A Bluffer's Guide to the

Media Freedom
in
Malaysia
(AS AT 8 AUGUST 2004)

Centre for Independent Journalism

27 C Jalan Sarikei
Off Jalan Pahang
53000 Kuala Lumpur
(behind Tawakal Hospital)
Tel: 03-40230772
Fax: 03-40230769
A Bluffer's Guide to the Media Freedom in Malaysia

Point One - The Laws

Protecting media freedom:

There is one law in Malaysia that protects media freedom, Article 10 of the
Constitution. It also notes that there are limits to this freedom, and that these
limits are, generally, defined by the Government.

If you want to really impress the crowd, you could also point to the guarantees
under the Communications and Multimedia Act. This covers broadcasting and
the Internet. What are the guarantees under this act? (1) No monopoly or
oligopoly control of the airwaves and (2) Nothing in the Act is to be regarded as
censorship of the Internet.

The first means that no group of companies should own enough of the radio
and television stations to prevent listeners and viewers from having a choice of
material. All good (but we've not seen it put into practice as yet).
The second one is a bit more of a problem. Just because there isn't any
censorship or control of the Internet under this Act, doesn't mean there isn't any
censorship of the Internet. Other bits of legislation can be used (see below).

Restricting media freedom

Here there's a whole host of laws. This list is a few of the major ones:
1 Printing Presses and Publications Act - This means if you want to start up a
newspaper or magazine you need permission from the Home Minister. This
does two things - it means you need to be well-connected to have permission
to get a newspaper licence, and it means that the Home Minister controls
how many publications exist. This doesn't seem to matter to magazines
(unless they have political content such as Aliran Monthly), but it's why we
have so few Malay language newspapers, for example. Why are there only
two Malay papers, but three English-language ones in the peninsula when
BM is our national language and is used by a majority of the people?
2 Communications and Multimedia Act - This gives the Minister of Energy,
Water and Communications the power to grant, revoke or change
broadcasting and other licences.
3 Sedition Act - anything you say that offends anyone can land you in prison for
up to three years.
4 Official Secrets Act - if anyone lets you see, sniff or taste a document
classified secret, you can end up in prison. And the colour of Pak Lah's toilet
paper can be classified as an official secret, if he wants it to be so.
5 Internal Security Act and myriad others...
Point Two - Media Ownership

Let's say you want a newspaper to run a story about corruption in your
kampung. And you live in a small kampung in the wilds of Selangor. Who will be
interested? Let's say it involves a "measly" thousand ringgit, but it still means
that you don't have reliable water, or electricity or roads or something important.
Is this a national story? No. Who's going to bother?

Now let's say that you had a local paper, Berita Kampung In The Wilds Of
Selangor. Then it becomes an issue. Then you might see a solution to your
local problem. So why don't we have any local papers?

It comes back down to licensing. The Government won't give out newspaper
licences unless it wants to. The fewer newspapers there are, the easier they are
to control. Imagine if the Home Ministry wanted to prevent five newspapers from
running a story on the colour of Badawi's toilet paper. Now imagine that there
are 1,000 newspapers. Or 5,000 newspapers. Or 10,000 newspapers. A little bit
more difficult...

Then think about there being 10,000 newspapers. We're often told that if there
are too many papers, then the market is "saturated". But imagine if you had one
national paper, one paper for the state you live in and one area paper. Or a
choice between a pro-environment newspaper and a pro-construction
newspaper. With 10,000 newspapers, you could have 10,000 ways of telling a
story, or 10,000 times as many stories! It becomes a problem of "saturation"
when each paper is trying to tell the same stories, the same way.

So, restricting ownership restricts the number of views you can hear, the chance
that your story makes it into the papers. And it makes it easy for the Government
to control the news channels.

What's the story in Malaysia?

• MCA-owned newspapers - Nanyang Siang Pau, The Star, China Press
• Umno-owned papers - Utusan
• Friends of Umno or associated parties - All the rest!
• Community groups - Zero
Compare:
• Number of community radio stations in Thailand - between 150 and 450
• Number of community radio stations in Indonesia - not enough numbers!
• Number of community radio stations in Malaysia - Zero. Zip. Nada.

So half the time, what's the story in Malaysia? We don't really know...

Point Three - Case Studies

This is how it's worked recently:

a) Jeff Ooi and the "Anwar" saga - a non-story that captured and held the front
page of Berita Harian for four days.

• What happened: An anonymous posting on Jeff's website likened Islam

Hadhari to "shit". This became front page news.
• The "Anti" Argument: The Internet needs to be censored because comments
such as this cause racial disunity and can lead to violence, showing a lack of
respect for each other's religion.
• The "HUH?" and "How?" Argument: This was a small comment on a little-
known (at the time) blog. Who saw or cared? No one, until BH made it an
issue.
• The Media Freedom Argument: The Internet should be open to self-
regulation. It's up to Jeff how he treats this. IF he wants to be credible and
responsible, he can censure the respondent. It's between him and "Anwar". If
he doesn't, then it places his site with all the other flame-mongerers out there.
• What happened: Exactly that. Jeff censured "Anwar". THEN the big boys got
involved and there was talk of the ISA being used, of prosecution under the
Sedition Act. Then everyone saw how silly it all was, and they let the matter
drop.
• When: First front page ran 2 October 2004

b) Persecution of Burmese journalists - In 2004 two Burmese journalists had

nasty experiences. Both had been given refugee status by the United Nations
High Commission for Refugees. One, Minn Kyaw, was abducted by people
claiming to be police, held and interrogated for 12 hours, beaten and denied
food and water, before being released. He'd been on his way to a press
conference with the Myanmar/ Burmese Prime Minister. The other, editor Sein
Mar, was arrested immediately following a demonstration outside the Burmese
Embassy. She was held, released, then held again for about two months before
charges were dropped and she was released and reunited with her seven-year-
old daughter.

When: From May to June 2004

* Other key Bluffers Guides to look out for (in future): The Media Council, The
Malaysiakini Raid, The PPPA, The CMA, The Sedition Act and more!