I am not really a journalist although early feedback I received about my writing style was by the chairperson of my doctoral committee who said: you write like a journalist, and I asked, is there anything wrong with that? He replied in the negative.
Next, I was also ‘em-couraged’ (yes, spelt differently to make the point about courage being driven by conviction about truths and not mere simplistic motivation) by another good friend and professor to seriously consider writing my views and opinions for public consumption. I followed his advice and started writing regularly, first in the NST , and then with Malaysiakini , and most lately with The Malay Mail . That must have been around early 2000.
Actually you need more than simple courage to write in the Malaysian mainstream media environment. One needs not just brains and subject matter knowledge, but also skills of ‘the politics of communication management’, what with all the so-called sensitivities (often the excuse for self-censorship) to do it well.
Rather unfortunately though, most of our journalists today do not know the difference in some of the very basic concepts which define today’s information era: data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The hierarchy of truth matters. This ‘hierarchy of truth matters’ means that information applied must lead to knowing more about the truth about matters being looked into or studied.
Also, we have too many idiocratic sub-editors, who think they have a god-given right to make changes to the content or slant of the pieces submitted to them, but which changes the nuances of the text.
I have heard many younger journalists moan and groan about their lack of freedom to express themselves; too often because of too much editorial code and colour defining and confining their space and signature. I recognise that editorial freedom with columns or opinion pieces are different.
In my many years of writing with the mainstream media, I have met and spoken with many of these editors. They, too, too often, do not know the difference between these same concepts defining the hierarchy of truth matters. Most text is always taken out of context by wrong editorialisation. The net result: the truths are bastardised or worse still, simply not reported.
Media licensing
Many media licences are given by the government, but without transparency, and very often to their cronies. Non-supporters of the government’s philosophy of the day are not given licences. These are usually labelled as ‘opposition supporters’ but overlooks that differences of opinion are part and parcel of a democracy.
These media licences are instead part of a framework of power and control of media and regulations to stem the free flow of information in a modernising world. Non-mainstream media, however, is not licensed and still enjoy free space for expression under the MSC Bill of Guarantees.
The Malaysian Insider wrote on Feb 12, 2014:
“Malaysia’s press freedom index plunged to a historic low of 147 out of 180 countries in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index released yesterday. The result was described as “a shame and the worst setback to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘best democracy in the world’ claim” by DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang.”
How can Malaysia keep dropping in the rankings? How can we be worse than Myanmar? What is the real problem?
In most developed economies media is considered the fourth estate or the fourth arm of governance after the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Such media have true freedom (instead of a ‘false freedom’?) and adhere to standards of transparency, openness and accountability. They are held responsible for reporting truthfully based on facts and evidence, not just conjecture or guess work.
Media – the fifth estate in Malaysia
In Malaysia, the public servants decide who should and should not get a printing and publishing license. In fact they extend this same rule even to “ban” religious words as well, which the federal constitution clearly states is the jurisdiction of the respective religious authorities. Therefore, Justice Lau Bee Lan’s High Court decision on the ‘Allah’ case stands as an anti-thesis to this assumption by the public service about their powers and authority.
The judiciary recently decided in favour of the litigant against the so-called authority of the government of the day, and especially that of the home affairs minister, in interpreting rights and privileges of awarding printing and publishing licenses.
“The Kuala Lumpur High Court\’s Appellate and Special Powers division has quashed the Home Ministry\’s decision not to grant a publishing permit to Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd, which operates the Malaysiakini news portal.
In ruling the ministry’s decision as “improper and irrational”, Judge Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim said the home minister\’s decision was misdirected as it exceeded the limit of its jurisdiction.
“The decision affects the right of the plaintiff to the right of freedom of expression, which also includes the right to a permit, and it is a fundamental liberty enshrined in the constitution,” Justice Abang Iskandar said.
\”Hence, the court allows the application for a certiorari (to quash) the decision of the respondents (Home Ministry) and the applicant needs to submit its letter to the ministry.”
Premised on the above two cases, I would argue that in Malaysia, the public service is the real fourth estate, and if any, the media is only the fifth estate, as determined by the third estate of the judiciary in the above two cases.
My conclusion is it is time for more licences to be issued to non-partisan players in the market and it is time for many flowers to bloom in the Malaysian media, so that our vision and dream of becoming a developed society by 2020 can be realised. There is no developed country which does not have true and real freedom of the press.
I will therefore conclude with one serious complaint. On March 20, 2014, Haris Ibrahim ( left ), our civil society activist behind the ABU movement wrote in Rakyattimes :
“ I attended Mahathir’s lecture on poverty earlier today at Universiti Malaya. Malaysiakini has the report here . During Q&A, I posed three questions to him. The third question was whether he was ready to take responsibility and apologise to the poor and the marginalised. In his response, he asked, in turn, that I apologise to him.”
No mainstream media wrote or reported this question and Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s answer? Why, eh? Is this not news? May God bless Malaysia with true media freedom.
