Malaysia's Media Neutrality; A Hopeful Hope

The need for reliable and neutral information through the main sources has become more tangible and pressing in recent times. Mainstream mass media in Malaysia, may it be the electronic or print press has relayed significant news coverage on many affairs and happenings throughout time. Mainstream media has stamped its presence in Malaysian atmosphere even before the moment of independence from the British colony. Historically, several newspapers have been one of the major factors in fighting for the community’s causes and in intensifying the urge for independence.

            Ever since, mainstream mass media has evolved to an extent which can cater the need of civilians in this era of “information-craving”. With the advent of Internet, free flow of information has sent the publications and news providers competing to attract more readerships.

            But, a bigger question arises; is Malaysian mainstream mass media really serving its purpose?

            Having an array of choices in dailies to choose from, one can inevitably proclaim that it is difficult to even state whether a newspaper or a news provider is truly neutral and non-partisan. It is evident that major political parties in Malaysia own huge stakes in the news publications. For example, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) owns around 49.77% ownership in Utusan Malaysia and one of its key ally, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) owns 42.4% equity holding in The Star Publications. Certainly, in a country which propagates human rights, anyone or even any parties should be allowed to participate in any news publication firms. But, definitely this should NOT be done at the expense of the public.

            For a better experience, one can flip through the pages of a well-known mainstream newspaper for personally. Most domestic news coverage would be revolving around the ruling government and its “successes”. Or in another scenario, the good news pertaining to the owner of the publication will be emphasised, in effort to create a good reputation all for them. Any unpleasant news or controversies regarding the owner, the political parties or the individuals-related to the owner goes under little scrutiny or hardly, not at all.

 

            This would be in direct contrast if a negative controversy relating to any leaders in the opposition front leaks out. Those issues are brought under extreme scrutiny and sometimes, are blown out of proportion. It is not my aim to tarnish the profession of a journalist or the works of a news publication, but these scenarios do happen.

            As a result, in the aftermath of Malaysia’s 13^th General Election, a recent Consumer and Media View report by Nielsen, showed that, newspapers saw a drop of between 10 percent to 40 percent in readership during the second quarter of this year. This was reported by The Edge Weekly and the major reason quoted for the sales plunge was no other than…yes you guessed it right; media biasness and inclination towards to the ruling party. This actually provides clear indication to the Government that serious and prompt actions need to be taken, as soon as possible!

            Not only is that, newspapers owned by the opposition parties are much marginalised with non-necessary requisites. These include the rule of selling the newspapers i.e Harakah and Suara Keadilan, only to the party members and having a different newsstand for these newspapers. Whilst some might be supporting the move, this clearly indicates the denial of freedom of expression.

            The readers should be served with reliable and neutral news from the non-partisan view. You may own the publication but it is the people who subscribe your newspapers and updates. Never deny them the rights to obtain untainted news as they pay for it.

            So far, the Government has played significant roles in liberalising the mass media including the introduction of the Printing Presses and Publications (Amendment) Act 2012 which liberates the publication as annual permit renewal is no longer required and the Home Minister’s “absolute discretion” in granting or refusing a printing press licence. Apart from these, many other ways were introduced to regain public confidence and trust in the civil governance. Yet, there is still room for improvements.

            Malaysia has fared bad in the World Press Freedom Index 2013. Malaysia has been ranked at 145^th position; a drop of 23 positions from a year earlier. Even worse, Malaysia has been ranked way below low-development countries (LDCs) like Haiti and Uganda, to name a few. Even Tunisia, which has just gone through revolution to topple its dictator, is ranked above Malaysia. Thus, this delivers alarming indication to the Malaysians that prompt and effective actions need to be deployed.

