|
Zaharom Nain & Mustafa K. Anuar
The history of the mainstream press and broadcasting in Malaysia has been one of stringent political, legal and, more recently, economic controls. From the emergence of the first newspaper, The Prince of Wales Gazette, in 1806, the introduction of state-run television, RTM, in 1963, the emergence of commercial television, TV3, in 1984, and the launching of Malaysia's first broadcast satellite, Measat 1, in 1996, the state's role in the overall scheme of things has been central. The following article discusses the implications for contemporary Malasian society.
It has been aptly noted that 'If the interests of the information and culture producers and the powers that be are intertwined, a society's capacity for democratic government is seriously undermined' (Hamelink, 1994: 92). The mainstream press in Malaysia can be characterised as having gone through a major period of evolution, beginning in the early 1980s, coinciding with the period in which Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister. This is apparently a trend that has extended into the 1990s.
The early 1980s saw the emergence of new titles, signifying to many a liberalisation of media policies, a relaxation of control. According to one source (Information Malaysia, 1980-81 and 1985), between 1981 and 1985 alone, the number of titles of local newspapers, magazines and journals in circulation increased from 56 to 102 - a remarkable increase of about 80%, made even more remarkable given the introduction of the Printing Presses and Publications Act in 1984 and the amendments made to it in 1987.
Indeed, going by crude quantitative indicators, it would appear that in the mid-1990s Malaysians were spoilt for choice, being well-served by the media. As indicated in Table 1, in 1993 there were 39 dailies circulating in Malaysia, certainly more than those serving Singapore (8), Thailand (8) and the Philippines (25) (see Goonasekera and Holaday, 1993).
Table 1
Malaysian Newspapers (1993)
Dailies
- National Language English Chinese Tamil Others Total
- Peninsular Malaysia 4.00 6* 6.00 3.00 1.00 20.00
- Sabah 1** 1.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 9.00
- Sarawak 0.00 3.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
- Total 5.00 10* 20.00 3.00 1.00 39.00
Source: Adapted from Information Malaysia (1992-93)
*Includes the Sun which does not publish on Saturday and Sunday. Excludes Leader which is a free paper with a limited circulation. The Leader has since stop production.
**Includes the Daily Express which is a bilingual (Malay/English) daily.
In the same period, as the figures in Table 2 indicate, Peninsular Malaysians also appeared to be well-served by weekly news publications, particularly by those in the national language.
Table 2
Malaysian Newspapers (1993)
Weeklies and Bi-weeklies
- National Language English Chinese Tamil Others Total
- Peninsular Malaysia 13* 4.00 3** 1.00 1.00 22.00
- Sabah 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
- Sarawak 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
- Total 13* 4.00 4** 1.00 1.00 23.00
Source: Adapted from Information Malaysia (1992-93)
*Includes Watan which is a bi-weekly.
**Includes New Life Post which is a bi-weekly.
Unfortunately, crude quantitative indicators, while seemingly impressive, have a nasty habit of cloaking hard, cold facts; in this case, facts regarding concentration of ownership, elements of legal, political and economic control, and their implications for newspaper content and genuine variety of choices.
Indeed, for quite some time now, all four national language dailies in Peninsular Malaysia, Berita Harian, Harian Metro, Utusan Malaysia, and Utusan Melayu have been published by just two local media giants, the New Straits Times Press (NSTP), which publishes Berita Harian and Harian Metro, and Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad, which publishes Utusan Malaysia and Utusan Melayu. The concentration becomes more evident when we consider the national language weeklies, since the two leading weeklies (in terms of circulation and readership), Berita Minggu and Mingguan Malaysia, are also published by the same two companies (see Table 3).
