Keeping mum about brutal RELA raids

The senseless attack by RELA personnel on defenceless Indian migrant labourers waiting outside their own embassy for their problems to be sorted out by representatives of their home country is something that should be deeply embarrassing to Malaysians and the Malaysian government. It says so much about Malaysian attitudes towards foreigners, even those legally in the country. This is an announcement to the international community that we are ‘anti-foreigners’ - especially if they are not rich, professional, economically sound or from a G7 nation.

These downtrodden people had already been cheated out of their life-savings by unscrupulous conmen posing as employment agents, exploited by similarly conscienceless profiteering employers who feel no tinge of guilt at using what is little more than slave labour. And now, these honest but helpless workers have been further victimised by the authorities. Why have they been put into detention? What wrong have they done in seeking help from their High Commission officials?

At least, the Good Samaritans in our society (and there were a few of them) had earlier shown compassion and care for these foreigners, who were camping on the pavement outside the High Commission. This reflects well on the ability of the person-in-the-street to appreciate and empathise with the suffering of the poor, unconditionally. The press was happy to publicise these good works, but when it came to the even more serious issue of government-backed violence, all fell silent.

It was not a widely publicised incident, given some coverage in The Malay Mail on 8 March 2006. But the report was predictably one-sided. The paper made the migrants and Tenaganita, which helps migrant workers, out to be rumour mongers making a mountain out of a molehill over the claim by one of the Indian nationals that he had been beaten by RELA personnel. Mohd Aminuddin Mohd Yusoff, director of Federal Territory RELA, claimed “none of the officers had carried a baton, contrary to the claim by the Indian national Chandiran Adaikalam”. He added that Chandiran had given two different versions of how he had sustained his injuries when RELA rounded the migrants up on the night of 7 March. The Malay Mail made much of the FT RELA director’s version of the incident in which he stated amongst other things, “my men are human beings with compassion”.

Fished out

A similar unpublicised and disturbing incident in the early hours of 11 February at the Selayang market, also in the Federal Territory, contradicts the FT RELA director's claim. In that incident, referred to by Ong Ju Lin in her excellent article in The Sun of 9 March, the bodies of five migrant workers were “fished out” of a disused mining pond after a RELA raid in the market. An eyewitness alleged that all the entrances to the market were blocked off before RELA personnel, armed with sticks, moved in to club the workers.

This sort of strong-arm tactics is reminiscent of the “brown-shirt” tactics used against unarmed civilians in fascist states. Such brutality knows no compassion nor has it any respect for international authority, in this case the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which had given refugee status to one of the migrant workers found dead in the mining pool.

The government predictably denied responsibility for these killings, saying that a post-mortem showed that this refugee and another migrant worker had been dead two or three days before the raid. The public cannot gauge the truth of this as there was no proof given. What is more believable is the eye-witness account (in Ong's article) that this refugee was alive on the night before the raid, having dinner with his wife and a friend before going off to work the night shift as usual.

Mainstream media silent

There has been no hint of an inquiry into these alleged RELA killings. The Home Ministry remains silent. The mainstream media, who frequently allow themselves to become government mouth-pieces, are predictably silent as well. Where is the outrage?

If the Malaysian government was genuinely concerned with the problems of maltreatment, discrimination against and the deaths of foreign workers who are invited here to alleviate labour shortages, then it would, of its own volition, ensure that remedial measures are put in place. It would not only act when a foreign government decides that enough is enough. At present, it appears that the government will only act when its interests are ‘threatened’, thus turning basic human rights norms and fundamental freedoms into economic bargaining tools.

The viciousness exhibited by these RELA personnel, armed at the very least with truncheons, towards unarmed civilians does not speak of bravery or courage. These RELA personnel were not defending, king, country or even their fellow citizens; they were indulging in gratuitous violence. Is this what our government encourages? Its silence is deafening.

The public cannot be blamed for their ignorance of RELA's brutality and their continued delusion that RELA are there to protect them. For equally deafening has been the silence from the mainstream media, which continue to shirk their responsibility of reporting the unvarnished truth to the public.

