Politics 101 Malaysia

Commentary by Helen Ang, malaysiakini, Jun 5.

Media reform group Benar, together with CIJ, All Blogs and Wami had organised a public walk on June 1 as well as a dialogue on press freedom with de facto Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim.

Zaid did not pull his punches when he admonished mainstream media (MSM) to “tell the public the truth with no spinning”. He also challenged media practitioners: “Be honest with yourselves. If you feel strongly about the facts, do you take on the owners of the newspapers?”

Below is my Q & A (and verbal sparring) with Johann Foo, founder of Benar on the Media Freedom Walk and dialogue with the minister.

Q. Among other things, Zaid said, “You must ask yourself first – do you take up an unpopular issue with your news-owner?” What do you make of his remarks in the context of actual media operations in Malaysia?

A. I’m pleased Zaid said this. It dovetails with Benar’s contention that the media has over the years failed to tackle issues of public interest because it may not reflect well on the owners of the papers or other component parties in the Barisan Nasional.

For example, the last Auditor General’s report highlighted a number of cases of financial mismanagement but you will not find the media questioning these acts in their editorials. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Klang MIC chairman filed a police report alleging improprieties in the matter of the re-allocation of nine million shares in Telekom Malaysia Berhad shares way back in 1992 from Maika Holdings to three other unknown companies who were said to be representing the interests of the Indian community.

Did any paper question how RM2 or RM3 companies could have represented the interests of the Indian community? Did any paper try to piece together the gains from the sale of these shares and questioned where the profits went?

Good point. You’ve spotlighted the problem. Any suggestions for solution? Or taking a more realistic approach, is it possible to accommodate a degree of compromise but in the interim at least pushing the envelope so that the editors and their papers do a more professional job than presently?

Zaid chided the editors by saying that “If you are afraid of exposing because it may not get you the promotion you want, is that the government’s problem?” He went on to question why only one senior editor [The Star’s Wong Chun Wai] was present. His message is loud and clear.

The public can only wish those editors who determine what goes into tomorrow’s newspapers will rise to the challenge. It takes two to tango so I would also hope that Zaid and his colleagues in the cabinet will pull in the same direction.

Frankly, how does it affect national security, public order or morals if the editorials demand to know who were responsible for the mismanagement reported by the Auditor-General each year and to bring such people before the courts? What is the point of audits if the crooks are not brought to book? I believe change can begin to take place without amending the laws but only if the people involved are willing to dance together. Yet Rocky [Ahirudin Attan], himself a former MSM senior editor had observed that “the other mainstream editors are playing golf, too lazy, very contented, afraid, or probably didn’t even know what the [organisers] were up to”. So the bottomline is, who does Benar intend to get to the table next and what’s to be on the table?

I am not aware that Rocky has made such a comment. The NUJ, journalists and editors who are not members of the NUJ as well as the media owners are the parties that should get together in the next phase. Benar will help to move things along, if needed. On the other hand, if the editors or their owners wake up tomorrow and start calling each other to sit down and thrash out the TOR (terms of reference), that’s fine. Benar would be content to leave the stage having sown a small seed. The question is whether this is likely to happen.

Q. Your Benar website posted a list of reports from around the blogs on the event. You linked a dozen posts from the bloggers and Rocky’s was one of them. In RockyBru, on Sunday itself, he asked ‘Where were the Editors?’ – as I’ve quoted to you and Rocky also added, “Azman Ujang, the GM of Bernama was there, too, but he’s no longer an editor even though he’s still a journalist at heart, and “Steven Gan of Malaysiakini came, but he’s not what the minister meant when he talked about ‘mainstream media editors’.”

But in any case, Zaid threw the ball back to the journos. He asked: “Do your editors believe in what you are fighting for? Are all the reporters together on this?” You projected a low attendance of 150 and your projections were borne out. What do you make of the numbers on June 1?

It was Zaid’s mantra of the day. “Get your act together and then talk”. He intimated that he is willing to engage with those calling for change and he told the crowd not to assume that all ministers are unreasonable. That sounds like a start. Let’s see how quickly the media will get together to hammer out something that will suit both sides of the equation. Benar, CIJ and Wami shall be willing to help move things along. We believe the rakyat is an important stakeholder in the media’s freedom and we hope journalists and media organisations will pick up Zaid’s gauntlet.

We projected 100-150 so we are not disappointed by the turnout. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the turnout was disappointing, and like you’ve said, the Minister threw the gauntlet for the journos to get their act together. Following what unfolded on June 1, would Benar maintain your outreach to the rank-and-file – NUJ members who were largely no-show – or would you tweak your strategy?

It is important not to let whatever momentum generated on June 1 dissipate. Thus Benar will not mind working with other organisations or civil groups eager for media reform to work on the terms of reference for change. The NUJ will remain an important voice. But there are others as well.

True, the NUJ did lend its support to the event. Do you see this as a baby step in breakthrough or do you feel that they should have taken their own initiatives earlier?

From the outset we believed that we should work with the NUJ and the NPC [National Press Club] because this is about journalism in the country. And we must also get those who are not part of the NUJ to come together as well; from executives to the senior editors. Benar was simply a catalyst for the journalists, citizens, bloggers and a representative from the government to come together to talk about media freedom. And the minister now challenges the media to get their act together. It is a baby step in the right direction. How far this will go depends on the stakeholders’ will.