Table 3
New Straits Times Press (NSTP) (1995) and Utusan Melayu (1996) Involvement in the media industry
- Subsidiary Companies Associated Companies Newspapers Published Magazines Published
- NSTP
(1995) 26
includes:
Berita Harian Sdn Bhd (100%)
Berita Book Centre (100 %)
Berita Publishing (100%)
Marican (92.5%)
American Malaysian Life Assurance (100%)
4
includes:
Asia Magazine Ltd (26.9%)
Kloffe Capital Sdn Bhd (22.2%)
Commerce-Asset Holdings Bhd (20.2 %) Dailies
a] New Straits Times (E)
b] Berita Harian (M)
c] Malay Mail (E)
d] Business Times (E)
e] Shin Min Daily News (C)
f] Harian Metro (M)
Weeklies
a] New Sunday Times (E)
b] Berita Minggu (M)
c] Sunday Mail (E) a] Malaysian Business
b] Investors Digest
c] Her World
d] Jelita
e] Information Malaysia
f] Periodica Islamica
g] New Straits Times Annual
h] Her World Annual
i] Her World Cookbook
j] Her World Home Scene Annual
k] Sajian Jelita
l] Khidmat
Utusan Melayu
(1996) 14
includes:
Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn Bhd (100%)
Utusan Melayu (Singapore) Pte Ltd (100%)
Utusan Pearl & Dean (72.8%)
9*
includes:
Swan Malaysia Sdn Bhd (40%)
Electronic Data Interchange (25%)
City Television Sdn Bhd (30%) Dailies
a] Utusan Malaysia (M)
b] Utusan Melayu (M)
c] Leader (E)**
Weeklies
a] Mingguan Malaysia (M)
b] Utusan Zaman (M) a] Wanita
b] URTV
c] SAJI
d] Al-Islam
e] Mastika
f] MASSA
g] Mangga
h] Pemikir
i] Komik Kawan
j] Cerdas Pintar
Source: The KLSE Annual Handbook, 1995 and 1996 and Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Annual Report, 1995.
E = English language newspapers
M = Malay or national language newspapers
C = Chinese language newspapers
*In early 1994 the Utusan Group became part of a consortium of 4 companies which was awarded the tender by the government to operate the new commercial television station, MetroVision.
**Publication of the Leader, a free newspaper for the Klang Valley region, has since ceased.
This, of course, is merely the tip of the iceberg since, as has been illustrated more comprehensively elsewhere (see Sally Cheong, 1993, Gomez, 1990, 1993, 1994), these companies, in turn, not only have interests in other media-related activities such as distribution and broadcasting, but are also controlled by groups closely aligned to the political parties in the ruling coalition. For example, in January 1993 the local media empire comprising Berita Harian, Berita Minggu, Harian Metro, the English dailies New Straits Times and Malay Mail, the Chinese daily, Shin Min Daily News and TV3, Malaysia's first private television station, came under the control of Realmild Sdn. Bhd., a private limited company which, in turn, was fully owned by a publicly listed company, Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd. (MRCB), effectively controlled by four individuals widely recognised as close associates of Anwar Ibrahim, the then Deputy Prime Minister (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
The MRCB Group structure as it relates to NSTP and TV3 (August 31 1993)
The intricacies of this deal - described as 'the biggest management buyout (MBO) in the local corporate sector' (Corporate World, February 1993) - are too extensive to go into in any great detail here. And it is, indeed, not our intention to replicate but rather to merely illustrate the fact that the major local press organisations, while seemingly increasing in number, nonetheless, are controlled by the same few actors (institutions and individuals) invariably aligned to political parties and leaders. By looking at the majority share ownership of the two media giants, NSTP and Utusan Melayu, as examples (see Figure 2 and Figure 3), we can see this pattern of concentration more clearly.
