NST show-cause letter: Eroding press freedom?

Thinking Malaysians must be bewildered at the government's show-cause letter to the New Straits Times over its publication of a controversial syndicated cartoon that, some say, has hurt the feelings of Muslims in Malaysia.

The Internal Security Ministry said the cartoon had breached the conditions of the newspaper’s publishing permit under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, adding that the sketch was inappropriate and could invite negative reactions in the country, especially among Muslims.

This is not an auspicious way for Datuk Zainuddin Maidin to begin his tenure as Information Minister and it does not augur well for Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's commitment to more open government.

Read the full statement by Charter 2000-Aliran.

NST spins a yarn on Parliamentary live telecasts

Well, what do we have here? There is talk now about how the idea of live telecast of Parliamentary proceedings - or just the Question Time for a start - has a good chance of becoming reality this time around.

Among the first to bring this issue to the public’s attention was Abdul Razak Ahmad in his commentary in New Straits Times on 5 February. Then, the paper on 14 February, reported that Minister in the PM’s Department Mohd. Nazri Aziz was leading the effort to get his BN colleagues in the cabinet to support the live telecast. And, yesterday (16 February), NST editorialised that its time has come.

Why? What has changed? After all, civil society and NGOs such as Aliran have long called on the BN government to allow live telecasts. The last time the call was made - and strongly supported by the DAP - was in early 2004. But all kinds of reasons were trotted out then by the BN government, and slavishly promoted by the mainstream media, to shoot down the idea.

Now, Abdul Razak and the NST are singing a different tune—summarily dismissing or rubbishing these same reasons. Let’s revisit these reasons and see how they are being pooh-poohed away now.

An oft-cited reason was no one would want to watch live telecasts because it would be so boring to watch the boring MPs. This reason is now scoffed at - because the counterargument is that MPs are not actors and should not be expected to behave like them. The implication is they have more important things to do and that should be enough to get the public’s attention. Never mind that this point was long argued by civil society.

Another reason for not screening live telecasts: Malaysians were not ready for them because some MPs and ministers often descend into name-calling and other incivilities in the heat of parliamentary debate. One should not forget that sort kind of behaviour was used by the BN media in the past only to cast aspersions on opposition MPs such as Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang. But such a reason for not screening live telecasts is now quickly cast aside as the counterargument is that the MPs’ behaviour is just a short-term issue and they would quickly learn to behave when once live telecasts are beamed. Again, NGOs have long made this point.

What about the related point about how Question Time in Parliament, which is meant for questioning the authorities, might not square with the Malay culture of not embarrassing authorities in public? Not a real problem, now.

Finally, whatever happened to the reason against the live telecast—the huge amount of costs involved? Back in 2004, the Information Ministry said it would cost RM100,000 to telecast one hour of parliamentary session; how that was arrived at was a mystery. Now, the ‘prohibitive’ cost is—abracadabra!—gone, in a puff of smoke. Not so prohibitive, after all.

In the words of the NST editorial:

It (live telecast of Parliament) may not make for great TV viewing, and it may be boring to many people most of the time. But by putting MPs under scrutiny and bringing Parliament nearer to the people, live telecasts hold great promise in terms of promoting transparency and accountability. They can help to raise the quality of debate, and make MPs more active in the discussions, more cogent in their arguments, and more regular in their attendance, something that has been lacking in the past. While it is true that some would be tempted to play to the gallery and seize the chance to make the headlines in the news, knowing that they are being watched could have the salutary effect of making them more responsible and behaving in a more parliamentary fashion. The voters would be in a better position to assess for themselves the performance of their elected representatives after listening and watching them live, unedited, and unabridged. Beaming live telecasts of question-and-answer sessions in the Dewan Rakyat would be a good place to start to make up for the gap between us and the other nations which already provide full live coverage of parliamentary sittings.

Shameless hypocrisy! Again, civil society and NGOs have long argued along the same lines as the NST as recently as 2004 but they were pooh-poohed by the very same paper.

Of course, live telecasts of Parliamentary proceedings are long overdue, even if it were to begin with just Question Time. But what is appalling about the NST is that it could not even provide a proper historical context of the issue. How then can it ever be trusted with accounts of other issues since it can only provide those that are approved by the BN or those that involve BN members as the only contributors to any positive developments in Malaysia?

The paper may adopt all kinds of latest technology to jazz up its image or introduce fancy changes—like junking its broadsheet format for the tabloid format and categorising some of its news content with snazzy names like “prime news”. But it cannot disguise the fact that it still has no desire at all to do more than dishing out the BN-tainted version of events.

Is it any wonder that the NST is still the subject of public derision? But, yet again, we can count on the paper to have a spin on it, this time from Brendan Pereira.

Following the suspension imposed on Sarawak Tribune by the government for reprinting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, Pereira wrote in the NST (12 February) lamenting the brickbats the media had been getting from all kinds of people. In his words:

They (the media) are being savaged daily by politicians, former politicians, social activists, self-appointed kingmakers and gadflies. For being too insensitive, too provocative or just too pesky.

Well, if Pereira was trying to elicit some public appreciation or even empathy for journalists, he needs to do better. This is because he, not surprisingly, failed to differentiate the different groups of Malaysians who have taken the media to task.

When many in civil society criticise the media, they want the media to perform their job with decency and integrity so that the information they provide has some semblance of credibility. Yes, they are interested in getting at the truth, a word the NST hardly appreciates since they often indulge in distorting it to serve the interests of the BN.

