The Press-Elite Tie
It is a pity that the New Straits Times (October 29, 1998) and Other
Thots (November 1, 1998) have missed the real point. The issue is not
how I have been treated by the New Straits Times or the mainstream local
media. What concerns the public is the attitude of most editors of local
mainstream newspapers towards press freedom and their relationship to
the ruling elites.In my speech at the Commonwealth Press Union (CPU) panel discussion, I
argued that on issues which are crucial to the power and authority of
the ruling elites, the top brass in the media tends to protect the
interests of the former even when it is inimical to the public good.Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) in 1983, Bank Negara in 1993, Perwaja
in 1996 and Renong in 1998 are but a few examples of this. Is it any
wonder that not a single major financial scandal in the country - and
some of them have cost the taxpayer billions of ringgit - has been
investigated and exposed by the NST? The NST has also acquiesced with
other wrongdoings such as the villification of a former Auditor-General
, the sacking of the former head of the Judiciary, and the imprisonment
of more than a hundred of people under the draconian Internal Security
Act (ISA) in 1987. This is why in the eyes of a lot of Malaysians the
NST is a newspaper whose concern for truth and justice ends the moment
the interests of the ruling elites become apparent to its editors.In a sense, it is not the ruling elites as a class that the NST seeks to
protect. More specifically, it is the Prime Minister and perhaps, to a
lesser extent, the Minister of Special Functions, Tun Daim Zainuddin. It
explains why not a single pet policy of the Prime Minister - the
privitisation programme and the national car project come to mind - has
ever been subjected to rigourous scrutiny in the NST. While the Prime
Minister's achievements are lauded (and indeed many of them deserve high
praise) his shortcomings are never highlighted. In this regard,
shouldn't the NST at least raise the question whether the current
economic crisis has revealed the weaknesses inherent in one of Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad's obsessions: the incubation of a coterie of
capitalists who are supposed to be the creator's of the nation's wealth?
That this coterie lacks the internal resilience to withstand the
onslaught of the crisisis is all too obvious to the Malaysian people who
are now expected to bail them out. Let alone his policies: even his
pronouncements however superficial and contradictory some of them maybe,
are never called to question. Indeed the NST has made Dr. Mahathir into
a sacred man, beyond reproach and beyond criticism. Perhaps, the NST
does not realise that there is hardly a single democracy or earth which
does not, as a matter of policy and practice, subject its top leadership
to regular, systematic, and often harsh interrogation. The interogation
of power is, after all, the essence of democratic accountability.The NST cannot rationalise its subservient attitude to the Prime
Minister in the name of press laws and media ownership. In other more
regimented and authoritarian societies, repressive rules have not
prevented brave journalists from emerging from time to time to challenge
the overwhelming dominance of the elites. There have been many editors
in Asia and elsewhere who in spite of all the odds choose at a
particular moment in history to oppose the abuse of power out of a
profound sense of responsibility arising from a commitment to justice
and fairplay. In my CPU talk, I explained why wealth, culture and social
stability have conspired to thwart the emergence of some courages and
principled journalists in this country.Contrary to what "Other Thots" implies, this view of the NST and the
Malaysian media in general is not the product of some changed political
stance. I have for the last 20 years maintained that the democratic
space available to the mainstream Malaysian media is so restricted that
it is incapable of acting as a catalyst for meaningful change. It is of
course true that in the nineties, I have given less attention to issues
pertaining to the Malaysian media and Malaysian society mainly because
of my focus on the global system whose impact upon the lives of ordinary
women and men everywhere - as demonstrated by the present economic
crisis - is far greater than what most of us can imagine. Nonethelsess,
whenever I have the opportunity, I continue to espouse the cause of a
less fettered and freer media for the nation, as my writings and
speeches will reveal.If the columnist behind "Other Thots" wants to show that I have been
inconsistent, he will have to try much harder. It is a mark of my
consistency that the values and principles that I advocate for Malaysia
are the very values and principles that I now champion at the global
level. If I seek the expansion of democratic space and the enhancement
of social justice in Malaysia, I also demand justice in the global
arena. I am not one of those who berates the global system for the lack
of democracy or condemns the international media for its one-sidedness
while curtailing democratic freedoms at home and shackling the local
media.It is mainly because my position on a number of global issues coincides
with the position of the Malaysian government and the Prime Minister
that the NST has accorded me some coverage. My writings on local issues
especially when they are critical of the ruling elites have been given
limited space. As a case in point, of the 14 statements and letters to
the editors on the Anwar Ibrahim episode I sent to the NST between
September 2 and November 5, 1998 only 2 were carried in some form or
other. This is why it is factually inaccurate of "Other Thots"
columnist, Kadir Jasin, to allege that "even as he repeatedly made
uncomplementary remarks about the media in the wake of Anwar's sacking,
his speeches, press statements, articles and letters to the editor
continued to be published." In this connection, I should also point out
that there was only one occasion when a senior NST staff asked me to
reduce the length of a "letter to the editor" so that it could be
published in the newspaper.Kadir is also wrong in suggesting that I had changed my place of
employment and job several times. I taught at Universiti Sains Malaysia
for a total of 18 years before joining the University of Malaya in March
1997. These are the only two salaried jobs I have done - both within the
same progression. My involvement in NGO activities, first in ALIRAN and
now with the International Movement for a Just World, has been totally
voluntary, without any remuneration.I am also somewhat disturbed by Kadir's penultimate paragraph where he
says, "Since in the eyes of Chandra we are not worthy of our editorship,
why should we then think that our newspapers are a worthy place for him
to air his views." The implied threat is that since I have been critical
of editors like him, he will not in future give me any space in his
newspaper. This is an outstanding example of petty infantile thinking.
It is like a Director of a hospital telling a consumer activist that
since he has chosen to attack the standard health services in the
country, he'll make sure that he (the activist) does not receive any
medical treatment in his hospital.Finally, Kadir concludes that his diatribe against me on a sarcastic
note. "We are not good enough for Chandra," he says. Kadir, it does not
matter whether one is good enough for Chandra. Chandra is not important.
What is important is whether you and others like you are good enough for
journalism.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar
President
International Movement for a Just World
5 November 1998