theSun shows the way with unprecedented coverage

We would like to commend theSun for its prominent and courageous coverage of Aliran Monthly's 25th anniversary in its weekend edition on Saturday.

Its main front-page story carried a large photo of two Aliran Monthly front covers with the headline, "The Good Fight". The coverage continued inside with Regina William's interview with Aliran president P Ramakrishnan. The coverage also featured background articles, comments from regular Aliran Monthly contributors and an interview with Aliran's founding president.

For far too long, Aliran has been virtually blacked out by most of the mainstream media, so theSun's prominent coverage of Aliran Monthly was a welcome and surprising development.

We are commending theSun not just because Aliran has received such prominent coverage - but for a critical human rights group to receive such prominent and extensive coverage (more than five pages in all) is something unheard of in Malaysia. We hope theSun will continue to highlight not only Aliran's work and statements, but also the broader struggle for justice and freedom that so many civil society groups in Malaysia are engaged in.

It would be great if theSun could also provide an avenue for the voices of the many "small people" to be heard - those whose struggles and grievances are rarely given much prominence in the mainstream media: refugees, Orang Asli, the indigenous groups in Sabah and Sarawak, foreign workers, asylum seekers, students, the families of ISA detainees, student activists. In this way, theSun will truly become a "people's paper" that is worthy of the name.

We hope the other newspapers will emulate theSun's weekend interviews, which - as we observed even before the coverage given to Aliran - have been head and shoulders above the rest of the paper's rivals. Its interviews so far have provided a tantalising glimpse into some of the many different voices in Malaysia that are crying out to be heard.

Kee to unlocking the door to real journalism

theSun this past weekend, 17-18 September, featured an interview with Kee Thuan Chye - journalist, playwright and actor – by Jacqueline Ann Surin. It is an interesting piece in several ways. It understandably covers many issues, including Kee’s observations about Malaysian journalism.

Kee is now an associate editor in charge of the English column at The Star. It is unheard of, very close to being a taboo, for a paper to write about a journalist from a competitive paper. theSun deserves kudos for that as well as for allowing Kee to offer some strong views against Malaysian journalism.

The paper’s weekend interview section has been consistently heads and shoulders above whatever interviews The Star or NST have run; it is often direct, honest, substantial, and even hard-hitting. This is also true of Kee’s interview.

Kee has been a journalist for some 20 years. He began at The National Echo, then moved on to New Straits Times before joining The Star. He spoke about his experiences and brought up four major points about his journalism.

Point no. 1: Advertising and marketing department personnel - as opposed to what it should be, the journalists themselves - have increasingly taken over control of the editorial

The implications are clear. Journalists, especially the editors in charge, have abdicated their responsibilities to their readers by basically selling their souls to the advertisers. In this day and age of the news media being treated essentially as Big Business, the issue is not just profits that understandably a newspaper company must make in order to stay in business. Instead, the competition is for more and more profits, not to mention higher and higher share values.

Just look at the complaints by NST and theSun against ratings company, A C Nielsen, for the way they measure newspaper readership. It is not that both papers did not have a point; rather, their complaints were really over their getting a smaller share of the advertising ringgit, hence smaller profits.

Point no. 2: Never be critical of the prime minister of the day

Many of us may remember Mahathir’s premiership best simply because he was prime minister for 22 years—which are only about two years shy of being equal to the lengths of the premiership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, and Tun Hussein Onn put together. This may get some to think that the media’s lack of critical reporting of the prime minister was associated with only Mahathir. Certainly, Mahathir’s iron-fisted rule got the press to curry favour or tip-toe around him.

But Kee’s point here is a reminder that the press did not give just PM Mahathir the fawning treatment. PM Abdullah Badawi is currently given such treatment as well.

Point no. 3: Kee said he had received “memos” from his superiors warning him to lay off certain stories or issues

These “memos” suggested that the warnings were not because Kee’s superiors were worried that his stories or issues might spark violence and mayhem in the country. Rather, his superiors were more concerned about upsetting the government.

