Helen Ang
Nov 22, 07 12:45pm
Last week, Kee Thuan Chye opined that many non-Malays have been
conditioned to swallow wholesale Ketuanan Melayu propaganda from the
exhaustive indoctrination and would probably vote Barisan Nasional
again come the general election.
Part 2 of the Q & A continues. The views expressed here are strictly
the interviewee's own and do not reflect the stand of any
organisation that he is with.
Helen: Let's examine the nuances of non-Malay support for the
incumbency. Pundits are predicting that disgruntled Chinese will
swing to the opposition this time around. So it may actually turn out
that a large percentage of the community will indeed buck the status
quo.
What I think is that while Chinese are prepared to secretly (they
will refuse to tell anyone who they voted for) cast their once-every-
five-years ballot in favour of the opposition, their mindset in the
remaining four years and 364 days will remain as you say,
conditioned: fearful, refusing to engage and self-centred.
But given the uneven electoral playing field and lack of proportional
representation, popular disenchantment may nonetheless not translate
into a diminished BN influence. Sadly true?
Kee: The gerrymandering that has been done has really made it harder
for the Chinese to swing votes in many constituencies. I was in
Balakong a couple of weeks ago and the residents there told me that
their constituency used to be opposition-controlled, but lately with
the redemarcation exercise, the BN has been winning.
There used to be about 70 per cent Chinese in the constituency but
that has been diluted to about 50 per cent. The other 20 per cent has
been moved to another constituency. They don't foresee the opposition
winning it back this coming election unless a huge majority of the
remaining 50 per cent vote for them. Many Chinese, however, tend to
vote BN.
Surely they can see that BN is a gross disservice to their community?
Who are those still so blinkered?
Those in business, those who fear PAS, those who think BN will
provide the peace and order to allow them to pursue their livelihood,
those who don't want to rock the boat, those with vested interests
and enjoy the patronage of the ruling establishment – these are the
Chinese who will stand by it.
The BN needn't worry about not winning. It would be a great shock if
they lost. But I think BN's greatest fear – more so Umno's, really –
is not getting a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Without that,
they can't have things their way. The Ketuanan Melayu agenda might
not be so easily promoted. They will also find it difficult to settle
for anything less when they've had it so good since elections were
introduced in this country. A loss of the two-thirds could spark the
beginning of a decline, which in the long term could result in Umno
going through what the Indian National Congress or the Liberal
Democratic Party of Japan have gone through.
I agree about the two-thirds majority being a matter of standing and
'face' for Umno. But what helps BN keep face is the thick layers of
make-up that the mainstream media are prepared to paint on the
coalition. The Bersih rally is the most recent example of the MSM's
cosmetic enhancement to conceal the heavy-handed and unwarranted
approach by the authorities.
We can note that one of the reforms called for by Bersih is that
opposing views have free and fair access to the mass media. Isn't an
impartial media the essence of a democracy?
Yes, that's the essence of a democracy. This should have been one of
the cornerstones of the '101 East' forum on Al-Jazeera TV last week
featuring lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz
and Umno Youth deputy leader Khairy Jamaluddin. The forum discussed
Bersih's Nov 10 march ending in the handing over of their memorandum
to the King calling for fair and free elections.
Yet for all that Khairy said on the show about the reforms that have
been made by the Elections Commission such as the use of indelible
ink, transparent ballot boxes, etc, he still ignored the main plot –
how can elections be fair if the opposition is virtually blacked out
in the media and the usual airing they get is when something negative
is reported about them?
I'm sure he's smart enough to know that free media access to all
parties is the key issue, but he also appeared smart enough to
deflect it by bringing up the cosmetic improvements.
Nazri, on the other hand, was far less brainy. In fact, he proved to
be deficient at debating. And when he ran out of argument, he
resorted to arrogance.
He said, ostensibly without thinking, that there was no need to
reform the political system, that the views of civil society didn't
carry any weight. He implied that the government was always right
because "we are the representatives of the people". If the people
have grouses, use the ballot box. Which he kindly pointed out comes
about once every five years. That's a pretty long time to wait to air
your grouses. Why not air them at any time? Isn't that standard
practice in a true democracy? He said what the public demands is not
necessarily right. At the end of the day, he asserted, "we will decide".