No demos, we’re Malaysian (media)

11 March was the day after certain political parties, civil society groups and concerned individuals staged a second major demonstration in Kuala Lumpur against the recent petrol price hike. Predictably, not many mainstream newspapers were prepared to report on this incident of national political significance.

The few newspapers that covered and reported the protest, held at the Petronas Twin Towers and its vicinity, did so rather sheepishly. The Star, for instance, buried the demo story in the inside pages, under an odd headline: ‘Stop it, says IGP’. As in many cases of blacked out stories, mainstream newspapers in Malaysia tend to inform readers of the response of the authorities to incidents that have occurred. Readers get a sense of what happened previously via the response and perspective of the authorities concerned and by reading between the lines.

Avoiding the D-word

Yes, you get a picture of what happened – a picture that is framed by the authorities. The account, focusing on the police chief’s response, gave the impression that the crowd was rowdy and a threat to peace and that the police would not tolerate any future demonstrations. What was lost along the way is the fact that the demonstrators, or at least the majority of them, had gathered peacefully to express their grievances over the price hike.

The headline also assumes and gives the impression that readers know what ‘it’ meant. It does look as though the ‘D’ word (demonstration) is taboo in the mainstream press.

Similarly, the front page of The Star on the same day carried the headline, ‘PM: I know you’re angry’. It reported on the premier’s response to the angry expressions of ordinary Malaysians towards the petrol price increase. Again, it was primarily a response from the government to something that had occurred a few days ago but was not reported by the press. To reiterate, it is a common practice of the mainstream press to publish the response of the authorities towards something that has been blacked out while at the same time giving the authorities the space to respond on their own terms.

In the same reportage, the PM also unveiled the government’s plan to conduct periodical public opinion polls via the Public Complaints Bureau and RTM. This is an indication that the government is concerned with the unhappiness among Malaysians that has been expressed publicly through street demonstrations, over the Internet and, to a certain extent, in the local dailies.

A culture of investigate journalism would have spurred journalists to seek clarification about possible inherent weaknesses in the opinion poll. For instance, there is of course the potential for a government-run poll to consciously avoid asking searching and embarrassing questions; such as, what do Malaysians think of highway toll? What do they think of the ‘national car’ project? Should the GLCs be bailed out if they run into financial difficulties? In other words, the people who run the polls can be selective and frame the questions in a certain way while giving the impression that they are providing space for citizens to air their frustration and views.

If there was any redeeming grace for The Star that day, it was in its publishing of a full-page open letter to the Higher Education Minister penned by a plucky and articulate academic from Universiti Malaya, Dr Azmi Shahrom. In a sense, he spoke truth to power, lamenting about the problems that have been plaguing public universities in the country. We wait with bated breath for the minister’s concrete response, failing which we again hold our breath for the ‘People’s Paper’ to follow up on this important issue.


... and missing the bus

The Sunday (12 March) editions of both the NST and The Star were also busy with stories of public transportation. This is in the wake of the government’s promise to improve public transport using the money saved from the petrol subsidy reduction. These dailies reported on the difficulties of getting decent public transport in and around KL and elsewhere. This coverage was commendable as it spoke eloquently of the problems that commuters face on a daily basis.

But, as we are fully aware, this is not a problem of national dimensions that has sprung up overnight. Ordinary Malaysians have expressed similar complaints about public transport for years, but the press did not seem to take them seriously – that is until the PM and his cabinet ministers, peering through the tinted windows of their chauffer-driven limousines, recently confirmed that, surprise, surprise, public transport is indeed in bad shape. In other words, the press only rely on the cues given by the powers-that-be while often ignoring the dire warnings given by ordinary citizens. This is what we call ‘cue journalism’ at its best – or rather worst - and it amounts to a shameful abdication of the press’ social responsibility.

Election posters needed because of unfair media coverage

The Election Commission wants to ban election posters, saying they are a waste of money. Posters, they argue, soil the enviroment and often spark quarrels between the camps of rival candidates.

We don't think there should be a ban on posters as they are part and parcel of election campaigning in a democracy. What is needed is close monitoring of election spending so that no one exceeds the legal spending limits either through direct spending or sponsored spending.