Point no. 4: To be critical of the government does not mean one is not patriotic

This point seems obvious enough: patriotism is towards the country, and a country is much more than whoever is in control of the government. Many Malaysians, however, may equate patriotism with not being critical of the government because the BN government has been the ruling government since Merdeka, and the line between government and country has been blurred. Certainly, the BN government has been happy to go along with such thinking. The reason is equally obvious: what better way to get Malaysians to feel guilty about their lack of patriotism every time they should see the need to be critical of the BN government. This fourth point of Kee’s bears repeating.

Although Kee’s four points are important, he appeared disillusioned, believing that the future is against his ideas of what professional journalism is or should be about. That future is one in which the press is more interested in making larger and larger profits, serving advertisers more than citizens, and keeping citizens in the dark about good governance or about holding government to its responsibilities as servants of the citizens.

The future is now

To be sure, such a future is already here now. In fact, these observations have been characteristic of the Malaysian media for quite some time now. That is why they have come to be called “mainstream” media. However, does this mean they are are the only type of media Malaysians will continue to get, the only type Malaysians deserve to get? Is there no alternative media that can be viable?

But then what about what has been happening in cyberspace for the past half dozen years or so in Malaysia? What about Malaysiakini and some of the weblogs that have allowed space for more and more Malaysians who are interested in more critical information from the media?

Perhaps these Malaysians are still small in number. Perhaps these alternative news outlets still need work. But do they not represent something to build on for a better future for Malaysian journalism, including creating a critical mass demanding the removal of press/media restrictions as well as the ISA?

Other than what is happening in cyberspace, perhaps it is also time for journalists like Kee to do something in the twilight years of their careers: write books about their journalistic experiences. Talk about the contemporary changes in journalism, about what is wrong with the changes, about what constitutes the “professional” journalists Kee spoke about, and about why it is important for younger generations interested in journalism to be aware of it in order to carry on the torch.

So far, Malaysia has hardly seen the publication of such books. We have seen such books written by people in the US and other Western nations. But why not Malaysians writing about their journalistic experiences in Malaysia? That way, we can disabuse those who still think a free and fair press is an alien concept imported from the West. That way, Malaysian university or college professors can use the books to teach Malaysian journalism.

These books may not be best sellers in terms of making lots of money. But they will pass on invaluable ideas to future journalists. And, who knows, they may also contribute to changing journalism in Malaysian or steering it towards the true essence of the profession in the future.

The current situation with Malaysian journalism may strongly suggest a bleak future, but it does not mean we just throw in the towel and give up, does it?

Public taken for a ride with phoney toll "freeze"

On 8 September and for a few days after that, it was widely reported in the media that the Government had announced four steps to ease the public’s burden brought on by escalating prices of consumer goods.

These steps, announced by the Prime Minister's Office, as reported in The Star, were:

·NOT to increase the price of fuel until the end of this year.

·REDUCING the road tax by as much as 80% depending on engine capacity and type of use.

·DEFERING any toll increase for this and next year.

·INCREASING aid distributed by the Social Welfare Department to senior citizens, disadvantaged children and the poor.

These moves were widely welcomed by the media and the public.

In particular, many heaved a sigh of relief when they read in their newspapers that highway tolls would be frozen until next year.

But hold on a minute! This toll freeze is no big deal as The Edge in an article titled "Toll freeze won’t affect highway operators" points out:

“The government’s recent decision to freeze toll-rate hikes for the rest of this year and 2006 is not expected to have any impact on the credit profiles of the toll-road concessionaires rated by Rating Agency Malaysia Bhd [RAM]. None of the 10 toll road concessionaires currently rated by us have any scheduled rate increases due within this period,” says RAM.

The 10 toll concessionaires rated by RAM include PLUS, Penang Bridge Sdn Bhd, Besraya (M) Sdn Bhd, Elite, Grand Saga Sdn Bhd, Kesas Sdn Bhd, Litrak, New Pantai Expressway Sdn Bhd (NPE), Konsortium Lebuhraya Butterworth-Kulim Sdn Bhd and Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd (SILK)....