Well, about ‘will’ … Steven said Bersih walked, Hindraf walked and the lawyers walked. He wanted to know why the journalists were straggling in twos and three – which in effect translated into no symbolic ‘walk’. He also asked during the Q & A why the original plan of the walk was banned by the police. But you appear to have taken have a more optimistic view … And perhaps you can elucidate also on what happened behind-the-scenes viz. dealings with the police?

I will let others decide whether June 1 served its purpose. I think it did. It would have been great if we were able to obtain a police permit. We realised from the outset that getting it will be a tall order. But we owe the people a duty of care and so had to try.

We can only hope that the government will soon realise that the vast majority of Malaysians are politically mature, rational and competent and not hell bent on violence at public gatherings. Well, there were still people who were willing to show up in the morning and sure enough the police brass was there. But they were sporting and cordial. And many more did walk from the NPC to Dataran Merdeka after the dialogue, without problems.

Yes, the police were there. Will your pressure group for ‘freedom of expression’ – I’m using the term loosely to indicate ‘freedom to publish without being damned’ – take on board and in tandem the need for ‘freedom of assembly’?

I would like to think the two should go hand-in-hand. I suppose what could have been a contributing factor to the eventual low turnout was that on the eve of the walk, there arose some negativity in MSM-land over the ‘confusion’ on the shape the walk was to take. Some MSM-ers publicly expressed their disappointment. Were the organizers and your target audience (the journos) at cross-purposes in understanding the event?

It was rather a poor choice of headline when the organisers informed people that we had failed to obtain the police permit. We should have simply stuck to the original message where we had asked people not to gather but to proceed to walk in pairs from Dataran Merdeka to the NPC. More people would have shown up and they will have gathered (despite our advice) and the pictures the next day would have looked great.

I did read some comments by journos who expressed great disappointment at the turn of events. It shows their eagerness for change. And that’s good. Okay, as you say, some walked from NPC to Dataran after the dialogue. But I estimate only about half of those gathered earlier to listen to the minister proceeded to walk. And more tellingly, it was Wong Chin Huat (a journalism lecturer but not a practising journalist) who read your declaration at Dataran.

Wong Chin Huat is a young man with great leadership skills. And a very dedicated media activist. I can agree with you that Benar served as a ‘catalyst’ and I’d further add that Sunday morning’s event did blip on the national radar, is bookmarked, plus you got a representative of the government to engage … so you did achieve some things.

Nonetheless, your avowed aim as stated in your website was to “work with the journos”, and not to take the adversarial stance of those advocating ‘Boycott the Newspapers’. Now, please give me your honest assessment as to how far the ‘work with journos’ premise has been productive?

A. From what I’ve seen so far there is a desire for change. Norila Daud (NUJ president) has been quoted as saying that June 1 was a historic event for the media fraternity. What’s left to be determined is the willingness to work for change. It has only been a month. And Rome was not built in a day. Give them more time. What were Benar’s original aims and what do you feel that the group has achieved? And which objectives fell short?

Our aim is to engage the media in the pursuit of a free and fair media. June 1 was to achieve a sense of solidarity between the stakeholders. The number of people who actively worked to bring about this event can be counted on one hand. I guess we did not do badly. It’s going to be a long road to media freedom. The people will hope the media will start to push the envelope in the spirit of Zaid’s challenge. At the same time the government should also pull or the process will stall.

As you say, Benar’s tagline is free and fair media. I would think accuracy would be a major component of ‘fairness’. Yet when the Walk was announced, it was erroneously reported that CIJ was the “prime mover” of Benar (published in Malaysiakini and corrected later). So, if the organiser for a fair media push, in disseminating information on your event, either conveyed inaccurate facts or the particulars were inaccurately perceived, what does that say?

My understanding is that there had been some miscommunication between the spokesperson for CIJ and the reporter. It was corrected as you noted. Both CIJ and Wami have been wonderful partners. And Benar shall always be grateful to Haris Ibrahim* for the support he has shown.

Hold a minute please. Here, I need to additionally note that the correction was not at the behest of either the CIJ spokesperson or Benar but pointed out to Malaysiakini by an observant reader. Taking this episode as an example, what can the general public do to help in the monitoring of media to ensure accuracy? Is a group like Benar – for instance, through your website – willing to encourage and facilitate this process?

We would need more volunteers if we were to play the role of a daily monitor for accuracy in the media. Until then it is more of a bird’s-eye view.

[But] let us be very clear. Benar is not the source of the miscommunication and played no part in that interview [with CIJ]. You must appreciate that Benar is composed of people with other job and business commitments as well and we do not have people to watch over what pops up in Malaysiakini every 15 minutes. I believe CIJ has other things on their plate with not many staff. When we saw that article, it was already corrected. So the observant reader was one step ahead of Benar and CIJ. The future for accurate and fair media augurs well when there are eagle-eyed observers with sharp talons to grind.

What’s next for Benar?

Where do we go from June 1? We will be keen to help ensure the call by Zaid will not fall by the wayside. We shall explore various things that Benar, with its limited resources, could conceivably do to advance the cause of media freedom. We hope more people will volunteer their services and feedback.

About Benar:

Benar had its genesis in The People’s Parliament, in a posting on March 30 where founder Johann Foo proposed its set-up. The name ‘Benar’ was adopted on April 7 to urge for ‘Media Berani dan Bebas’ after a People’s Parliament readers’ poll. The group’s logo was designed by John Cheong while Foo personally spent many hours animating it, and unveiling it in Haris Ibrahim’s* cyber advocacy website on April 18.

In their website profile, Foo characterised Benar as “a civil society initiative” and said, “We want to apply pressure wherever necessary to make the change happen. All of this can only happen with People Power”.