MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

How to censor the war on Iraq through Malaysian eyes

IT IS OFFICIAL. MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS and journalists could report freely and fearless of the war in Iraq. The government would neither censor their reports nor tell them how to report. But it would be helpful if they follow closely what it deems decent coverage. The Malaysian nation cannot afford to speak in discordant tones of a war far away. This, in the considered opinion of the information minister, Tan Sri Khalil Yaakob, is freedom of the press. And proves it by keeping quiet at the outburst of his deputy ministrer, Dato' Zainuddin Maidin aka Zam, when a
Malaysian analyst suggested, in a BBC interview, that one in three Malaysians he spoke to thought the US was right to attack Iraq. His job as minister of information is, to put it mildly, to disinform and misinform.

So, Malaysia is haven for press freedom. When newspapers and journalists decide that press freedom must be challenged by writing what they see, and not what Tan Sri Khalil Yaakob want reported, the information ministry sends goons, usually led by the former editor-in-chief of the Utusan Malaysia group of newspapers and that stirring defender of press freedom in his reincarnation as deputy information minister, to the offices to harrass them, or get the police to come and seize the servers. The journalists cannot be relied upon to decide what press freedom is all about, and once in a while they must be told that press freedom is, in Malaysia, what the government allows you to report.

How else could one interpret Tan Sri Khalil's latest refinementn of press freedom? Indeed, why did he state the obvious? If there is press freedom, as the idea is recognised the world over, why do government ministers continue to harp on it relentlessly, and occasionally take the law into their own hands, to prove there is? Why is it important, as he insists, that it all right for Malaysian newspapers and journalists to be told they may report "on the invasion of Iraq from various angles, including those which might favour the West"? Or to state the obvious: "It is up to the journalists to make the reports based on what they see" or "We only issue guidelines and monitor them but they are free to write based on their experiences". Why does he have to state this unless Malaysian newspapers and journalists are not free to write on local issues "based on their experiences"?

His comments highlights the dysfunctional state the Malaysian government is in. The Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister are at odds over the former's retirement and the latter's succession. Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, who returned from his holidays, to do the honours at the Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix last month, was to have to have continued his holidays overseas. But he is still here. He makes remarks about Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi which suggests - irrelevantly, I might add - he is not the successor he would now approve. The Old Man does not realise that now is the fifth wheel of a motor car. His aides give him Dutch courage, and want him to mount a comeback so Pak Lah would not succeed him. He realises that with Pak Lah in the wings, those who would have come to him now gravitate towards Pak Lah. As it should. After all, Pak is the next Prime Minister.

Some disturbing signs emerge. When he cut short his holidays for the F-1 motor race, Pak Lah invited him to chair the cabinet and the UMNO Supreme Council. It was reported at the time that he did so at Pak Lah's request. Nothing could be further than the truth. It was the Old Man's henchmen, notably cabinet minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former cabinet minister, Tan Sri Megat Junid Megat Ayob. Pak Lah had no choice but to accede. Now this group widens the attack to remove Pak Lah from the succession itself. Dr Mahathir was to have left to resume his holidays last month. But he stays back. Why? And he is known to pass cutting remarks about Pak Lah's competence.

When this is so debilitating, is it any wonder that ministries emphasise their independence from either or both, and chart their own course. Tan Sri Khalil is only one minister who has done it. He knows Dr Mahathir could not care less what he says, nor the pre-occupied Pak Lah the time, to set him right. So he tramples on press freedom, in the name of press freedom, so the information ministry would have absolute control of the media. He wants only one Malaysian view of the world: the government's. He would rather it be voluntary; but if the newspapers and journalists disagree, he would invoke press freedom to put them in their place.

He made these remarks about press freedom as the second batch of Malaysian journalists sent to Iraq to report on the war there. He insists it is the first, ignoring the Star's own team of reporters in the Middle East. But it is the first in which the government sponsors. They would be there for a month. Tan Sri Khalil says if their reports favoured the west, like those from CNN or BBC, it did not mean the mission failed. They are sent there to "observe and write from the Malaysian perspective, what was really happening"? Does he know what he talks of? If the reporters are there to report from a Malaysian perspective, why does he mention they failed because their reports favoured the west? What then is the Malaysian perspective? That the Anglo-American attack on Iraq is wrong, and the Malaysian reports from there must reflect it? Or that if these reporters come to the conclusion that mirrors the CNN or BBC coverage, it is not the Malaysian perspective?

Malaysian newspapers and journalists do not care for foreign correspondence, and have correspondents overseas so they can report on Malaysian antics and cabinet ministers on visits. The many I have met is disinterested, even uninterested, about the countries they cover. Their main reference is the Malaysian mission, usually these days clueless about the country it covers.

When in a country, I would look up Malaysian journalists. And often I would invite them along for interviews and meetings I have with leaders there. When I took a correspondent in London to the House of Commons to meet a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was so shocked that I knew my way around Westminster Palace, and more surprised when this gentleman turned up and proceeded to tell me what I wanted to know. On the way back, he was shocked this man was so open, exchanging gossip and insights, and suggesting others we might meet, given that I was meeting him for the first time. But I cannot be an adherent of press freedom, can I? Not when I think the government's view of press freedom is a load of bollocks. If we look upon foreign correspondence, through Tan Sri Khalil's eyes, as an extension of how Malaysian news is covered, Malaysian journalism would not arise from the morass it is in.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my