Other toll operators not rated by RAM, such as MTD Prime Sdn Bhd and Sistem Penyuraian KL Barat Sdn Bhd (Sprint), are also not scheduled to raise toll rates in 2005 and 2006.

So! This "relief" for the public is not really a relief at all. There were no toll hikes scheduled for that period in the first place under the various highway concessionaire agreements! Maybe after that, who knows, given that these concession agreements are largely secret.

It is surprising that the other newspapers failed or did not bother to at least mention that they could not establish whether there were any scheduled tolled hikes slated for 2005 and 2006 under the various agreements.

But if The Edge could find out, why couldn't the other papers? Even theSun, which is related to The Edge, failed to note this in its editorial welcoming the toll "freeze", describing it as "an undertaking that toll rates won't go up, at least until the end of next year".

What kind of "undertaking" is this when, as The Edge pointed out, there were no toll hikes scheduled for that period in the first place!

Whitewashing defects in the university system

Chow Kum Ho’s article in the New Sunday Times on 11 September entitled “When Academics and Officialdom Clash” tried to bring the controversy surrounding academic freedom in Malaysia to the attention of the wider public. But it offers a highly lopsided or partisan perspective, more interested in airing the views of those who see nothing at all wrong with the current university system.

Let us start with the basics of journalism: the people Chow interviewed for the article. Almost everyone represented officialdom. Former Education Ministry director-general Murad Mohd Noor and Deputy Higher Education Minister Fu Ah Kiow were given generous space in the article, with Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Prof Nik Muhamad Nik Abdul Majid offering only a small comment about how academics’ unhappiness is associated with promotions.

Another person often quoted by Chow is former UM history professor Khoo Kay Kim, who sees nothing wrong with the current system because he believes academics must not be partisan.

What about academics who had expressed problems with officialdom or the current system? Believe it or not, only one—Professor P. Ramasamy, whose contract was not renewed by UKM last month—was quoted. How often? Only twice or two sentences.

It also appeared doubtful if Chow actually interviewed him. Malaysiakini readers would be excused for thinking the two Ramasamy quotes Chow used had been lifted from what Ramasamy had said or written for the news portal right after UKM ended his contract.

Chow did not interview Professors K S Jomo and Edmund Terence Gomez, who also had problems or run-ins with officialdom.

Partisan reporting

Chow also referred to what he called a classic case of the clash between academics and officialdom. It involved former UM sociology and anthropology professor Syed Husin Ali, who was arrested under the ISA in 1974 after he took up the cause of landless farmers in Baling. Chow allowed Khoo to give his view and suggest why Syed Husin was arrested.

But did he bother to interview Syed Husin for his take on his own arrest and the whole situation surrounding the current system? No, not at all!

Why, Chow? Because Syed Husin is now with Parti Keadilan Nasional, thus partisan? If so, what about Murad and Fu, whose establishment views Chow quoted generously?

Or is it because Syed Husin, together with Jomo and Gomez, did not respond to Chow’s request for an interview? If so, Chow could have easily mentioned that. Indeed, that was what he did with UKM vice-chancellor Prof. Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Yasin, after the latter declined to comment on one of Chow’s questions.

Getting back to former UM history professor Khoo, whom Chow used to emphasise the point that academics must remain non-partisan. Chow did not hesitate to hammer at how academics like Syed Husin and Ramasamy were quick to join political parties after they left or were terminated from their university positions.

But what Chow or Khoo failed to ask is: what about those academics who have only positive views of what the BN government has done, for example those who have been appointed to top administrative positions like chancellor, vice-chancellor, etc?

Chow actually does not need to interview Gomez and Ramasamy for examples of academics who are partisan towards the BN government. He himself alluded to it when he quoted former Education Ministry director-general Murad as saying that sometimes academics “forget that universities are funded by the public”. Because of that, Murad went on to say, “There are parameters drawn up for academicians by the public through their representatives in Parliament.”