Figure 2
The 5 largest Shareholders of NSTP (1995)
Figure 3
- The 5 largest Shareholders of Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad (1996)
Television
Like the press, television too has seen apparently remarkable changes over the past decade. Television was first introduced in Malaysia in December 1963 with the help of technical consultants from Canada. The initial set-up comprised a single channel national network, under the control of the Department of Broadcasting (RTM) which, in turn, was one of three departments under the control of the Ministry of Information. In October 1969, a second channel was launched, also under the direct control of the Ministry of Information, and guided by the same directives as those which governed the operations of the first channel. (Karthigesu, 1991). These directives - which have remained virtually unchanged and which have informed broadcasting policy, at least for what are now called TV1 and TV2 - are:
•to explain in depth and with the widest possible coverage the policies and the programmes of the government in order to ensure maximum understanding by the public;
•to stimulate public interest and opinion in order to achieve changes in line with the requirement of the government;
•to assist in promoting civic consciousness and fostering the development of Malaysian arts and culture;
•to provide suitable elements of popular education, general information and entertainment.
•to aid national integration efforts in a multi-ethnic society through the use of the national language.
•(Ministry of Information, 1983)
What is apparent is that television - and, more generally, broadcasting - in Malaysia was from its inception closely aligned to the government. Both the RTM channels were established not through an Act of Parliament or by a Royal Charter, but via decisions made by the then Alliance coalition government which, in turn, formulated the policies that would determine the role television would play. The latter practice continues, certainly with the RTM channels, to the present day.
After almost two decades of virtual state monopoly of the television airwaves, a commercial television station, TV3, was allowed by the government to begin operating in 1984. It was initially hailed as a station that would 'provide newer, better quality and better choice of programmes' (Malaysian Business, 1 June 1984), although current developments, like the drastic increase in broadcast time beginning from 1 March 1994 and the emergence of MetroTV, indicate that the hunger for something that is ever new has remained unsatiated. These developments, of course, are related to the government's policy of 'privatisation', particularly the privatisation of what were once regarded as 'public services', broadcasting being one of them. And it is a development that is certainly not peculiar to Malaysia. Indeed, as far as television is concerned, many public broadcast systems, especially in Western Europe (see Blumler, 1993 and Venturelli, 1993) have for some time now been designing and implementing policies for transforming themselves into commercial entities. The option is often simplistically assumed to be between state-controlled media and the market, the latter seen as being more preferable based on the naive notion that the logic of the market inevitably will lead to plurality of choice, freedom and independence. This, as we have argued elsewhere (see Loh and Mustafa, 1996; Zaharom, 1994 and 1996) unfortunately, has turned out to be untrue.
In quantitative terms, television in Malaysia currently appears to be undergoing profound changes. As indicated in Table 1 and Table 2, the latter part of this decade sees Malaysian television expanding quite rapidly, with more channels being offered.
Table 4
The increase of television in Malaysia
(1990s)
- 1993 1994 1995 1996 *
- No. of broadcast channels 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
- No. of cable channels - - 4.00 5.00
- No. of satellite channels - - - 15.00
(* estimated)
Source: Malaysian Business, 1 January 1995: 99.
Table 5
Malaysian television stations (August 1997)
- Station Ownership Year Established Reach Language* Frequency Hours (daily)
- TV1 Government 1963 Nationwide Malay/English Daily 19.25
- TV2 Government 1969 Nationwide Malay/English Daily 11**
- TV3 Private 1984 Nationwide Malay/English Daily 24.00
- MetroVision Private 1995 Klang Valley Malay/English Daily 16.50
*Language here refers to the main medium of presentation. The national language (Malay) and English are the main languages used. However, programmes - including daily news programmes - in other languages, such as Tamil, Hindi and the main Chinese dialects, are common features, especially on TV2.
**From Monday through to Thursday, TV2 broadcasts 11.5 hours daily from approximately 3 p.m. to 2.30 a.m. On the remaining three days over the weekend, the broadcast hours are extended to 20 hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next day.
Despite this increase in channel offerings and broadcast hours, however, the credibility of Malaysian television as a source of information and its role as a 'purported tool for nation building' (Karthigesu, 1991) are still very much open to question and debate. Many a time, in fact, the criticisms and suggestions put across to those controlling television to democratise the industry in this fast developing economy, allowing greater representation in terms of ownership, unfortunately have fallen on deaf ears.
