A taste of democracy from Malaysiakini

Congratulations to the Malaysiakini team on its 5th anniversary and a successful dinner on Saturday night. The crowd of over 1,000 supporters and well-wishers present is testament to the vital role played by the news portal in reporting “only the news that matters”.

Malaysiakini has also put the mainstream media on notice apart from opening the eyes of many Malaysians towards the injustice and human rights violations in Malaysian society. No longer can the mainstream media totally ignore or black out news of public importance without Malaysians knowing about it.

Through its courageous reporting, Malaysiakini acted as the watchdog of the public interest in the finest journalistic tradition. It has also given Malaysians a taste of democracy, through the varied and candid opinions expressed in its letters page.

It has been a labour of love, a light shining in the darkness.

Malaysiakini has done Malaysia proud!

Media monitors’ wish list:

· Articles critically examining the ethics of biotechnology, patenting of genetic resources, and the health and safety aspects of genetically modified food.
· Critiques on the current model of development we are pursuing which has led to wide gaps between the rich and the poor within Malaysia
· More voices from the marginalized communities and from rural areas – farmers, fisher-folk, rural communities, plantation workers, migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers, Orang Asli – articulating their concerns.
· Articles focussing on the need for sustainable/public transport, fossil fuel conservation and resource renewal/recycling.

S'pore has more press freedom than M'sia... huh??

Singapore has been ranked higher than Malaysia in the "Freedom of the Press 2004" survey carried out by the Washington-based Freedom House.

Singapore, which has backed the US' "war on terror", is in 135th place, 19 slots higher than Malaysia (in 155th place).

Huh? Look, we all know that there is very little press freedom in Malaysia. But to say that Singapore has more freedom than Malaysia? Hello?

Compare this to the 2004 press freedom rankings prepared by the Paris-based RSF (Reporters Without Borders), in which Singapore is ranked 25 places below Malaysia.

RSF ranking 2004

57 Timor Leste
59 Thailand
109 Cambodia
111 Philippines
117 Indonesia
122 Malaysia
147 Singapore
153 Laos
161 Vietnam
165 Burma

Anyone familiar with the press freedom (or lack of it!) situation in Malaysia and Singapore will know exactly which country has less press freedom.

In Malaysia, though the mainstream media are largely controlled by the ruling parties and their friends, there is a small number of lively opposition/independent publications and popular critical websites. There is Malaysiakini.com, which has a large following, Harakah (large print circulation and popular web edition), Rocket, Berita Keadilan/Suara PRM, Aliran Monthly plus a lively band of critical websites and blogs.

What alternative or independent media (apart from a token critical presence) do they have in Singapore to counter the dominance of Singapore Press Holdings?

There is no contest. Malaysia, despite the pathetic amount of press freedom that we have, has more press freedom than Singapore. As far as these two countries go, the RSF press freedom index has got it right.

Why, the Freedom House index even places the United States a generous 15th place, despite the US media’s utter failure to expose President Bush’s lies over the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other pretexts for the illegal invasion and occupation of that country. There were hardly any dissenting voices in the major US television stations and newspapers in the runup to the illegal invasion. The leading dissident in the US, Noam Chomsky, is shunned by the US mainstream media. In contrast, Freedom House ranked France, which opposed the Iraq invasion, a lowly 37th place.

Contrast that with the RSF ranking, which places France in 19th place ahead of the US in 22nd place.

Freedom House also ranked Australia, a US ally in the invasion of Iraq, in 18th place, 23 slots higher than the ranking of 41st place that the RSF gave Australia.

I don’t know about you, but I think the RSF rankings seem to be more accurate especially with regards to Malaysia and Singapore.

Sowing the seeds of contempt for migrant workers

Hari Raya Aidilfitri is a time of forgiveness, reconciliation and peace after a fasting month of sacrifice. It is a time one thinks of joyful things. Nonetheless, it was on this day, Sunday, 14 November 2004, that The Star chose to publish a feature on the amnesty the government allowed illegal immigrants, most of whom are Muslims from Indonesia, to return to their homeland. Although the offer was slow to be accepted by many, a large number did make the return journey home.