So clearly, as you're saying, we're not a true democracy, we're a
flawed one premised on an even more flawed electoral system. And,
yes, the BN, for which one can read Umno, decides on everything. But
this is not something you'd grasp reading our local media. Is this
'oversight' due to over-regulating?
Khairy said the PM had announced that in the near future, the media
would be allowed to regulate itself. "In the near future" sounds
vague. But more importantly, what would be the real point of self-
regulating if the media continues to have the Printing Presses and
Publications Act around its neck? As we know, that Act requires all
print media in this country to obtain a licence that has to be
renewed annually – at the discretion of the Home Ministry. What an
effective mechanism to encourage self-censorship, don't you think?
Well, what I think about the newspapers' self-censorship can only be
expressed in unladylike language, I'm afraid.
Can one blame newspapers, which survive or close down at the pleasure
of the Home Ministry, for being cautious about what they publish?
Obviously, no. But being cautious and being subservient are two
different things. Hiding the truth, choosing not to report
significant news because it may be damaging to the government,
putting a spin to certain events in the reporting of them to protect
the government – these are the practices of the subservient. But is
there always a choice between being one or the other? There is, if
newspapers don't get instructions from political leaders or their
lackeys on what not to publish.
I've written this time and again. Newspapers toe the line set by
their owners, who are the political masters of this country or their
cronies. Correct?
Yes, many newspapers are owned by political parties, usually through
a third party. And this does affect newspaper policies. Even so, the
control was not as tight until Dr Mahathir Mohamad came along.
Curbing the press and causing it to cower started with him. His
suspension of several newspapers in 1987 was a watershed. Since then,
no newspaper – indeed, no radio or TV station either – has dared to
criticise the PM. It has become a tradition!
But, surely, the PM can't always be above censure. He's here to serve
the people. So are his ministers. They can't speak down from their
high horse and declaim, "We will decide."
Nazri is not the only minister who exhibits arrogance. Some of his
colleagues share the same trait. It shows in their intolerance of
criticism. Which usually results in their inability to handle flak.
Then, they get defensive and start saying the most inane things.
One good example is Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin. From the
things he's been saying in the past months, you can't imagine he was
once a journalist. And a former chief editor, would you believe?
Easily! (laughs out loud). It – the inanity – comes with a Datukship.
Zainuddin's bungling response to the Bersih march is now famous – or
is it notorious? But let me first address what he said more than two
weeks ago, just before the Umno general assembly, about young Malay
writers being used by the English press to attack the Malays. He even
named names – Azmi Sharom and Amir Muhammad. I know both of them
well; they're not the sort who would allow themselves to be used by
anyone. They wouldn't write what they didn't believe. Zainuddin's
remark amounted to nothing less than an insult. He should apologise
to Azmi and Amir.
As for his rebuke against Al Jazeera for its coverage of the Bersih
demonstration, he will go down in history as saying that there is no
point in holding protests because we have elections in Malaysia. How
that logically connects, only 'he' knows. In any case, there was a
protest in Kuala Lumpur when Condoleeza Rice was in town and another
last month against the actions of the Myanmar junta. Khairy himself
was involved in both. In fact, he took centre stage. And both were
presumably issued permits. So, what gives?
What's not given! Bersih's permit application was rejected as was
Hindraf's for this Sunday to hand over their petition (to Queen
Elizabeth) at the British High Commission.
In any case, Bersih was not disputing that there are no elections, it
only wanted a free and fair one. And even with elections, it doesn't
mean that such protests are unnecessary. If the people feel unhappy
about the way things are run in the country, they should have the
recourse to make it known. One such recourse is holding a demonstration.
I'm not drawing parallels between Malaysia and the Philippines, but
if there had been no People's Revolution, no masses of people taking
to the streets to express their disgust for a corrupt regime,
Ferdinand Marcos would have continued to stay in power and possibly
milked the country dryer.
BN's chokehold on 'the system' from winning every election has made
it impervious to recognising the people's rights, one of which is the
freedom of assembly and, as you say, utilising this freedom to protest.
The other day, I was watching Fahmi Reza's film Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum
Merdeka, which documents big demonstrations, big rallies in our own
Malaya of 1947. These were allowed then – 60 years ago, when we
weren't even independent. Now we are an independent country and
certain demonstrations are not allowed – especially those that don't
belong to the right camp. It's ironic. What's the meaning of Merdeka
then?