Indeed, more recent developments illustrate further the continuing concentration of media ownership. In early 1994, another local media giant closely aligned to UMNO, the Utusan Group, became part of a consortium of four companies that was awarded a tender by the government to operate Malaysia's second commercial television station, MetroVision (see Zaharom, 1994). Yet another company in the consortium is Melewar Corporation, controlled by Tunku Abdullah of the Negeri Sembilan royal house and a longtime close associate of Prime Minister Mahathir.
Malaysia's first pay-TV or subscription service, Mega TV, which began operating in the third quarter of 1995, is also run by a consortium using the company name Cableview Services Sdn. Bhd. The largest shareholder in the consortium, with a 40% stake, is Sistem Television Malaysia Berhad or TV3. The Malaysian Ministry of Finance has a 30% stake, while Sri Utara Sdn. Bhd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maika Holdings Bhd. (the investment arm of the Malaysian Indian Congress [MIC], another component of the BN coalition) has a 5% stake. (See Figure 4). This cable company has been quite active in extending its reach to the numerous 'well off' areas or states in the peninsular. Having started off by providing cable facilities in the lucrative Klang Valley, Mega TV has since expanded to the southern states of Malacca and Negri Sembilan and further north in Penang.
Figure 4
Ownership of Mega TV (1997)
As for satellite broadcasting, on 13 January 1996, the Malaysia East Asia satellite, Measat-1, was launched from Kourou, French Guiana. Described by one newspaper as 'marking the country's historic entry into space technology', (The New Straits Times, 14/1/1996), Measat-1 is owned by Binariang Sdn. Bhd. which, in turn, is owned by trusts associated with three Malaysians, most prominent of whom is manufacturing and horse racing tycoon, T. Ananda Krishnan. Ananda has been politely referred to by one Malaysian daily as 'a businessman who enjoys the confidence of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad.' (The Star, 9/1/1996). And the chairman of Binariang's board of directors is the former Inspector-General of the Malaysian police force, Hanif Mohamad Omar. Hence, as far as television - including satellite television - is concerned, what we have is a situation where the selective privatisation exercise continues to extend the tentacles of the ruling coalition and its allies even wider across the Malaysian economy, adding economic and cultural domination to what is already virtual political domination.
Some have naively entertained the notion that with the introduction of satellite broadcasting, the government was going to adopt an 'open sky' policy. However, the announcement by the Minister of Information in 1996 must have put paid to such a notion. Amendments to the 1988 Broadcasting Act to enable Measat to start its operations was tabled in Parliament on 14 October 1996. However, the amendments in no way have led to an open-sky policy. Instead, they have paved the way for tighter government control on signals reception, since under the amendments only 0.6 metre parabolic dishes can be used by consumers to receive signals from only the Measat satellite. Indeed, under the amendments to the Act, it is an offence for anyone to use bigger parabolic dishes. And the penalty for such an offence is a pretty hefty one - a fine of RM100,000 and a three-month jail sentence. This, according to the minister - who is not really renowned for being deliberately ironic or for his intellect - is where Malaysia has 'a semi-open sky policy' (The Star, 12 September 1996).
To understand the situation of the mainstream media in contemporary Malaysia, we need initially to locate their development within the wider contextual canvas of Malaysian development, particularly focusing on contemporary realities.
Social, political and legal factors
Three events mark recent Malaysian history. In 1948 a state of Emergency was declared, ostensibly to allow the colonial authorities to clamp down on the violent terrorist activities of the Malaysian Communist Party. It lasted until 1960 in which year, three years after Malaya had gained independence from the British, the Internal Security Act (ISA) came into existence. Nine years later, the General Elections saw the ruling Alliance coalition government almost ose its majority. Announcement of the results led to the bloody rthnic riots of 13 May 1969 and another state of emergency which lasted until 1971. It was during this period that a National Operactions Council (NOC) was formed to administer the country.
In 1971 a New Economic Policy (NEP) was instituted. This came about because the NOC felt that one of the reasons for the surge of ethnic suspicion and enmity in 1969 was socio-economic imbalances between ethnic groups, in particular the gap between Malays and non-Malays. In other words, the NEP was to address the socio-economic problems faced by the ethnic groups in the country so that national development and harmony could eventually be achieved - and ethnic violence thwarted.