In the wake of this, the newspaper in one of its articles within the feature, titled, ‘Malaysia remains Land of Opportunity for Indons,’ re-sowed the seeds of race discrimination and prejudice against immigrants. I say ‘re-sowed,’ as in previous reports the media had started this trend of inciting prejudice against illegal immigrants.

Sweeping generalisations

First, the paper claimed that because "Malaysians refuse to work in low-paying jobs they consider demeaning: plantation harvesters, construction labourers, back-room kitchen help, low-end retail sales persons and petrol pump attendants," there exists a large market for migrant labour here.

The accuracy of this is questionable, as I have gone to various supermarkets and petrol pumps and seen Malaysian retail sales persons, promoters, shop workers and pump attendants. As the NUPW still exists, there must surely be Malaysian plantation workers as well. In the hotel and catering sector Malaysians still make up much of the work force.

As for the construction sector, this claim is doubtful as it may only be a generalization that all construction labourers are foreign workers. It is hard to imagine that the old Indian ‘amah’ struggling to load a basket of broken bricks on her back despite her age has been given a work permit to be a construction worker by the immigration authorities here. Where did this aged labour come from, if not from Malaysia’s low income group, who are in desperate need of the pittance to keep body and soul together.

The article makes this sweeping untrue generalization, “Indonesians think Malaysians are lazy…” and describes how “aghast” they are at our wastage “at dinner tables”. Moreover, that “foreign workers - legal and illegal – sent home RM11.23 billion in non-taxable earnings last year.” From first-hand observation during Aidilfitri, I discovered that many of these foreign workers, Muslims or not, spent the holiday sitting on the steps of shopping malls or at public transport stations doing nothing but watching other people go by. Apparently, they could not afford any sort of entertainment or to eat at restaurants or to have a day out like many of us. So, are these the foreign workers who are taking out the money from our economy to send home, leaving themselves in such a pitifully destitute state so much so they can’t even enjoy a holiday? If they are doing so, then the sacrifice they make to support their loved ones at home is certainly admirable.

The originator of that article alleged that “Merantau” was a traditional cultural Indonesian habit and cited Minangkabau tradition whereby “it is expected of the men folk to wander in search of fortune.” Taken by itself, this could be true of any race or culture in the world. Remember how so many countries have been colonized by one superpower or another throughout history? It is still happening today and the colonizing power is certainly not Indonesia!

Dengue spread by mosquitoes, not migrant workers!

The ranting goes on that these immigrants (legal and illegal implied) bring with them all their socio-economic, health and housing problems. To my mind, one of the most far-fetched accusations this commentator makes is that amongst contractable diseases allegedly spread by these immigrants is dengue fever. Anybody with a grain of commonsense and general knowledge knows that dengue fever is spread by mosquitoes, not immigrants! If one says that the standards of hygiene of some of them leave much to be desired, it is understandable; but a portion of Malaysian society has similarly low hygiene standards. So why pick on the immigrants?

The other objectionable accusation is that “they flood the gynaecological wards of public hospitals so that low-income Malaysians are forced to seek treatment at private hospitals.” First, where do those ‘low-income’ Malaysians find the money to pay for private treatment? So far, in my personal experience I have come across only one foreigner receiving free treatment in a "third-class" ward at a public hospital and he was not Indonesian either. If this irate commentator is referring to the fact that there are long queues at hospitals awaiting treatment, his or her perception of the problem is somewhat distorted, as waiting is a common and inevitable occurrence in all hospitals, more so in public hospitals. Maybe he or she has never stepped into a general hospital here.

No proper housing provided

The last aspersion, which deserves condemnation, is the reference to the existence of “squatter colonies” in different parts of the country being labeled “Indonesian strongholds”. I wonder if the author of this acrimonious piece has any initiative to ask why squatter colonies exist at all. There have been squatter colonies for decades in this country, long before migrant labour became popular. We also must ask why their employers have not provided them with decent accommodation. And why hasn't the government conducted checks to ensure that employers provide their migrant workers with decent accommodation?

