public that dumb to be duped by the anti-GM groups?

Keh then moved on to state that the situation in the US is different. GM foods are found by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to be “as safe as (that is, no more dangerous than) its ‘conventional’ counterparts.”

Ok, but should not Keh also mention the fact that the US proponents of GM foods are huge multinational companies – like Kraft, Monsanto and StarLink – that have easily outspent their opponents in lobbying the US government?

Still, Keh should be given credit for he later also chided proponents of GM foods for “tacking on too much hype to their research, even before tangible results can be obtained.” He added:

“Essentially, both sides (detractors and proponents of GM food) must share the blame for creating a most confusing and controversial situation over a field in which the scientific concepts and advancements are already complex enough. No wonder the public is confused.”

Keh also tried to assure H.P. that Malaysia also monitors the GM food processes to “ensure the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology”.

Kudos to H.P and Keh despite their differences or, more correctly, because of them.

What about the NST for running both letters? For the answer, let us first go back to mid-June.

That was when PM Abdullah Badawi took time from his vacation to attend the biotechnology convention in the US. Remember, the PM was all gung-ho about propelling Malaysia into the biotech industry? Also recall the media then, including the NST, had only good things to say about the biotech industry?

Why, the NST even despatched a couple of reporters to interview Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis. As we pointed out earlier (see entry on 23 June), the reporters asked only one question about the negative consequences of the industry and the minister rubbished the concern by saying that the consequences had stemmed from fiction promoted through books and movies on Frankenstein.

Well, in the light of the two letters above, what does the minister have to say now? Unlike the minister, both H.P. and Keh did not insult the public’s intelligence, and their arguments were logically made, backed by evidence.

H.P.’s letter also points out a problem with the two reporters who interviewed Jamaludin. How could they have been so unthinking in their acceptance of Jamaludin’s Frankenstein comment in response to their question about negative effects?

It is hard to imagine that the editor of the NST could send two reporters out to do the interview without making sure they were knowledgeable about the issues surrounding biotech. Just as it is hard to imagine the two reporters so ill-prepared for the job as to not find anything odd with the minister’s Frankenstein comment.

Hard to imagine, which is why we believe the reason for the glaringly poor interview more likely lies elsewhere.

As mentioned earlier, the interview with the minister was published in the NST following the media’s high profile, uncritical promotion of PM Abullah’s interest in the biotechnology industry for further development of Malaysia. All we got from the mainstream media then were only the good things about the biotech industry. It was PM knows best.

It was in this context that the interview was basically a vehicle for the minister to promote the PM’s push for biotech post-haste. The reporters pushed on their recording mode and just listened and took down notes. Whatever the minister said, including the ridiculous Frankenstein comment, was unthinkingly accepted. A classic case of “government-say-so” journalism.

These two letters show that had the reporters not just accepted the Frankenstein comment and instead asked follow-up questions, they might have drawn a more responsible response out from the minister. And if the minister continued with the insulting remark, they would surely help the public to know what kind of a minister they have.

Meanwhile, as much as we appreciate the NST for publishing the two letters, we also wonder why both these views (especially those of H.P.’s) could not have been raised earlier by the NST back when the PM made biotech along with GM foods a hot issue.

Would it not have been far better to have the pros and cons of biotech and GM foods debated back then when the public’s attention was more focused on the topic? That way, the public would have ended up far more informed and in a sustained, meaningful way.

The true objective of developmental journalism would also have been achieved – namely, genuine consideration of the good as well as the bad surrounding an issue so that measures to tackle any negative impact could be made an integral part of official policies. This would help the public and the government to deal with such negative impact systematically and effectively where necessary.

Again, we cannot help but think that the NST was all too eager to serve as cheerleaders for the PM back in mid June. A case of PM-knows-best or “government-say-so” journalism.

So, back to the question posed earlier regarding the NST’s publishing of H.P.’s and Keh’s letters discussing the pros and cons of biotechnology in the past few days – what should we make of the NST’s coverage? Our response: thanks, but no thanks.