Under the NEP, the government designed a five-year plan that emphasised economic growth as well as redistribution of economic opportunities to the Malays. The NEP had a two-pronged strategy: to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty; and to restructure society so that the identification of economic functions with ethnicity could be reduced and eliminated.
It was in this spirit of NEP, and also with the aim of increasing Malaysian participation in the national economy, that dominant political partners in the ruling coalition were prompted to invest in the country's major newspapers, to justify their corporate manoeuvres, and, at the end of the day, to exert control or influence over the newspapers they owned (Loh & Mustafa, 1996: 101-104). For instance, the government-owned trading company, Pernas, acquired 80% control of the Straits Times (Means, 1991: 136), which was originally held by investors from Singapore. Later a majority of the shares were transferred to Fleet Holdings, an investment arm of the dominant partner in the Barisan Nasional coalition, United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). The transfer of ownership was then followed by a change of name to the New Straits Times Press (NSTP). Fleet Holdings subsequently set up an investment company called Fleet Group that oversaw subsidiaries such as the NSTP. Such a corporate move was of great political significance because the take-over involved major mainstream newspapers under the NSTP stable: New Straits Times, New Sunday Times, Malay Mail, Sunday Mail, Berita Harian, Berita Minggu, Business Times, Her World, Malaysian Business, Jelita, Information Malaysia, etc.
Likewise, in this drive to Malaysianise media ownership, as indicated earlier in this article, UMNO now has direct or indirect ownership of the Utusan Melayu newspaper group. The array of major newspapers under the Utusan Melayu stable has a wide appeal among the Malay-speaking readership, in particular UMNO constituencies.
Further Malaysian participation in the private sector in this period also witnessed the involvement of another partner in the ruling coalition, MCA, in the newspaper industry. It now has a major stake in the popular English Language tabloid, The Star (Lent, 1982: 262), a business rival of the established New Straits Times.
The Printing Presses and Publications Act
This Act, a law governing the press in Malaysia, was introduced and passed in 1984. Apart from providing powers to the Home Minister to grant or withdraw a printing licence or a publishing permit (which was also stipulated in its predecessor, the Printing Presses Ordinance of 1948), the new law also extended controls over foreign press in that it required foreign papers and journals to pay large deposits which would be forfeited if the publishers did not appear in court to face charges of publishing materials 'prejudicial to the national interest'. The Ministry officials were given powers to censor or ban the offending publications.
The Act was considered draconian and very restrictive by critics and human rights activists (see, for instance, Chandra, 1986: 1-4). In contrast with the old Printing Presses Act of 1971, the amended Act of 1984 prohibited an applicant of a printing licence or publishing permit, whose application had earlier been rejected by the Home Minister, from making an appeal to the King. In short, the Act disallowed judicial review and the Home Minister's decision was final.
In addition, the amended law also differed from the old one in the sense that the previous law empowered the Minister concerned to grant a permit of 12-month duration while the 1984 Act gave the Minister the power to grant a permit with a much more limited duration if he so wished. In other words, the 1984 Act further enhanced the power of the government to control the press in the country.
As if this were not enough, amendments were made to the Act in 1987. They clearly illustrate the stranglehold the government has on the media. Under the amended Act, all mass circulation newspapers in Malaysia need to have a printing permit, granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, before they can be published. A new permit needs to be applied for every year. Section 13A of the amended Act totally empowers the Home Minister to reject applications for a printing licence (popularly known as the 'KDN') and to revoke or suspend a permit. The Minister's decision is final and cannot be challenged in a court of law. As stated under Section 13, sub-section (1) of the Act (emphasis added):
Without prejudice to the powers of the Minister to revoke or suspend a licence or permit under any other provisions of this Act, if the Minister is satisfied that any printing press in respect of which the licence has been issued is used for printing of any publication which is prejudicial to public order or national security or that any newspaper in respect of which a permit has been issued contains anything which is prejudicial to public order or national security, he may revoke such licence or permit.