On the other hand, when people in the BN criticise papers like the NST, they are doing it because the media have been perceived by these BN members as not doing enough to promote them. Or these members are afraid of losing their political base when the media highlight more public complaints against them to the advantage of others within the BN. Thus, for example, you have people such as Samy Vellu and the newly minted Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin hitting out at the media aggressively, again, in order to get the media to bend more to their political interests—but all that still within the folds of the BN.

It is thus perverse of people like Pereira to deliberately lump the complaints from the BN together with those from civil society. They not only side-stepped the real issue that they are done for different reasons, they also tried to suggest they must be doing something right after all. As one maxim about the media goes, when people of all kinds complain about the media the latter must be doing something right because they upset everyone equally, not playing favourites.

But the truth of the matter is, the NST (along with most of the other mainstream media for that matter) is nowhere near what the maxim is saying. Instead, it is still firmly mired in dishing out different versions of the BN line as truths, and its spin and omission in accounting for the issue of live telecasts of Parliamentary proceedings is merely the latest example of it.

Sarawak Tribune's serious lapse of judgement, but…

Charter 2000-Aliran is appalled at the serious lapse of good judgement on the part of the Sarawak Tribune in re-publishing the offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in its 3 February 2006 edition. What the Tribune did was clearly inappropriate and provocative.

Read the full statement.

Despicable caricatures reflect arrogance - not press freedom

The firestorm of controversy ignited by the caricatures published by the Danish newspaper and fuelled by other European papers that reprinted them is not about freedom of the press. To believe that it is, is to allow irresponsible elements to hijack that democratic value. All who value a democracy that promotes diversity and tolerance should thus condemn the papers.

What the Danish newspaper did was to test Muslims. And when the Islamic world descended upon them to protest the cartoons, they hide behind the blanket of freedom of the press. The violent response from some Muslims, while regrettable, also allows some to say, “See, we told you so, Muslims can only respond through violence.” This is a perverse argument.

When the paper published the cartoons knowing full well that any visual depiction of Prophet Muhammad is regarded as blasphemous, they would have known – or should have known - that it was going to offend Muslims. They should also have known that many Muslims would not take it lying down. They should also have known that not everyone would respond in the same way. That is a given that cuts across other religious followers as well. Some Christians, for instance, have even resorted to extreme violence against abortion clinics and their staff.

Newspapers in France, Norway, Germany, Spain, and Italy that reprinted the cartoons said they were showing solidarity for freedom of the press. No, that is not what they are doing. Instead, they are showing their arrogance. Did they need to reprint the cartoons to show solidarity? They could have easily stated their position and made their case without reprinting them.

Even the freedom of the press that they claim as part of European culture is long characterised by some restrictions that are accepted as proper and necessary. European media have long been known for adopting care and circumspection towards the Holocaust so as not to offend the Jews. French media are even forbidden under the law from advertising Nazi memorabilia.

There are others from within Europe itself who have spoken out against the Danish (and other European) papers. As noted earlier, one of them is Simon Jenkins (of the Times of London) and he even questioned the BBC for showing some of the cartoons in the name of providing context for its broadcasts on the controversy.

Another is Zsofia Szilagyi, a Budapest-based political analyst and director of the Human Rights Film Foundation. His commentary was published in the International Herald Tribune on 3 February.

But when making a point about self-censorship and press freedom, newspapers should have considered the cartoons' potential effects on Europe's growing anti-Islam sentiments. Why make a negative point about Islam in an environment where Islam is already getting extensive negative press through the coverage of hostage-takings, bombings and terrorist groups?

Read full article

Thus, what the Danish (and other European) papers did was not about freedom of the press. Rather, they hijacked the issue based on their despicable arrogance. And governments like many in Asia such as Malaysia should not look at what has happened for justification of (further) governmental regulation of the press in the name of tolerance and peace – for to do so would give perverse validation to these hijackers.

Offensive caricatures: Losing a sense of the sacred

We share the sentiments and concerns shown by some Muslims in Malaysia, particularly the PAS protesters who demonstrated in front of the Danish Embassy last Friday over the caricature of Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

To blaspheme the sacred is stretching the notion of press freedom a bit too far. To poke fun at the very heart of any religious faith is dishonourable conduct. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that such conduct would touch a raw nerve among the faithful and antagonise them. What could possibly be honourably achieved by this - other than causing unnecessary hurt to believers?

It is one thing to celebrate the cultural and political diversity of life, but it is quite another to transgress and violate the sense of the sacred in the name of freedom of expression. Have we become so worldly that we have lost all sense of the sacred?

Besides, demonising the Prophet as a terrorist isn't going to help promote better understanding between diverse cultures and faiths in the world, particularly between Islam and the West. Similarly, insulting or poking fun at Jesus Christ or Buddha or other revered figures or their central teachings is not something that decent people do.

Of course, this does not mean we are calling for further curbs on the already extremely limited press freedom in Malaysia. Neither are we condoning the unwarranted censorship of legitimate debate and discussion about religions and the antics of certain religious leaders. What we are saying is that press freedom must be upheld but editors and journalists must use their courtesy and be responsible and sensitive towards the cherished beliefs of the people. It's plain common sense - that is maybe not so common after all.

Here is an article from The Times of London that might be worth reading:

To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.

Read full article