Moreover, it is natural for foreigners in a foreign land to stay together as a group since they are all faced with the problem of adjusting to a different culture with different ways from their own. This necessary interdependence is even more important with one’s own countrypeople. Why do Malaysians studying overseas group together?

The tone of the whole article is one of uncontrolled animosity towards immigrants. Such obvious loathing is based on a total lack of understanding or sympathy for the hardships these migrant workers face in their own country which have forced them to leave home and family for a strange land, just to be able to earn something to support their loved ones and themselves. To instigate hatred against immigrants, most of whom are here only because they want to earn an honest living, is something truly contemptible.

Abdullah's vanilla ice-cream and real journalism

The Sunday Star and New Sunday Times were unusually bulkier, heavier this past Sunday, 31 October. Why were even more trees sacrificed for newsprint? Well, 31 October 2004 marked the end of the first year of Abdullah Badawi’s tenure as Prime Minister. If you were expecting a report card on his premiership, however, you would have been sorely disappointed - for what the mainstream papers offered was a congratulatory card.

Perhaps a year is a good benchmark to pause and assess the PM. The NST and The Star thus both had their special pull-out sections for the occasion. The former actually offered the section in three parts! theSun merely used its usual Weekend commentary section for it.

Vanilla ice-cream, anyone?

Both the NST and The Star were replete with good feelings about PM Abdullah. They appeared to have not shaken off that feel good feeling that prevailed over their coverage of the week-long run-up to the election of 21 March. They chalked up the BN’s victory as a huge personal achievement for Abdullah, a resounding affirmation by the rakyat of his quieter, kinder and gentler style of leadership, unlike that of Mahathir’s. And, of course, the papers could easily recall what a glorious victory it was, with 90 per cent of Parliament ending up under BN control.

Nothing was made of the fact that it was the shortest run-up – a paltry eight days - to the election ever. And, of course, not a whiff of a suggestion that polling day was the most scandalous ever and that it had tarnished the PM’s victory. Remember the many foul ups and the frustration experienced by thousands of voters? Or was all that too inconvenient to record for posterity.

Other than PM Abdullah’s big election achievement, both the NST and The Star opined that he was on the right track with regards to his vision and plans for the country.

Still on the subject of the PM’s character as though to emphasize his good intentions, The Star’s Wong Chun Wai spun us a folksy yarn – how the PM’s “chaste choice” of only vanilla for ice cream “speaks volumes of Pak Lah” as the real thing because all other flavours have “artificial colouring.” Hmm, how about Pak Lah’s penchant for golf?

A year is a long time in politics

So caught up with telling us about the PM’s vision and policies were the NST and The Star that they assumed Abdullah was justified in using a whole year to get that message out. But does a leader need a year to do that? Is it not a bit much?

In the real world, a leader in the private or public sector who uses that much time would at least encounter directly or indirectly some unkind speculation. A growing number of team members would get quickly disgruntled. A CEO of a corporation in a highly competitive global economy would have long been given the sack.

In countries where the media are freer and more independent, the press would have long wondered about the strength of commitment to the vision and plans when the leader needs so much time just to get the message across. Brendan Pereira’s piece in the NST on 31 October about how it was now time for the PM to walk the talk appears dated by at least three months.

Indeed, it is not like the PM has been lacking the means and avenues to get across his vision and plans. He has been reportedly surrounded by young, ambitious, intelligent and dynamic advisers as epitomised by his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, all savvy with political spin. The mainstream media have been on tap to generously and unabashedly promote the PM’s vision and plans starting especially in the run-up to the general election in March 2004. Are the papers now saying that they have actually failed the PM? Or are they trying to cover up for him?

All quiet on the anti-graft war front

Unlike the NST and The Star, theSun suggested that something was not quite right with Abdullah’s leadership. Its main piece by Gunasegaram referred to the perception in recent months about how the early promises of the PM’s have gone very quiet. For example, the issue of graft in high places. Right after charges were made against two high profile individuals – Eric Chia and Kasitah Gaddam – there was a promise (made prior to the March election) that more people in high places would be charged. But those citizens who have not yet given up hope are still waiting for some action to materialise.