On top of this, Section 7 of the amended Act empowers the Minister to prohibit the printing, sale, import, distribution or possession of a publication. The Minister may do this if he believes that the contents of a publication threaten morality, public order, security, public or national interests, conflict with the law or contain provocative matters. Thus, one has this situation where the decisions of one Minister are binding and, strictly speaking, the Minister is under no obligation to explain these decisions.
Broadcasting ands film
The Broadcasting Act, 1988 continues to play a crucial role in the underdevelopment of Malaysian broadcasting. The Act as it stands is both stringent and inflexible, and bestows enormous powers on the government to determine the type of television made available to the Malaysian public. The introduction of the Act in 1988 was clearly in anticipation of the further commercialisation of broadcasting, especially television. Indeed, in the midst of the supposed 'deregulation' of broadcasting, the Broadcasting Act now gives the Minister of Information virtually total powers to determine who will and who will not broadcast and the nature of the broadcast material. Under the Act, any potential broadcaster would need to apply for a licence from the minister beforehand. On paper, this translates into the fact that one individual has the power to decide. Further, Part III, Section 10, Subsection (1) of the Act (emphasis added), states that 'It shall be the duty of the licensee to ensure that the broadcasting matter by him complies with the direction given, from time to time, by the Minister.'
The October 1996 amendments made to this already-stringent piece of legislation were aimed at taking into account the introduction of new services, such as cable and satellite television, satellite radio, pay TV and video-on demand.
The National Film Development Corporation Act (FINAS) (1981) was amended in 1984 in response to technological changes that had taken place in the film industry. The amended Act, among other things, widens the definition of film to incorporate video tapes, video discs, laser discs, and video compact discs. By so doing, officials of FINAS can exercise control over and act on people who are found contravening certain provisions of the Act. Under the Act, anyone who possesses three or more copies of the same film is deemed involved in film distribution, and therefore is required to apply for a distribution permit.
Commercial interests and mainstream media
Trends in the Malaysian media indicate two clear developments, which may seem contradictory at first glance but, upon closer scrutiny, are not exactly at odds with each other, given the nature of politics and control in Malaysia. Firstly, there is little doubt that the government's privatisation policy has resulted in greater commercialisation of the media which, in turn, has resulted in more being offered. This has happened not by accident, but as part of the government's strategy. As Mahathir (1983: 277) himself announced in the early days of his administration, 'the government may be able to obtain substantial revenue from telecommunications, ports, radio and television, railways, etc... In view of this possibility, there is a need to transfer several public services and government owned business to the private sector.'
Secondly, this supposed liberalisation has not really resulted in a loosening of government control over the media, contrary to the initial beliefs of many. The reverse in fact has happened. As we have tried to indicate, over the past decade, the main forms of control over the media - legal, political and economic - have certainly been tightened.
Hence, what we presently have with the media is a situation of 'regulated deregulation'. Within this type of environment, it is not surprising that although we appear to be getting more from the media, what we really are getting is more of the same. In this environment, invariably also where the ownership and control of the media are in the hands of a few who are closely aligned to the government and who also wish to profit from the situation, there has been increasing emphasis on the production and importation of 'safe', often trivial, artefacts. From the endless quiz shows on television to the crossword competitions in the press, the emphasis continues to be on material that is non-contentious and easily marketable - those that will not question, examine or challenge the official discourse (see Zaharom, 1996). As Golding and Murdock (1991: 20) succinctly put it, when writing about commercial broadcasting:
The economics of commercial broadcasting revolves around the exchange of audiences for advertising revenue. The price that corporations pay for advertising spots on particular programmes is determined by the size and social composition of the audience it attracts. And in prime-time, the premium prices are commanded by shows that can attract and hold the greatest number of viewers and provide a symbolic environment in tune with consumption. These needs inevitably tilt programming towards familiar and well-tested formulae and formats and away from risk and innovation, and anchor it in common-sense rather than alternative viewpoints.