Posters are essential in Malaysia because opposition parties do not have adequate opportunity to make themselves known to wider sections of society, given the very short campaign periods. The mainstream media are controlled by the ruling party and its allies, and these media often marginalise the opposition, if not denigrate them. Nothing can quite match the extensive reach of television and radio - which unfortunately, the opposition has little access to.

So posters at least offer some little consolation for opposition or independent candidates to make themselves known. To ban posters would mean making the playing field even more unlevel than it already is.

Phoney toll freeze - The sequel

It's deja vu time. Bernama yesterday carried a report "No Toll Increase This Year, Says Samy Vellu" in which Samy Vellu assured Malaysians that the government would not allow any toll increase this year.

PETALING JAYA, March 7 (Bernama) -- Good news for motorists. There will be no highway toll increase this year.

The assurance came from Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu who said Tuesday that the government would not allow any toll increase this year.

He said the ministry also did not face any pressure from the highway toll concessionaires to increase the rates.

"There's no pressure. No one can pressure the Works Ministry, It's (ministry) pressure-proof," he told a news conference after opening the International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology in the 21st Century here.

Wah-wah, what a hero our Samy is. But he isn't telling us the whole story. As we pointed out last Sept, after the last round of price increases and after the government gave a similar assurance, there are no scheduled toll increases this year under the existing concession agreements. Check out our blog entry written last September.

So Samy's bravado is not what it seems. And journalists fail their readers by not pointing out this simple fact.

The Bernama report continues:

He, however, declined to comment when asked whether there would be any toll hike next year.

"We are talking about this year, why talk about other years," he said, to the amusement of the reporters.

A-ha! We know why he doesn't want to talk about toll hikes next year, don't we? Let's see what happens when the toll concessionaires start demanding their scheduled toll hikes (or compensation from the government in lieu) next year. We will wait with bated breath for Samy's bravado then.

But really, our newspapers should know better than to unquestioningly write down everything our ministers say that portray them in a positive light.

Oil price-hike demonstrators 'vanish' into thin air

The notion that the mass media are not necessarily mirrors of society has been made abundantly clear today. The deafening silence by the mainstream press, particularly the New Straits Times and The Star, over yesterday’s mass demonstration against the recent petrol price hike speaks volumes of the mainstream media’s commitment to reporting the truth.

The demonstration was staged by opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and other concerned Malaysians near the Kuala Lumpur City Centre in the shadow of the Petronas Twin Towers, a mega project. A crowd of around 1,000 (according to AFP) to 2,000 (Malaysiakini) people participated in the protest.

But what you see in the newspapers is not what you get in real life. It never took place – or so the newspapers would like their readers to believe.

Diluting the anger

Any journalist or seasoned editor with a hard nose for news would have recognised instantly that the demonstration deserved the attention of the media, the government, civil society, and concerned Malaysians. Yet, these newspapers consciously chose to ignore this legitimate expression of anger and anxiety over the price hike – as if such views, shared by hundreds of thousands if not millions of other Malaysians, didn’t matter at all. Had the media, including a daily that fashions itself as a ‘people’s paper’, been more socially responsible, they would have picked up this story. At the very least, reports of the demonstration could have provided feedback to the government as to how the public felt about the move.

Instead, what newspapers such as the NST have done is to run a couple of stories that suggest that the government is committed to controlling the prices of essential goods. Such reports have focussed on, for instance, the plan to set up more so-called fair-price shops and on the Perlis Menteri Besar’s call to civil servants to cycle to office – as if this would allay the fears of ordinary Malaysians.

In fact, blacking out the news of the public expression of fear and disgust runs counter to the spirit of good governance, transparency and accountability, which the present government professes to uphold. Surely, one of the ways of ensuring government accountability is to provide space for public scrutiny and even criticism of government action, where necessary. It is morally reprehensible of the press to abdicate this crucial role.

Besides, the anger and anxiety among demonstrators and other ordinary Malaysians is also because they were caught by surprise when the government rather sheepishly and suddenly announced the price hike. The government had not adequately prepared the people – nor had they revamped public transport - ahead of the price hike.

Perhaps the mainstream media (and, let us be clear, they have to second-guess the government) felt that blacking out such news would dilute the mass anger, by making individual Malaysians feel that not many other people share their disgust and dismay. Perhaps the idea is to make them feel that their individual anger is not representative of the broader public sentiment and thus prevent individuals from networking with others and vocally joining in to demand accountability.