The way the major fight against graft (along with other issues) has gone, coupled with the problems the PM appeared to be having within UMNO as shown during party elections in September led Gunasegaram to say:

“Clearly Pak Lah has opted for the soft approach, the path of least resistance... But clearly too this does not seem to be working as well as it should sometimes.

"Where are the open tenders at all levels? Where is the greater responsibility and efficacy of government bodies and others such as local councils? Where is the move to dismantle patronage in the system? And where is the change to give the Anti-Corruption Agency more power to act? And is it really possible that vote-buying in Umno and elsewhere be rooted out without the help of the ACA and the police.”

As opposed to the yarn given by Wong in The Star about the PM’s preference for vanilla and how that “speak volumes of Pak Lah” as the real thing, what Gunasegaram has done by raising the above questions is to get at the real test of the PM’s character. Does that not speak louder than the “volumes” of words? And does that not serve the readers or the country far better?

Uncritical “ordinary Malaysians”

The NST and The Star also had people from the corporate world as well as foreign ambassadors commenting on PM Abdullah. Is it any surprised that they only had good things to say? Perhaps theSun had the good sense not to bother at all, although the paper could surely have made better use of the space given to some of the PM’s quotes.

The NST and The Star also interviewed other Malaysians. The NST was interested in the views from local artistes like musicians and performers. The latter gave a thumbs-up view of the PM although now and then a concern might be raised. For example, Indie musician Pete Teo wanted more relaxation on censorship and wondered how it would fare in the future under PM Abdullah.

The NST also singled out the youth as it carried the views of five youths, all of whom gushed forth only positive things about the PM. The paper appeared to connect up with the PM making an effort to appeal to the youth while election campaigning back in March.

Meanwhile, The Star, showing more interests in ordinary Malaysians, provided views of 22 individuals of different ages from many different walks of life and different parts of the country. What did they have to say? Well, not a single one had even the slightest scepticism or doubt regarding the PM, with most still focusing on his character, recalling the many “ordinary” Malaysians who commented on it in the run-up to the March election.

Is it possible at all that no “ordinary Malaysians” at all have even a whiff of a critical view? Or were such views simply too inconvenient for The Star to include.

NGOs do not exist

But what is most disturbing is that The Star and the NST did not care to include the views of any of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Some may take exception regarding Chandra Muzaffar’s piece in The Star as he is president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). But as respectable as it is, JUST is really not focused on Malaysia. The views were thus strictly those of Chandra’s and it is no secret that Chandra is an admirer of PM Abdullah.

But where are NGOs like Suaram, Aliran, HAKAM, ABIM, Consumers Association of Penang, to name a few? Why were they excluded?

Although theSun gave fewer pages to examining Abdullah’s first year as PM than either The Star or NST, it at least carried a couple of pieces on NGOs. One featured Transparency International (TI) Malaysia with views from its president, Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim. The other was on interfaith dialogue with views from Inter-faith Spiritual Fellowship and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism.

The exclusion of NGOs by NST and The Star is truly inexcusable, especially NST, because its special section examining Abdullah’s first year in office offered the most space. The exclusion was, however, not unusual as both papers have the tendency to treat NGOs like pariahs instead of organisations made up of caring Malaysians who work hard, often with very meagre resources and no pay, to contribute to a vibrant civil society, which is crucial for the enhancement of a freer, more equal and democratic Malaysia for all.

Finally, one could easily notice how the special pull-out section on PM Abdullah offered by the NST and The Star are chock-full of ads offering congratulatory messages to the PM. This, together with the fact that both papers’ content offered what was essentially a congratulatory card to the PM - instead of a report card about his performance - shows that the whole thing not only benefited the PM, but also the papers in the form of significant advertising revenue.

But at least the advertisers had more honesty than the papers because, unlike the so-called journalistic content of the papers, they did not pretend to be anything other than unabashed supporters of Abdullah.