Chow failed to mention two points here. First, not all taxpayers, whose money helps fund universities, are BN supporters. And, second, as we know all too well by now, the dominance of BN in Parliament makes the legislative body largely a rubber stamp for the BN. Where, then, is the objectivity or non-partisanship that will be transferred to university policies mentioned by Khoo?

Yet another reason why Chow was hasty in accepting Khoo’s notion of non-partisanship for academics is that he failed to understand it is never as clear-cut, black and white an issue as Khoo painted.

The myth of objectivity: upholding the status quo

Leaving aside the highly questionable assumption that universities have been non-partisan, academia has also undergone major changes at least in the past 30 to 40 years. Relatively newer disciplines and academics have emerged to question the notion of non-partisanship and objectivity in scholarship. One reason is that the so-called non-partisanship or objectivity professed by some academics is nothing more than accepting the status quo derived from establishment data and evidence.

In recent decades, subjects like political economy have become more acceptable if not popular. By its very nature, political economy examines the distribution of material resources in a critical way—i.e., to see if the existing distribution is an efficient or wasteful one, if the distribution is geared towards promoting only a small group at the expense of others, etc.

Now, if academics (such as Jomo, Gomez and Ramasamy) have been getting data from their research that shows the distribution is a wasteful one that benefits a small group at the expense of the majority in the country, should they disguise, sugar-coat or ignore that in the interest of not offending the status quo?

What really is most pathetic, though, is Chow has nothing to say about teaching and research—two extremely significant demands on an academic’s university tenure. These two demands are, indeed, what renowned universities used yardsticks for academic excellence.

Jomo, Gomez and Ramasamy had written books and research articles that were published in juried publications highly regarded in their respective fields. They also attracted a lot of students to take their subjects every semester. Now, why did Chow leave out all that?

Indeed, world renowned universities—whether publicly or privately funded—are much more interested in a professor’s teaching and research than about whether the professor is partisan, supports the establishment or not.

All told, what the NST has done is use Chow’s partisan article to whitewash the defects of the current university system.

Misleading Reuters report on walkout by diplomats

A Reuters report today titled “British envoy walks out on Mahathir rights speech” gives a very misleading impression of the NGO boycott of Mahathir’s presence at Suhakam’s human rights day conference.

The report said: “The US embassy had decided on Thursday not to send its delegate to listen to Mahathir's speech, in line with some human rights groups who also boycotted the speech.”

Obviously, diplomats from countries belonging to the "coalition of the willing" were upset or wary of Mahathir’s criticism of the murderous Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But Reuters attempt to link the Iraq issue with the NGO boycott of the Suhakam conference is mischievous.

Let us make it clear that the NGOs did not boycott the conference because of Mahathir’s justified criticism of the imperialist American-led adventure in Iraq.

Many NGOs, including Aliran, have been critical of the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq, which has killed more than 100,000 Iraqis (according to a research study published in the British medical journal Lancet). It was an invasion that the US and the UK tried to justify with lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Earlier, hundreds of thousands of people perished as a result of the sanctions on Iraq. We note that Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, key UN officials overseeing humanitarian aid in Iraq, both resigned in disgust at what they perceived to be the genocidical effects of the sanctions. (The Reuters report did not attempt to discuss whether Mahathir's comments on Iraq were justified or true.)

The NGOs boycotted the conference because of Mahathir’s dismal domestic human rights record - not because of his position on Iraq.

To suggest that the diplomats’ fury over Mahathir's position on Iraq as well as the US embassy's reported decision to stay away from the conference (although US diplomats were reported to be present later) were somehow "in line with" the NGO boycott is downright misleading.

Let us draw another distinction: unlike Mahathir and the US/UK diplomats, we have criticised detention without trial/torture and other human rights violations in BOTH Malaysia AND Iraq/Afghanistan/Guantanamo Bay.