"Let them eat cake"

The media’s damage control exercise wasn’t really helpful though. In fact, it may have sowed further aggravation among many Malaysians when deputy premier Najib Razak went on the air via all the major television stations in the country to try to ‘explain’ the reasons for the hike.

It was a PR exercise that was not even well executed. The Bernama chief editor’s management of the interview left much to be desired, and Najib’s ‘explanations’ raised more questions than answers. For instance, Najib called on fellow Malaysians to tighten their belts and change their lifestyle. It sounded a bit like “let them eat cake”, as the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of "a great princess" who told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread.

The interviewer could have asked Najib how on earth he expected low-income working class families to tighten their belts when many households were already living on shoe-string budgets. And why was his proposal targeted only at ordinary Malaysians? The interviewer could have asked: What about the ministers themselves? How about a substantial cut in their salaries? Better still, why doesn’t Pak Lah trim his bloated cabinet? Are the federal and state governments and government departments willing to cut down on unnecessary and wasteful ceremonies, which often involve merely ‘greeting’ ministers and other VIPs?

Najib was also reported as saying that Malaysians should, as part of their change in life-styles, rely more on public transport. All very well for him to talk - when ministers are chauffeur-driven everywhere, with a fleet of out-riders to boot. He should have been grilled on the deplorable state of public transport, which had been neglected in the drive to promote private vehicle ownership. The interviewer could also have asked if the ministers would be willing to show leadership-by-example by abandoning their petrol-guzzling limousines in favour of public transport? Have they experienced what our public transport is like, in the first place?

Which brings us to the next matter: Najib should also have been pressed on whether his challenge for Malaysians to change their lifestyles runs counter to the so-called ‘national car’ project, which celebrates private vehicle ownership. Would the government soft-pedal on its national car project now? And, pursuing this line of questioning, would the government be willing to see a drop in the toll collection of highway concessionaires, many of whom are ‘friendly’ to the ruling BN, if more Malaysians were to use buses, taxis and trains?

These are the kinds of issues one would have expected Najib and the interviewer to focus on and to enlighten ordinary Malaysians. Instead, by depriving citizens of the democratic space to express their sentiments and by indulging in PR/damage control, the mainstream media may have only further confounded and irritated the masses.

Caricatures: Double standards in ridiculous witch-hunt

On the day (23 February) the PM decided not to take action against the NST for running Wiley Miller’s syndicated cartoon concerning caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin was confronted with the issue of RTM having shown the caricatures in a news story. One of the things he reportedly said was:

the whole affair had been "good for the country" as it meant a continual process of learning about Press freedom and its dos and don’ts.

Gone was the holier-than-thou attitude shown towards the NST a couple of days earlier. Instead, he had to eat humble pie because the media in his very backyard were believed to have erred.

Apples and pears

Nonetheless, Zam had a point: let us learn from this chapter of the Malaysian media. So, what might the lessons be?

To begin with, Miller’s cartoon in the NST was different from the caricatures of the Prophet because it did not have visual depictions of the Prophet. The difference between the two is not in the category of apples and oranges, but apples and pears. Still, there is a difference. For people to collapse the two in the name of responsibility of the press is to abuse that concept. It would take press responsibility down the wrong, sorry path and cripple intellectual growth.

The pertinent question was: should the NST have run the comic strip at a time when protests of the caricatures of the Prophet were still fresh in the minds of millions. Just because of that alone, some might say no. But was it as simple as that?

A major part of the news media is presenting news in a timely fashion. Cartoonists are also mindful of that. Especially those, like Miller, who try to capture topical events in a wry, humorous way.

Imagine Mahathir sobbing at the UMNO general assembly in 2003 where he announced he would step down as PM and LaT drew a cartoon about it, say, a couple of months later. It would lose its moment, weakening whatever message Lat might want to get across. It would also not be funny.

Still, that does not mean the NST should unthinkingly have run Miller’s cartoon. Why? Because of what had transpired surrounding the caricatures. NST editors thus would have needed to make a decision. And they chose to go with the cartoon on the basis that it did not have any visual depiction of the Prophet.