This article suggests the formation of a National Media Neutrality Commission. With the inception of this commission, mainstream media can be well-regulated to pre-empt any manipulation of media for political and personal benefits by any parties. However, this establishment should materialise only with clear commitment from the Government to push forward for media neutrality. Regulations under this proposed commission should not be misused for political expediency. The chief of the commission should be appointed through the American-type “congressional hearing” where nominated candidates should be interviewed and scrutinised by a particular committee under the Parliament comprising of members of Parliament from both sides of the political divide.

If aspirations for media neutrality materialises, no longer libellous statement from politicians and columnists will be seen. News coverage will encompass unbiased information and opinions, which posthumously create a pathway for broad-minded citizens. As a further matter, availability of media neutrality provides untainted news coverage to Malaysian population who has no connection to the Net and therefore, has no access to online social media or even online news portal. This group of the population usually has only access to the free-to-view channels. Just imagine, if even such limited sources of information are “painted” with biasness and political inclinations, the huge aspirations of building a knowledgeable community in Malaysia shall always remain a dream. At the same time, existence of such Media Neutrality Commission will discourage spreading of lies and discriminatory news coverage in online news portals, regardless to the fact whether the portals belong to the ruling party or the opposition front.

Apart from these, monopoly of a single corporate entity in the media-sphere needs to be taken into great concern. Media Prima, a media behemoth controls stake in the free-to-view channels such as TV3, 8TV, ntv7 and TV9. In addition to that, the Group also owns more than 98% equity interest in The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad (NSTP), Malaysia’s largest publisher which publishes three national newspapers; New Straits Times, Berita Harian and Harian Metro. Media Prima also owns three radio stations; One FM, Hot FM and Fly FM.

Such domination by a single entity can possibly lead to prejudice in news coverage and information delivery. In this “information-craving” world, the media sector needs to be liberated with more players allowed to participate, creating a competitive zone which will ensure competition to deliver the best yet fair and free news coverage to the civilians.

Having said all these, this proposed commission needs to be boosted with a comprehensive media law. Yet, it has to be reminded that such statute should not carry the characteristics of a draconian law which aims to suppress freedom of expression in Malaysia. Hypothetically, the proposed National Media Neutrality Commission can successfully materialise, if and only if, clear-cut commitment from the Government is pledged for the betterment of Malaysia’s media-sphere.

America versus China; The Impact on Malaysia & Asia-Pacific

When United States of America faced its worst market crash in 2008 since the catastrophic 1929 Great Depression, little did its people know that the worst was yet to come. It took quite some time for the economic powerhouse to stabilise after continuous sluggish economic growth, severe unemployment and high national debt plagued the nation. Since day one after inheriting the “most sought after seat” from his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama was seen discreetly struggling to put the Uncle Sam’s nation back on track. Nevertheless, he was not to be blamed as most of the problems were inherited from the previous Republican president, George Bush Jr.

            The market crash in early 2008 dubbed as the Great Recession, took place no thanks to unscrupulous bankers and corporate honchos in America’s financial district; the famed Wall Street. The subprime mortgage crisis shook everything apart, leaving many defaulting in their loan repayments and others retrenched without ample compensation. Worse, it was complemented with the much anticipated housing bubble burst. To the uninitiated, to put it simple, housing bubble burst occurs when supply of housing units overrides demand, thus in the process, dragging the market price to a remarkable low level. Whilst this left many new units unoccupied, the speculators who jumped on the bandwagon earlier to profit on the escalating real estate industry received the biggest blow.

            In a bigger scope, even the flamboyant MNCs in US were hit hard by the economic meltdown. Conglomerates like American International Group (AIG) were pushed to the periphery of bankruptcy but was fortunate enough to be bailed out by using America’s taxpayers’ money. To the unlucky ones like the once high-flying Lehman Brothers, it was the end of the road for its stakeholders.

