The world is watching too, Azalina…
In the past week, at least two AFP reports and several foreign columnists have implicated Malaysia’s restrictive media environment, examples of how the international community is reacting to violations against democracy occurring in this country.
In “Malaysian bloggers warned being monitored”, posted on both the Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today’s websites, Youth and Sports Minister Azalina Othman called bloggers “cowards”, “a nuisance to the ruling party” and warned that they will not “get away with it”. The question remains…get away with what? The AFP article showed clear partiality to the threatened bloggers by highlighting how opposition parties have “resorted to blogs, SMS messaging and Youtube…to dodge a virtual blackout on mainstream media”. Even Azalina Othman stated that the opposition parties were using blogs to get their message out.
So why are they being threatened and monitored? It is the political objective of an opposition party to get their message out to the electorate — with whatever means it has to its disposal. And yes, it is the political objective of the opposition to be “a nuisance to the ruling party”. The government minister condemned the opposition parties for exercising the political and democratic right—making information available to the people—that is fundamental to the process of a free, fair and democratic election. And the international community—at least those entities within the communications field—has not turned a blind eye to the situation.
The AFP report acknowledged how mainstream media outlets—“many partly owned by parties in the ruling coalition—have given blanket coverage to the government and its achievements” over the election period. It then cited Reporters Without Borders’ worldwide press freedom index, in which Malaysia ranks 124 out of 169 nations. This figure should be a wake-up call to everyday Malaysian citizens as well as politicians: the country’s current state of media ownership is a roadblock to the realisation of democracy.
Democracy goes beyond the right to vote; it involves the right to make an informed, calculated decision after considering all of the options. If Malaysia wants to be considered a democratic nation on an international level, its citizens and politicians alike should strive towards media reform and the abolition of what AFP dubbed as “draconian internal security laws which provide for detention without trial”.
Malaysiakini disappoints
Typically commendable for critical journalism in accreditation to its independent status, Malaysiakini’s “MIC evolving to meet rising expectations” left much to be desired. The main problem with the piece—or perhaps it was the choice of headline—is that at no point were readers informed on how the MIC plans to bring this statement to fruition. Despite “an exclusive interview” with MIC candidate S. Murugesan in his car, the candidate is allowed to offer vague musings on the way in which the MIC will remain relevant to voters. The report stated that S. Murugesan “chose his words carefully when posed with sensitive questions”; however, as he could not possibly walk away from an undesirable question, the car-ride interview was a perfect opportunity to scratch beneath the surface.
Yet, S. Murugesan got away with blanket statements, such as: “MIC will rise to the occasion and remain relevant to the Indian community” and “new ideas and new way of thinking have to come up…and it is coming up” [sic]. While stressing that he wants to “[inject] new ideas and strategies” into the party, S. Murugesan was not pressured to offer or outline any of these ideas or strategies (or if he was, Malaysiakini did not provide a ‘refuse to comment’ notice). The grittiest the interview got was when S. Murugesan agreed that “the problems confronting the Indian community were far more complex [than Tamil schools and temples]”; but rather than getting into the complex issues, S. Murugesan blurted out that “Tamil schools and temples are also important”. Thanks, Captain Obvious.
The interview ventured into a discussion on youth concerns, providing more blanket statements, such as: “we must look at employment and business opportunities. We have to make sure that the Indians, especially the youths, must learn how to be self reliant”. S. Murugesan added that Indian youth must “think out of the box and venture into the business sector”.
Here, a multitude of questions could have been addressed: how does the MIC plan to tackle the problem of illegal foreign workers? What strategies will MIC employ to help Indian youth become more self-reliant? Will they sponsor workshops? Provide scholarships? Oversee training and apprenticeships? How can one possibly “venture into the business sector” without adequate knowledge, training and access to loans and other resources needed to start a personal business?
But alas, these questions went unasked, and thus, unanswered. The reader is left with little more critical insight than if they had been perusing a mainstream publication. For the party’s sake, I hope the 40-year-old candidate has more ideas up his sleeve than Malaysiakini could unfold; if not, the only thing he’ll be injecting into the MIC’s veins is air.
No comments:
Post a Comment