Recent events
On 2 September 1998, Mahathir sacked his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, from all his government positions. Early on 4 September Anwar was expelled from UMNO. On 20 September, the Malaysian media went to town publishing and broadcasting the 'confessions' of Anwar's adopted brother and his speech writer that they had been sodomised by Anwar. Prior to their confessions the two had been detained by the police, one under the ISA, and had no access to counsels or family. The same afternoon, Anwar addressed a gathering, conservatively estimated to be 50,000 strong, at the National Mosque, professing his innocence and reiterating that there was a high level conspiracy in government to discredit and remove him. Later that Sunday night, the police stormed Anwar's house and arrested him under the ISA. A group of his supporters were also detained shortly after. Since then, the public has been kept in the dark as to Anwar's whereabouts and his well-being.
As regards the media, a couple of months prior to Anwar's sacking, expulsion and detention, the editors of the two largest national language newspapers in Malaysia, Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, were forced to resign, presumably by Mahathir. Their resignations were followed by that of the director of operations of TV3. Anwar himself has been reported as stating that the three were allied to him.
Whatever the merits of Mahathir's actions and accusations (which were widely and uncritically reported in the mainstream media) and those of Anwar's rejoinders (which hardly saw the light of day in the mainstream media but were widely disseminated through the Internet, home-made video and audio tapes and through the speeches he made at large gatherings around the country prior to his arrest), this most recent event in Malaysian history has clearly brought to the fore the stark realities of the Malaysian mainstream media and the low level it has reached. Many of these realities have been pointed out in this article and we summarise them in conclusion.
First, by and large and for a long, long time now, the Malaysian mainstream media have never aspired to be the guardians of freedom of speech. Very few would argue with the observation that, thus far, the mainstream Malaysian media have been nothing more than government mouthpieces. The ongoing trial by media of the sacked Anwar is indicative of this.
Second, and in relation to the first point, despite all the talk about 'democracy ala Malaysia', 'freedom with responsibility', ad nauseam, we need to remind ourselves that all of the major Malaysian media organisations - including RTM, TV3, MegaTV, MetroVision, NTV7, Astro, Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, and Star - are owned and controlled by BN parties or those closely associated with these parties. To a large extent, this allocative control helps to explain why these media organisations rarely - if ever - break ranks.
Third, to reinforce such economic controls further, Barisan has a slew of laws at its disposal - the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Control of Imported Publications Act, the Internal Security Act, the Sedition Act, and the Official Secrets Act, to name a few - to control the media.
Fourth, we have profoundly conservative education and religious value systems which preach conformity and compliance. More specifically, this is rather obvious with formal media education in our local universitites. Here the emphasis is very much on form rather than substance, where the focus is on teaching - often badly - students how to twiddle with knobs and how to write intros rather than why they are writing what they write.
Fifth, while there may be journalists who have thus far escaped the web of socialisation and continue to try to come up with critical reports, the multi-layered nature of controls at the day-to-day, operational level of news production invariably prevents such reports from seeing the light of day. Hence, the vicious cycle continues.
Taking all these into consideration, we begin to understand why the mainstream Malaysian media has for so long been - and still is - so sycophantic. In short, it is a question of structures and socialisation.
However, while it is perhaps still too early to tell, but to end on a positive note, we would argue that the recent events surrounding the Anwar Ibrahim sacking and detention and, more importantly, the way these events have been covered by the Malaysian mainstream media has firstly, jolted many Malaysians - some of whom were previously ignorant of the fact and some who, while aware, were nonetheless apathetic - into realising how extremely centralised control of the media is. Secondly, such a realisation has indeed led to a rapid, ongoing and increasing erosion of the credibility of the media. No one can predict the outcome of this new, heightened awareness on the part of the Malaysian public. But, we would insist that, for the first time in a long, long while, cracks are beginning to show in the hegemony of the governing elites. For the first time, too, the potential for change - for the emergence of greater transparency, accountability and democracy - is there.