            This maelstrom in Wall Street initiated a brutal domino effect that wrecked economies throughout the globe, most notably the poor and developing economies. Worst off, for export-reliant nations like Malaysia, the economic contagion spelt a heftier damage. Malaysian economy plunged and experienced reduction in private spending. This eventually triggered the Premier, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to announce the roll-out of two fiscal stimulus packages amounting to RM 67 billion in 2009. But, while many parts of the world were facing dampened economic growth, Malaysia’s economy continued to perform miraculously in a very stable and steady manner, spearheaded by the Government’s various plans and initiatives under the National Transformation Policy. The Economic Transformation Programme launched soon after, propelled the economy to a greater prospect despite the world being shrouded in economic uncertainty.

Now, in 2013, Malaysia boasts with sound economic growth and significant level of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its diverse fields, “turbo-boosted” by the five notable economic corridors. Those corridors are the North Corridor Economic Region (NCER), East Coast Economic Region (ECER), Iskandar Malaysia, Sabah Development Corridor (SDC) and Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE). Scores of foreign investors have flooded Malaysian shores to invest in many projects and industrial developments. Not only that, Entry Point Projects (EPP) announced by the Prime Minister from time to time have managed to grab attention of not only domestic, but also international cornerstone investors.

            This scenario is not only visible in Malaysia, but also in various other nations in the Asian continent. Prompted by the subprime mortgage crisis in USA coupled with the turbulence in the 17-nations Euro group, investors have lost their “appetite” in the Western nations. After all, the sight of one by one nation in the Eurozone, being bailed out from bankruptcy by using rescue fund from International Monetary Fund did minimised their further interest in investing in those troublesome economies. Soon, in no time, with the limelight shining on Asia, “hot money” flowed into the developing countries which promised better future for their investments.

            And this is where another economic juggernaut rose to prominence. With United States losing its appeal, the Land of Sleeping Giant led by the Communist Party of China aggressively climbed to the top, pulling down Japan, to be “instated” as the world’s latest second biggest economy. The Great China has since become a living nightmare for America. Attracting regional and international investors due to its vast availability of low-cost labours and talent pool, People’s Republic of China became a destination for business-orientated individuals. Ever since Deng Xiaoping’s economic liberation in 1979, China has been growing remarkably outdoing its rivals, particularly after the economic crisis in 2008.

            Whilst some economists feel that China could outdo the US to be world’s biggest economic powerhouse by 2050, this nation is also bolstering itself in all possible aspects. China further advances by reinforcing its influence throughout the globe namely in the Asian Pacific region. This is the hardest blow to the United States and its Congress leaders. After all, most Americans would never have had a better impression on the capability of an Asian nation. Seeing China growing at a remarkable pace together with other better performing economies abbreviated as the BRICs which refers to Brazil, Russia, sub-continent India and China itself, is simply mind-boggling.

            Currently, China, world’s biggest carbon footprint producer, also claims all territories in South China Sea under its jurisdiction. Plus, the country is also struggling with many other issues like the spat over territorial islands rights with South Korea, the Philippines and Japan, the pressure by US to allow appreciation of the Chinese Renmimbi, rebellion in semi-autonomous Tibet and reunification with Taiwan.

            Democratic President Barack Obama saw this sudden growth of China as an imminent threat to America’s status quo in all four corners of the world. Thus, a year back, it was officially announced that the US shall no longer focus in the Middle East, and better US “diplomatic relations” will be fostered in the Asia-Pacific region. America’s involvement in Middle East started even before the Iran-Iraq war until the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq in the post-9/11 incident period. Although USA categorically denied that its military intervention has failed in the region, by all means, its venture in Iraq and Afghanistan were major flops. With serious deficits hitting its national bottom line, the States is no longer capable to afford more intervention in those nations, in the name of combating terrorism.

            To counter-attack China’s emerging influence in Asian Pacific, the States is foreseeing many possible avenues. Most notably, US has enhanced its power in the region through its proxies, the Philippines, Republic of Korea and Japan. In the meantime, it held military exercise with its proxies as preparation against any untoward attacks. In addition to this, in 2012, America and Australia formally inked an agreement for better future cooperation between the two powerhouses in terms of defence. While the US troops have been gradually petering out of Afghanistan and Iraq as pledged by 2014, their presence in the Asian Pacific region in the past two years has been intensifying.