Now, did the NST consider the cartoon might be read in ways different from how the editors had read them? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is the NST could not really predict how people would read the cartoon. Indeed, no one could - because predicting how the public would read something is far from an exact science. And that is not necessarily bad. A democracy of reading sometimes offers a way to deflate the arrogance or oppressiveness of a one-dimensional reading.

Thus, some Malaysians did not agree with NST. While it could be argued, as did the NST, that some of these Malaysians responded out of a political or personal agenda, one should not ignore that there would still be some who simply did not agree with the NST. Still, all of these peoples’ views amount to different readings—including even incorrect ones.

The NST’s apology was made to those they unintentionally or unexpectedly offended. The paper, in essence, admitted that the decision to run the comic turned out to be ill advised — a result of human error.

Shameless mockery

But that did not get the NST completely off the hook. A day before the apology, they reacted to many who took offence to the cartoon by running it again and challenging the public to see what was wrong with it. Apparently, the paper believed that only those with a political or personal agenda would find fault with the cartoon. This too turned out to be another mistake.

NSTP also made a police report against Jeff Ooi of Screenshots, claiming that he incited religious hatred by focusing on the NST’s publication of the cartoon. The NST had mentioned that some people had a personal vendetta for playing up the issue. Many knew that one of these people would be Ooi. But a personal vendetta cannot come out of nowhere. NST was as much a party to it. It takes two to tango.

Some might disagree with Ooi and think he made the mistake of playing up the issue. Just as many did not agree with the NST and found what it did offensive. For misjudging their response, the paper apologised. The point is mistakes were made.

In that light, a show-cause letter issued by the government to the NST was hardly appropriate. But the PM’s decision not to take action against NST was.

On the other hand, it is shameless of the NST to continue with the police report on Ooi. It makes a mockery of itself as a 160-year-old institution. It shows the bigwigs at the paper have acted like a cry-baby, running to the government to settle personal issues for them.

Double standards?

Since the PM has decided not to take action against the NST, what about Sarawak Tribune and Guang Ming then? All indications suggested that what they did were also a result of human error. The former even quickly apologised for what they did twice, unreservedly, and fired its onsite editor. Why then were the two dailies punished just because of human error?

And now, a Chinese-language afternoon daily in Sarawak, Berita Petang, has also been suspended for two weeks for the caricatures of the Prophet.

Meanwhile, in addition to RTM, TV3 and ntv7 may also have also erred in presenting the caricatures (they have both since apologised), and the Energy, Water and Communications Minister Lim Keng Yaik said action would also be taken if the two private channels were found to have erred. Would TV3, ntv7 and RTM be suspended as well if found guilty?

RTM should consider themselves fortunate because even though evidence suggests that they broadcast caricatures of the Prophet, the PM has decided to investigate the matter first before deciding on the next move. The PM and his cabinet appear to have denied Sarawak Tribune this basic presumption of innocence before being proven guilty. Was that not an error of judgement, too?

The witch-hunt has become quite ugly and ridiculous. And for what? Human error. All of it clearly calls attention to how ridiculous and unnecessary it is for the government to have so much power over the media through laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Internal Security Act 1960.

Remove media laws

Media errors are bound to occur. But to have laws that allow the government to suspend or take away the licence of the media in response is senseless punishment. And the way the witch-hunt is unfolding, Malaysia could very well be the laughing stock of the world.

Equally ridiculous are Malaysians who disagree with the media acting as a cry-baby but are quick to run to the government to take care of things for them. But the laws encourage such a retarded mentality. Just as the laws are a convenient tool that can be used against the media by those with a political or personal agenda.

So, the ultimate lesson from this chapter of the Malaysian media is that it is time the media laws are removed. Let media and civil society work things out.

That will give Malaysians a chance to cultivate an appreciation of freedom and responsibility. It will also offer a strong chance for the policy of transparency and accountability in governance to succeed unlike what is happening now, when that policy seems to be at best unfolding in fits and starts. And it will give real democracy a chance to take root and blossom — as opposed to what we have now: democracy Malaysian-government style or government-say-so democracy.