Funding from the Sumitomo Foundation, Japan for research and preparation is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Aliran (1988), ISA & Keselamatan Negara (ISA & National Security), Penang: Aliran.
Berita Publishing. Information malaysia, 1980-81, 1985, 1992-93. Kuala Lumpur.
Blumler, J.G. (1993). 'Meshing Money With Mission: Purity Versus Pragmatism In Public Broadcasting'. European Journal of Communication. Vol. 8: 403-424.
CARPA (1988), Tangled Web: Dissent, Deterrence and the 27 October 1987 Crackdown in Malaysia, Sydney: Committee Against Repression in the Pacific and Asia.
Chandra, Muzaffar (1986), Freedom in Fetters, Penang: Aliran.
Cheong, Sally (1993). Bumiputera Companies in the KLSE. (2nd Edition). Petaling Jaya. Corporate Research Services.
Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (1991). 'Culture, Communications And Political Economy'. In Curran, J. and M. Gurevitch (eds). Mass Media And Society. London: Edward Arnold. 15-32.
Gomez, E.T. (1990). Politics In Business: UMNO's Corporate Investments. Kuala Lumpur: Forum.
Gomez, E.T. (1994). Political Business: Corporate Involvement Of Malaysian Political Parties. Australia: James Cook University of North Queensland.
Goonasekera, A. and D. Holaday (eds)(1993). Asian Communication Handbook. Singapore: AMIC.
Government of Malaysia (1984). Printing Presses And Publications Act 1984. Kuala Lumpur.
Government of Malaysia (1988). Broadcasting Act 1988. Kuala Lumpur.
Hamelink, C.J. (1994). Trends In World Communication: On Disempowerment And Self-Empowerment. Southbound: Penang.
Karthigesu, R. (1991). 'Two Decades Of Growth And Development Of Malaysian television And An Assessment Of ITs Role In Nation Building'. Unpublished Ph. D thesis, University of Leicester, England.
Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (1995). The KLSE Annual Companies handbook. Kuala Lumpur.
Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (1996). The KLSE Annual Companies handbook. Kuala Lumpur.
Lee, H.P. (1995), Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Lent, John A. (ed) (1982), Newspapers in Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore & Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Asia.
Loh, Kok Wah, Francis and Mustafa, K. Anuar (1996), 'The Press in Malaysia in the Early 1990s: Corporatisation, Technological Innovation and the Middle Class', in Muhammad Ikmal Said and Zahid Emby (eds), Critical Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Syed Husin Ali, Petaling Jaya: Malaysian Social Science Association.
mahathir Mohamad (1983). 'New Government Policies'. In Jomo, K.S. (ed). The Sun Also Sets: Lessons In Looking East. Kuala Lumpur: Insan. 276-278.
Means, Gordon P. (1991), Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation, Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Milne, R.S. and Mauzy, Diane K. (1980), Politics and Government in Malaysia, Singapore: Times Books International.
Ministry of Information (Malaysia) (1983). radio And Television Malaysia handbook. Kuala Lumpur.
Mohd Safar, Hasim (1996), Akhbar dan Kuasa (The Press and Power), Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya Press.
Singh K.S., Gurmit (1987), No to Secrecy: The Campaign Against 1986's Amendments to the OSA, Petaling Jaya: Aliran, SGS, EPSM, DAP, MAE & CRC.
Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Sendirian Berhad Annual report 1995.
Venturelli, S. (1993). 'The Imagined Transnational Public Sphere In The European Community's Broadcast Policy: Implications For Democracy'. European Journal Of Communication. Vol. 8: 491-518.
Zaharom nain (1994). 'Commercialization And Control In A 'Caring Society': Malaysian Media 'Towards 2020''. SOJOURN. Vol. 9, No. 2: 178-199.
Zaharom nain (1996). 'The Impact Of The International Marketplace On The Organisation Of Malaysian Television'. In D. French and M. Richards (eds). Contemporary Television: Eastern Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage.
|