            Besides that, the Obama administration has pushed for more collaboration with other economies in the region through the currently discussed Trans Pacific Partnership. This agreement seeks to promote free trade and intellectual property protection amongst the participating nations. With the States aiming high in improving its influence in the Asian Pacific region to overcome the new “Chinese fever”, ostensibly there are yet more United States led-initiatives to come.

            Hypothetically, while these two powerhouses are on the chase to outdo each other, may it be in terms of ideology or even economic success, the Malaysian leaders should always be aware. For Malaysia, both nations contribute heavily to its foreign investments and export industries. Thus, good diplomatic liaison with these nations should always be maintained for Malaysia’s own prosperity. Economic developments in Malaysia in recent days have been commended by many international parties such as the World Bank and IMF. With the government rolling-out more action-based policies to spur the economy, Vision 2020 as envisaged by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad can be successfully accomplished!

# My article in soon-to-be released Economics Faculty's magazine of University of Malaya.

An Equal Malaysia

In Malaysia, last Saturday may have been one of the most anticipated weekends ever. The Premier of the Federation of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak unveiled a slew of economic measures targeting the Bumiputra (indigenous population of Malaysia encompassing the Malay race and the aborigines) under the Bumiputra Economic Empowerment Plan.

This is widely seen as a continuance of affirmative action scoping on a particular group in Malaysia, which is in this case, the Bumiputra group. Whilst this has been received with inundating support from various quarters, particularly the Malay-business groups (with PERKASA, a Malay supremacist group demanding even more up to RM 1.4 trillion of Bumiputra Economic measures), many politicians and public figures have been quite critical of such announcement.

Bumiputra Economic Plan; Good or Bad?

In Malaysia, a country which boasts with a multiracial community (I know it’s quite cliché), inclusiveness of public policy which favours all the races is significantly needed. Any initiative that only puts emphasis to the development of only one race can be detrimental to the growth of the nation, in macro view. In the name of affirmative action, the Bumiputra group has been aided by the Government with the intention to elevate the economic status of the community. But, by saying this, has all the other races in Malaysia, the Indians, the Chinese, the Punjabis, etc, to name a few, been left out?

The special focus on the Bumiputra community has been closely linked with the so-called “social contract” (which in my opinion is non-existence). To the uninitiated, the Social Contract is usually referred to Articles 14-18, 152, 153 of the Malaysian Constitution. This social contract is said to be “verbally” agreed by the founding fathers and is based on “quid pro quo” basis. It was purportedly agreed that in return for the Malays’ consent in awarding citizenship to the new group of other races by the concept of “jus soli” rather than “jus sanguinis”, the non-Malays agree that special positions or “benefits” as mentioned in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution shall be given to the predominant Malays. But history aside, the idea of existence of this “social contract” is widely debated. In my perception, any contract which is made verbally, without any documentation, does not hold water. But, even if it exists, is the social contract still relevant?

Article 153?

This particular article in the Federal Constitution elaborates about the special positions reserved for the Bumiputras. These special positions include having quota reservations for the Bumiputras in education, public service employment, public scholarships and issuance of governmental permits and tenders. While I believe in equality regardless of skin complexion, I believe the Reid Commission (which drafted the Constitution) had noted the need of such constitutional provision. In 1957, when Malaya gained its independence, the polarization amongst the various races is inevitable. The blame for such polarization is usually put on the colonial masters for their divide-and-rule approach in administering Malaya prior to independence. Thus, it is understandable that in order to convince the Malays on the need for “accepting the new family members mainly from mainland India and China”. To put it succinctly, our ancestors made a trade which lasts up to now.

This Article 153 has been used by many, namely the Malay-supremacist groups to indicate that socio-economic benefits for the Bumiputras need to be increased more extensively. But, one has to remember…when Lord Reid and his team of five drafted the Constitution, this particular Article is given duration of merely 15 years that is up to 1972. Supposedly, in 1972, the bicameral Parliament should have made a review, whether to retain or to repeal the Article, This constitutional provision was never meant to stay indefinitely. This review, however never materialised as in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riot, a ruling was made that any discussion or debate relating to the special positions of the Bumiputras are strictly prohibited. One could now only wonder what could have happened if the review was really made in 1972.

As a further matter, the introduction of the New Economic Policy in 1971 has made the expansion of affirmative action more possible. More and more plans and benefits were introduced for the Bumiputras, and these include issuance of Approved Permits to import foreign-made automobiles, government tenders for supply and service below RM 100,000, government tenders on works below RM 50,000 and much more.

Many politicians have tried and will continuously defend these actions under the name of “affirmative actions” or “positive discrimination”. For them, the Bumiputras constitute of almost 80% of the household and priority should be given to improve their lifestyle. Plus, they might even argue that the Government’s aim to achieve 30% of equity ownership among the Bumiputras is yet to be attained and thus, such affirmative actions should resume.

What these public figures fail to understand is, there are also members of the other races that fall in the low-income group and suffers from poverty. Since 1971, Bumiputras percentage of equity ownership has increased, but why are many Bumiputras out there, still suffering from low-income plague. Affirmative actions have been implemented in many other countries apart from Malaysia. One good example is South Africa. After the election in 1994 which was won by the blacks-majority African National Congress for the first time, affirmative actions were introduced to elevate the economic status of the blacks. Fast forward, now after 19 years, achievements of such affirmative actions are very much doubted. Yet, one can be very certain to highlight whilst not many blacks have benefitted from the actions, the elite blacks have surely made their bucks.

This also happens in Malaysia where it is widely argued that the Malay elites have benefitted a lot from the affirmative actions. While it may be true that many other poor Malays have now escape poverty and attain high percentage of literacy, the number is still relatively small. It is evident that affirmative actions in Malaysia only favoured a small percentage of Bumiputras.

To summarize, what Malaysia NEEDS is an economy distribution that promotes inclusiveness. Ruling leaders should understand that words of unity alone are unwanted.

•   Bring in meritocracy into administration
•  award public scholarships to anyone with excellent grades regardless of race,
•  entrance to public universities should be made equal, any preference of a particular race must be eliminated
• Government tenders and those related government-owned companies should be opened to everyone, without exception
• Housing discount which is now only entitled for the Bumiputras should be stopped (perhaps, such discount can be given to people of low-income group; this will certainly help everyone)
• Abolish the requirement that 30% of unit under new housing projects should be sold to the Bumiputras
•  Matriculation programme seats should be given on merit, not according to quota
•  And many more….

If a major overhaul is done in creating a just economy distribution to all the races, Malaysia definitely will achieve better aspirations.

P/S: Please stop talking about the “Malay rights (hak kaum Melayu)” or the “Malay Supremacy (Ketuanan Melayu), they never existed in the Constitution and were never mentioned by the founding fathers.

“Well done is better than well said"

The Syrian Civil War; Against Bashar al-Assad

The blood spill in Syria never stops.

It is almost three years now ever since the rebellion against the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad first erupted following the massive Arab Spring. The entire globe has witnessed in the past three years many sovereign states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region “enraging” with hatred and dissenting attitude against the regional leaders. Initiated by the Jasmine Revolution in which a fruit seller is said to have immolated himself, the Arab Spring grew into world-shaking affair. Dictators in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt were toppled “successfully”, but not without innocent lives being slain. The Arab Spring is said to have “inspired” many other happening throughout the world, citing the 2011 pro-democracy demonstration in mainland China and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement as examples.

When Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, former President of Tunisia was ousted by the people’s power in late 2010, the virus was yet to spread into other neighbouring countries. Gradually, like wildfire, the anti-dictatorship force moved into other nations such as Egypt and Libya, and affecting the Shiite-majority country, Syria. Yet, what remains interesting in the Syrian case, whilst the dictators in other countries were removed from office, Bashar al-Assad is still standing strong.

The Syrian carnage has always been pressing from day one. In spite of various reports that have emerged pertaining to the number of casualties in the Syrian civil war, an accurate number is unlikely to be identified. Approximately, more than 100,000 lives are massacred and even more are displaced due to the on-going crisis. Seeing this happening, a smart question may pop-out…why hasn’t any international action taken to remedy this manslaughter?

Actually, seeing the severity of the civil war in Syria, the United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC) has long ago mooted the idea of sending United Nations’ military intervention to Syria, in order to halt the blood spill. This, nevertheless, never materialised as al-Assad’s ally, Russia was quick to veto against any military intervention. This was followed suit by People’s Republic of China as to their opinion, a domestic crisis is best to be solved by a country’s own nationals. So, apparently, it was three against two fight amongst the permanent members of the UNSC.

Acknowledging this failure, the Arab League and UN joined forces to form a Syrian crisis task force to mediate between the rebels and the President of Syria. Initially, this task force was led by the former Sec-Gen of UN, Kofi Annan. After series of investigations and rounds of diplomacy, Kofi Annan braved himself to resign, dictating briefly yet strictly, international military intervention is a must to put a halt to this civil war. Posthumously, Lakhdar Brahimi was appointed to succeed Mr Kofi Annan and more rounds of talks and mediation entails, while more and more lives are lost in Syria.

Recently, Syria again made its headlines as the sub-urban area of Damascus was said to be shelled by chemical agent. Hundreds if not thousands of Syrians are sent to the hospitals, with most diagnosed to suffer from muscle and nerve failure, most likely caused by hazardous nerve agent. This has prompted President Obama to reveal his planning in sending US army for strikes in Syria. Despite military actions are not sanctioned by the Security Councils of UN, US and its possible allies may launch attacks under the name of NATO. This has been done previously, in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

However, this plan is yet to be confirmed. As of now, the US Congress is deliberating on approval of such attack (interestingly, many Congressman from the Democratic Party and the GOP approve). However, in United Kingdom, David Cameron was left red-faced when the Parliament has disapproved any attack on Syria. Obviously, with the loose coalition government in United Kingdom now, this Tory prime minister is highly unlikely to join the United States in any form of attack on Syria. So far, only the President of France, Francois Hollande has made his case clear that France is ready for any action to be taken on blood-soaked Syria.

When the Obama administration revealed that military attacks may be launched against the Syrian army for using harmful nerve agents in its civil war, many sceptics continue to question President Obama’s credibility. After being elected as the first Afro-American president of America, Barack Obama caught worldwide attention as he revealed his intention to mend America’s relationship with the Arab world. Thus, any attack plan on Syria should sound contradicting to his previous stand.

Pundits and analysts have also assumed that Israel may have connections in regards to this sudden change. To elaborate, Israel is a Jewish state, landlocked within a Muslim-majority region. The Israel-Palestine problem has long irked and angered the rest of the Muslim world. Iran, especially together with Hezbollah from Lebanon has always posed much threat to the security of Israel. This is much notable as when the new President of Iran, Hassan Rowhani has sent his greeting wishes for the Jewish New year, the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu has received it with much scepticism.

But, how does this exactly link up with Syria? To the uninitiated, Iran and Hezbollah are allies to the current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Thus, with the possible destruction of the al-Assad power in Syria, threats against the security of Israel will be reduced significantly.

To cut it short, it is unfortunate to witness an entire state failing to provide security for its own citizens. While international understandings such as the “Fourteen Points by Woodrow Wilson” and the “1648 Peace of Westphalia” dictate that a fate of a country should be left to its own nationals, the international bodies like United Nations and others cannot stay put and do nothing due to political affiliations. Actions need to be taken before these 100,000 casualties grow into millions.