A Malaysian Media Council may end up stifling press freedom

by Anil Netto

The process of setting up a Malaysian Media Council is already underway. Those of us spearheading Charter 2000, the citizens’ media initiative, should be delighted as one of the charter’s demands was for the establishment of an independent media council. But instead we are hesitating, maybe even deeply suspicious.

The Malaysian Press Institute has already set up a Working Committee to study the possibility of setting up of a Media Council in Malaysia. This follows a request by the Government that the media, and not the Government, should be involved in the formation of such a body following calls by several parties for the setting up of such a council to tackle issues related to the media.

However, the fact that Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was named by the Committee to Protect Journalists as one of the Top Ten Enemies of the Press for the third straight year makes us wonder why his administration would even think of setting up of a media council. Why initiate a media council when Malaysia’s record on media freedom is, shall we say, ‘well-known’ the world over?

Most respected media councils such as the Press Council of India and the Australian Press Council have two main objectives. The first objective is to defend media freedom from attacks especially from the government. Australia, for instance, has a Freedom of Information Act and there is no licensing system as such or any requirement of government approval to launch a newspaper or other press enterprise. For sure, countries like India and Australia have something worth defending.

The second objective of a press council would be to regulate the media to ensure that journalistic ethics are observed. In this, most press councils are empowered to investigate all complaints against the media from aggrieved parties.

What is There to Defend?

Why wouldn’t such a council be effective in Malaysia? First, there is hardly any media freedom left to defend. With the MCA gobbling up two relatively independent Chinese-language newspapers, Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press (see cover story), political control or ownership over the mainstream electronic and print media is now almost complete. Now we hear that laws are being drafted to control journalism over the Internet.

With oppressive laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, and the Internal Security Act strangling the media, what kind of freedom is there left to defend? Some might argue that human rights groups supported the setting up of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) despite the country’s oppressive laws, so why can’t rights groups extend similar support for a new Malaysian Media Council?

There is a simple difference between the two cases. Suhakam was set up to uphold human rights and not to regulate the work of human rights groups.

In contrast, a Malaysian Media Council would be likely to focus on regulating all media in Malaysia including alternative and opposition media and independent journalism. Given the present climate and context, it is highly unlikely that a Malaysian Media Council would lobby strongly for greater media freedom, one of the two key functions of any press council worth its name. Indeed, a Malaysian Media Council would be likely to pay lip service to media freedom for several reasons.

Lop-sided Composition

First, the composition of the council: if the appointments to the Suhakam are any guide, the proposed media council is likely to be dominated by pro-establishment personalities largely drawn from the major media organisations, most of which are government-controlled, directly or indirectly.

The proposed media council has to include a fair number of representatives from the alternative and opposition media. It is also essential to include independent activists, academics and legal experts to represent the interests of the public.

In Australia, which has a freer press, the press council comprises 21 members, a third of whom are representatives of the public comprising indigenous people’s activists, teachers, activist lawyers, academics, legal experts, and social activists.

The respected Press Council of India, on the other hand, has eight non-media people in its 28-member council: three experts in education, science, law, literature and culture and five Members of Parliament. (The chairman of the Indian Press Council, by convention a retired Supreme Court judge, was elected in 1997 as President of the World Association of Press Councils.)

Because the mainstream media in Malaysia is so pro-establishment and shackled, it is all the more important that the proposed media council should have at least half its membership made up of non-media people such as human rights activists, independent writers and respected media critics, academics and lawyers. These representatives of the public will be able to articulate demands for greater media freedom and provide the impetus for the council, in turn, to demand greater freedom of expression from the government.

But going by the Suhakam experience, this is not likely to happen. The representatives of the public who would be appointed to the Malaysian Press Council would likely be mainly pro-establishment individuals with dismal views on media freedom and there will probably be few critical voices.

Sycophantic Attitude

A second factor that would impede the work of a Malaysian Press Council is the prevailing culture of self-censorship and a misguided notion of “developmental journalism” - a euphemism for being uncritical and not rocking the boat. Many of the prominent personalities in the media have grown used to sycophantic behaviour and indeed many owe their positions to the powers-that-be. This docile culture is likely to be carried over into the Malaysian Media Council and will dictate the direction the council takes i.e. away from greater media freedom.

Conflict of Interest

A third factor that would make it unlikely for the council to call for greater media freedom is the likely potential conflict of interest among its pro-establishment personalities most of whom would be from the mainstream media. It is in the interest of the mainstream media not to allow independent media room to flourish simply because investigative and critical journalism from any independent publisher/competitor would eat into the market share and profitability of the staid mainstream media organisations. Hence it is likely that pro-establishment council members from the mainstream media will not take kindly to media or journalists that exert even a semblance of independence from pro-establishment reporting.

Another Layer of Control

Finally, the council itself will likely end up as a second layer of control, as a back up to the overarching punitive threat of oppressive laws already in place. It will likely punish journalists and media organisations that step beyond the narrow boundaries of media freedom already in place.

Procedures for investigating complaints may bypass the usual judicial procedures, and swift punishment could well be imposed on any “culprits” in the eyes of the pro-establishment council members.

For these reasons, Charter 2000 will not participate in the setting up of the proposed media council until such time as the media environment changes and oppressive laws are repealed. Indeed, before a Media Council can be set up, the government will have to demonstrate by word and deed that it is ready to respect and uphold media freedom.