Curbs on the alternative media are stifling media freedom in Malaysia

by Dr Mustafa Anuar

It is a fact that Malaysia has seen a large number of newspapers, magazines, and TV and radio stations sprouting up since independence. The number has grown larger especially since the Barisan Nasional government under Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad embarked on its privatisation policy that promotes an environment conducive to private mass media.

But the majority of these mainstream media are owned or controlled by individuals or groups who are closely aligned to the powers-that-be. And this means that generally the mainstream media have an ideological bent or a political preference that is collectively similar, i.e. fervently supportive of the government. This fervour can be felt especially in the run-up to general elections.

This bent in the mainstream media is obviously unhealthy for the growth of democracy and civil society in Malaysia. It invariably means that those who oppose or are critical of the government are unlikely to get an opportunity to exercise their democratic right to express their views through these media. Even if there’s such an opportunity, it is often likely that it is inadequate. Or as recent history indicates, this limited opportunity can turn out to be an occasion when the opposition gets misrepresented or distorted through the mainstream media.

This kind of media structure makes it difficult for a wide spectrum of views to get equal airing, a condition that is crucial for the free flow of information and exchange of views in a democracy. The strong and the rich, given their advantageous positions in society, get relatively easier access to the mainstream media. For the poor, the dispossessed, and the disenfranchised, it is a monumental task for them to get some space to express their fears and aspirations.

Supporters of the mainstream media may argue that in a democracy, mainstream newspapers (and other media) are entitled to choose whom they want to support or side with. But this argument can only hold water if the political environment is freer, if there are no legal restrictions imposed on those who wish to produce publications of various political hues. Malaysia’s Printing Presses and Publications Act, for instance, is an obstacle to the mushrooming of publications that can cater to the needs of various strata of society.

Curbs on Alternative Media

Some observers point to the existence of alternative media such as Harakah, Aliran Monthly, and online newspaper malaysiakini as indication of the degree of media freedom in the country. They argue that there are indeed publications that are critical of the government, that provide the space for the downtrodden to air their views. But the nature of these alternative publications or media and their attendant problems such as those of circulation, printing and distribution tell a different story.

To start with, publications such as Aliran Monthly have limited readership that is concentrated in the Klang Valley, and other urban areas such as Penang, Johor Baru, and Ipoh. The fact that the Monthly is in English further limits its outreach. Coupled with this is the perennial problem of getting “reliable” printers. In the past, the Monthly has had to “jump” from one printer to another because of the apparent subtle political harassment that the latter faced from time to time. Printers, as we know, are also required by law to apply annually for printing licences.

The growing popularity of Harakah, it would seem, is a problem with the authorities. Harakah had its publication frequency slashed on 1 Mar 2000 from twice a week to twice a month, a huge 75% cut. This is on top of an existing restriction, i.e. a Home Ministry stipulation restricts its sales to only PAS members.

Political organs such as Harakah should not be confined to their respective memberships only. In a democracy a political party should have the right to propagate its ideology, policies, and programmes to as many people as possible, irrespective of their political or ideological bent. Political parties must have sufficient democratic space in which they can disseminate their views on a level playing field. We would expect political parties to disseminate their ideas not only via their respective party organs, but also through other mass media - just like the ruling coalition parties do. Incidentally, there are a few opposition parties still waiting for the Home Ministry to approve their publication permit applications.

A political party should also have the right to decide on the frequency of producing its political organ. The frequency should depend on important factors such as the party’s financial capability, human resources and political priority — and not a Home Ministry decree aimed at “streamlining” political mouthpieces.

These are some of the problems that the alternative publications concerned have had to face in their struggle to survive and to play an important role in a democracy. There are others whose “life expectancy” was shortened, and their fate sealed – by the Home Ministry. Not too long ago, Malaysians witnessed the untimely “demise” of fairly critical and independent magazines such as Detik and, later, Al-Wasilah. They had managed to gain quite a following among the reading public.

The ban on these alternative publications means that the range of alternative reading materials has been severely limited. It has denied the general public, especially Malay-speaking readers, their right to access news and views that would otherwise not see the light of day in the mainstream media. What is disturbing is that it also indicates that the democratic space for ordinary people to legitimately express their views, criticism and dissent has narrowed.

Political Hassle

Political developments in the last two years suggest that the government, the Home Ministry in particular, is in no mood to entertain the needs of Malaysians who seek a wide spectrum of opinions and a variety of news in the media. If anything, the range of alternative publications has been curtailed. Weekly tabloid Eksklusif, for example, got the axe from the Home Ministry because of its “unbalanced reporting”, an indication of the Ministry’s deep concern about the tabloid’s rising popularity and its penchant for more reporting of the Opposition.

Contrary to what supporters of the pro-government media may think, such curbs point to the unwillingness or inability of the powers-that-be to appreciate that in a democracy, a publication has the right to choose its own political or ideological hue. A variety of publications pursuing different political or ideological routes would broaden the spectrum of views available in the media industry as well as in society. No single political persuasion should monopolise the channels of dissemination of views in a society that professes itself to be democratic.

This Eksklusif episode also strengthens public perception that the Home Ministry is not a disinterested party or institution when it comes to granting or revoking publishing permits and printing licences. A preference for a particular political viewpoint seems to colour the Ministry’s judgement - which is why the normal practice of the Home Ministry deciding on the “fate” of publications is viewed with grave concern. There is also a dire need for legal recourse should an applicant for a publishing permit feel that the Home Minister has unfairly or arbitrarily rejected her/his application.

Websites such as news portal malaysiakini are not spared the “political hassles” either. Although it can publish without a publishing permit (because it is not a publication), its scope of journalistic coverage is however hampered by its inability to obtain press accreditation from the Information Ministry. This accreditation, normally meant for the print media only, is essential for malaysiakini to cover government functions.

Denial of press accreditation means that malaysiakini is practically barred from government sources of information - an obstacle in its attempt to provide balanced journalism. As it is, certain mainstream media journalists and a number of government politicians have already depicted the news portal as pro-Opposition, if not anti-government.

The recent brouhaha in official and mainstream media circles over George Soros’ alleged funding of malaysiakini suggests that the kind of investigative journalism that the news portal attempts to practise does not go down well with the powers-that-be. Indeed, certain critical comments expressed in the website’s news, letters or opinion pieces might have raised more than just an eyebrow. The website’s rising popularity may also be of growing concern to the ruling elite.

Simply put, there aren’t a lot of alternative publications (and other alternative media) in the country, and the surviving ones face political hassles of various forms from time to time. It doesn’t augur well for a country that professes to be democratic and claims to be at the forefront of information and communications technology. Worse, it spells bad news for the poor, the weak, and the marginalised.