Actually, I think the Bersih demonstration only made the government
look bad after the fact because of the unseemly handling of the
situation – after the water cannon used on the marchers, after
Zainuddin's boo-boo, after Nazri and Khairy's confirmation of the
government's double standards, after the news spinning in the media
for days afterwards.
If it had been given a permit in the first place and the media had
given it neutral coverage, it wouldn't have attracted such
unwarranted attention. An event that big could not have gone
unnoticed. The sensible thing would have to been to let it be
recorded objectively. Malaysians would have read it and probably
said, "Hmmm … okay, it happened" and gone on with their daily lives.
Surely, it wasn't going to revolutionise their lives or change their
mindset radically.
When something is a normal part of existence, we don't respond to it
with extra excitement, we just take it as it comes. That is something
that the government should surely realise. For instance, if you ban a
book because you don't want it widely distributed, the banning could
actually make it even more popular. People become curious. And so,
people became curious about Bersih.
Unfortunately, people's curiosity will not be assuaged by the
mainstream media we now have. Aside from getting a true picture of
events like Bersih's Nov 10, why else do we need a free media in
Malaysia?
A free media will open the way for us to speak freely to one another
as citizens of the nation, regardless of race. Then, we can have
dialogue about ethnic issues with our Malay, Chinese and Indian
compatriots and express our concerns candidly. As it is now right
now, if you're Chinese, don't you often feel you can't discuss, say,
the NEP with your Malay friends – and vice versa? No matter how close
that friend is, there will be a barrier.
After all, these are – as we are always reminded by our leaders and
the media – "sensitive" issues. As long as we think that, we will be
wary of not offending each other, an act that could lead to a loss of
friendship. I have a Malay friend I consider to be my brother, but I
would never engage him in face-to-face discussion of race issues or
tell him how disenfranchised I often feel.
However, if there were a free media and any issue could be discussed
openly, we would have a different world. I wouldn't have that same
hang-up. It would be the norm to speak freely. I could have a
dialogue with my Malay friends, colleagues, acquaintances. Or even
just complain about inequalities. We could agree with each other or
we could agree to disagree. They would know where I'm coming from,
and I would know where they're coming from. We wouldn't be holding a
knife or a keris behind our backs. It would be actually much
healthier. Better than bottling up frustrations and resentments, as
is the case now.
When we can speak freely and frankly, only then can there be a real
and deep connection among the people of different races. Despite all
the government's propaganda, the so-called racial unity and harmony
that we have now is merely superficial. Polarisation is still the
order of the day. Central issues are unresolved. All it takes is for
things like the economy to take a turn for the worse and the
unresolved tensions will flare up and threaten peace and stability.
There is really no need to fear a free media. We are 50 years old as
a nation. If our leaders are mature and responsible, they will advise
their respective tribes to be rational and take part in fruitful
discourse rather than resort to violence. Besides, we have the law.
One excellent test case was the discussion of Article 11 of our
Constitution, organised by the Article 11 Coalition and Aliran. That
should have been a forum for rational exchange of ideas. Instead, we
gave in to the violence-mongers. The authorities didn't put them in
their place and warn them against taking the law into their own
hands. Instead, the authorities pampered them, let them have their
way, let them get away with their threats.
I feel very strongly about this, so I'm going to have my say here
too. The Chinese are too fearful and apathetic, too short-sighted and
self-serving! That's why they will not stand up for Article 11 and
Lina Joy, but compliantly bend to the expediency that she's a Malay-
Muslim "problem". She's not! She's a Malaysian issue, and affects
every single of us.
You are right, but there are those who will tell you that if we
discuss such issues openly, the consequences may be disastrous. I
think they are exploiting this to keep us in line, keep us fearful
and therefore thankful for their protection. If we go by the rule of
law and our police act according to the law, those who threaten
violence can be contained. Unless, of course, they are organised by
powerful parties.
To come back to your question: why, indeed, do we need a free media?
At the very least to expose corruption, malpractices and inexplicable
practices. For instance, a free media would surely conduct a thorough
investigation into the case of the Perak state building in Belum that
collapsed. To get at the 'real' truth. And that's just for starters.
The media should indeed give us a regular dose of investigative
journalism, but it would be pointless instituting that when there
will always be some party blocking you from telling the truth.
We have heard it said many times before that ours is a culture of
fear. Truly, it's also fast becoming a culture of fearing the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment