Gov’t mulls national media policy Syed Jaymal Zahiid | Oct 20, 08 1:55pm The government has not given up on its intention to create a media council as another regulatory authority over the print media in particular, despite the long-held objections of journalists.

MCPX

Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said today that the government has continued to consider this, and is also discussing a national media policy.

“The government is toying with the idea and looking at all questions pertaining to media ethics, professionalism and all that,” he told a press conference today.

“We have started to draft the policy and (establish the foundations) of the National Media Council. Don’t ask me when (it will be implemented). There are a lot of considerations, so we have to look at various aspects.”

Asked if the implementation of the council would lead to repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA), as sought by editors and journalists, the minister was non-committal.

“I don’t want to jump the gun. The council will require management from both sides but I would not go as far as repealing the PPPA. We’ll see what can be done,” he said.

More than 900 journalists had, in a two-part petition signed between May 1999 and 2001, urged the repeal of the licensing provision of the PPPA for a start.

They argued that this would enable the print media to play its role as a watchdog of the public interest. In return, the journalists volunteered self-regulation of the profession through an independent industry-managed body.

However, the government subsequently commissioned the Malaysian Press Institute – representing media companies but run with government funding – to draft enabling legislation to set up a media council under parliamentary supervision and funding.

Media practitioners strongly rejected the draft law, maintaining that nothing less than independent self-regulation is acceptable to the profession.

They have also insisted that any such move must be accompanied, at minimum, by simultaneous repeal of the PPPA licensing provision that controls the issuance of annual printing and publishing permits.The PPPA has been condemned by press-freedom activists as a key instrument of government control over the print media.

Criticism of the government and politicians can be silenced because the annual permits can be revoked or not renewed at any time by ministerial order and without means of judicial review.

Given that no assurance of a repeal has been forthcoming, the creation of a media council has been at a stalemate since a stakeholders’ meeting held in 2004.

Unchanged reasoning

Syed Hamid had earlier delivered a keynote speech at a colloquium on media policy, organised by the Asian Institute for Developing Communication.

He said that, due to the pluralistic  nature of Malaysian society, the government has a responsibility to ensure that harmony between ethnic groups is preserved.

“We must always remember that the government has a responsibility to preserve national security and stability as these are vital to a country’s survival and prosperity,” he said.

“The problem arises when the media, in its quest to utilise its freedom as an unbiased channel of information, sensationalises reports with little or no nation-building value, which adversely affects peace and harmony of the nation.”

Activists, however, are of the view that the government cites this as a reason to maintain power.

Apart from the PPPA, they have also demanded the repeal or review of other restrictive laws that affect the media – the Official Secrets Act, Sedition Act and Internal Security Act (ISA), among these.

NOTE: please read the blog ‘berita dari gunung’ on the topic ‘malaysian media council: handcuffs or media freedom‘ for an interesting info on this topic, where the blogger had linked other bloggers and sites on this same issue.
]]> http://benarffm.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/govt-mulls-national-media-policy/feed/ 1 lulai syed hamid albar putrajaya pc 310708 02 press freedom http://benarffm.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/malaysias-press-freedom-ranking-in-free-fall/ http://benarffm.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/malaysias-press-freedom-ranking-in-free-fall/#comments Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:27:12 +0000 lucia http://benarffm.wordpress.com/?p=172 ]]> Malaysiakini
Oct 22, 08 7:24pm

Malaysia’s press freedom ranking in free fall

Malaysia’s press freedom ranking in free fall Oct 22, 08 7:24pm Malaysia crashed into the bottom quarter of 173 countries in the worldwide press freedom ranking index released today by Paris-based watchdog Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF, Reporters Without Borders). MCPX

In the latest 2008 ranking, Malaysia fell eight spots to 132. Last year, it was placed 124th while in 2006, it was at 92.

Iceland, Luxembourg and Norway share the No 1 spot, with United Kingdom (23), Japan (29) and United States (36).

southeast asian rsf ranking 2008According to the index, Malaysia was placed fifth among 10 Southeast Asian countries after Timor-Leste (65), Indonesia (111), Thailand (124), Cambodia (126).

“In the face of mounting criticism, the government of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi reacted with a crackdown,” lamented RSF, referring to several incidences last year.

It said that the mainstream press made no attempt at balance remarks by the authorities attacking the organisers of two major demonstrations last year which were led by election reform movement Bersih and Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).

“The Internal Security Ministry asked some media on three separate occasions in November not to report on unauthorised demonstrations.

“Thus a march on Nov 10 calling for free and transparent elections passed off without any coverage, apart from online, including by the daily Malaysiakini, which also revealed in June (2007) that the authorities had ordered radio and television not to allow too much airtime to the speeches of opposition leaders.”

Umno-linked NST ticked off

RSF also ticked off Umno-linked New Straits Times for abruptly halting the columns by two independent-minded writers.

“Officially for technical reasons, the columns written by Zainah Anwar, promoting the rights of women, and another by Amir Muhammad disappeared within five days or one another.

“Zainah had headlined her last piece, ‘Let’s give freedom a good press’. Amir Muhammad, a respected film-maker and writer, had broken one of the country’s taboos by rehabilitating communists who fought for independence in the 1940s.

jeff ooi and rocky bru screen shot lawsuit“He posted on his blog the uncut versions of his articles, which were regularly re-written by the daily’s management.”

The press freedom watchdog also said that the management and former managers of NST sued bloggers Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin Attan for “defamation”, after they posted articles “demonstrating that some news and editorials in the daily lacked objectivity”.

Bloggers threatened by ISA

RSF added the attacks against bloggers continued last year.

“Abdullah had called bloggers ‘liars’ while (last) July, (then) law minister, Nazri Abdul Aziz, said the government would not hesitate to resort to the Internal Security Act (ISA) to punish them.”

raja petra and isa internal security act 230908Popular blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, who was eventually detained under ISA last month, was interrogated by the police in July last year after he posted criticism of the king.

“Nathaniel Tan, a blogger and member of the opposition PKR was held in custody for four days, apparently because of a link from his blog to a website hosting news termed as an ‘official secret’ relating to a corruption case implicating (then deputy) internal security minister, Johari Baharum.”

The press freedom watchdog also cited two cases of journalists being threatened, one of whom was beaten up by unknown men.

Photo-journalist R Raman of the Tamil-language Malaysia Nanban was left in a coma after being assaulted by two thugs in his office in Johor Baru.

Meanwhile, his colleague, M Nagarajan, received a phone call threatening to kill him if he continued to write articles about poor conditions in the schools.

NOTE:  Also, please read Helen Ang’s ‘No. 132 in press freedom, jolly good’.

REMINDER: You have only 4 more days to sign the memorandum for media freedom.

Malaysiakini earlier reported that de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has threatened to quit over the continued detention of DAP MP Teresa Kok and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin. He is highly critical of the old-style politics of creating fear.

In the dialogue that was held on June 1, 2008 between Zaid and journalists, Datuk Zaid had asked the media this: Dare you take on issues that are unpopular with the media owners. On the detention of Sin Chew Daily reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, Ziad is perplexed as how she would constitute a threat to national security. His stand on the matter of the continued detention of Teresa Kok and RPK speaks volumes about his commitment on law reform.

A few weeks ago Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi stated that the media should write the truth and there should be no fear in writing the truth. The arrest of Ms Tan will lead many to believe the Prime Minister truly cannot be trusted on his words.

Detention without trial is not an issue that can ever be taken lightly. It takes away the liberty of a human being. Indeed there may be circumstances under which the use of the ISA may be justified, as when it is a matter of dire national security, like terrorism. But to invoke this Act against a journalist who is merely reporting what she had witnessed is without doubt a cynical act of intimidation that deserves absolute derision. What is more maddening is that the man who had made the incendiary remarks in the first place remains scot free!

The arrest of Ms Tan is a new low in the administration of justice in Malaysia and a severe blow to the quest for media freedom.

The quick release of Ms Tan shows that the government came to realize it had miscalculated badly and people will not accept what has been done to Ms Tan. Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar’s explanation that Ms Tan was arrested to “ensure her safety” is bereft of any logic and not for the first time.

There has been outrage from various quarters but not much from the mainstream media itself. They must decry this blatant act of intimidation on journalists. This is not acceptable. Enough is enough.

Sign petition for Media Freedom at http://benar.org .

(related link:  PM to media: uphold the truth)

——————————–

M’sians still ignorant of media freedom
Syed Jaymal Zahid
Sept 4, 08 4.46pm

News consumers are increasingly becoming aware of the media owners’ influence on the way news are being reported, an independent survey revealed today.

The survey, carried out jointly by media watchdog Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and opinion pollster Merdeka Centre, showed that 78 percent of those surveyed believed that media owners have “significant influence” over news.

The survey, which involved 1,203 randomly selected respondents aged 21 and above, was conducted by telephone from May 8 to 14.

“Thirty-nine percent identified the government, people or companies connected to the government as the owners of most media outlets,” Merdeka Centre research associate Leong Lai Ming told a press conference today.

“The survey also revealed that Malaysians were critically assessing the content of the local mainstream media, upon which the majority relied heavily as sources of information.”

According to the survey, only 35 percent of the respondents believed that the mainstream media were not reporting fairly.

Furthermore, only half of the respondents said the performance of the mainstream media according to six major indicators – ethical, variety of opinions included, variety of issues covered, objectivity, fairness and truthfulness – were met.

CIJ executive director V Gayathry, who was also at the press conference, said this reflected the poor confidence Malaysians have on the credibility of the mainstream media due to its close affiliation with the government.

For democracy to function properly, media freedom advocates like CIJ and others have often called for a clear separation between media organisations and the state.

“And media organisations must also learn to create their own code of conduct that is based on just and fair reporting and not place the burden of media reform totally on the government,” added Leong.

Govt or media responsible for media freedom?

Gayathry said the survey findings indicated that Malaysians do have mixed views on who is responsible in carrying out media reforms – some said it was the government, while others say it was the media organisations or the public.

In the survey, two-thirds had the impression that improving greater media independence was out of their hands, while 35 percent felt that the government played the most important role.

“Such sentiment matched even those from the Malaysian Bar, when during the Walk for Press Freedom event in June, its Human Rights Committee responded to (de facto) law minister Zaid Ibrahim by saying the state bears the primary burden of removing laws that have impinged freedom,” said the survey.

The Bar Council was then reacting to Zaid’s statement that it was part of the press’ responsibility to conduct reforms in industry.

Nevertheless, 30 percent of the respondents thought that it was the public itself that had the greater role to ensure that media independence exist in the country.

Little understanding on media freedom

The survey also found a lack of understanding among Malaysians regarding the concept of media freedom.

Despite having more than half the respondents agreeing that the media needs more independence, about half still believed that the government has the right to control media organisations.

Huge percentage of the respondents when asked why they thought the government should or should not have control over the media were not able to answer why they thought so.

“This is an issue, and this is why organisations like CIJ and other media rights groups must … educate the public on the issue,” stressed Leong.

The survey also revealed that the public has a very low recognition of the role of civil society groups when it comes to fighting for greater press freedom.

“This was particularly evident when the 2008 Memorandum on Media Freedom launched online on May 3 by three NGOs including CIJ only managed to garner 1,946 endorsees until now,” lamented the survey.

CIJ however was confident that the public was showing signs of progress when it came to inducing public awareness on the need for greater media freedom judging from the survey’s findings.

“Despite low level of recognition towards organisations working to improve media freedom, the public was open to the idea of media independence.

“This further showed that the stigma of equating supporting media independence to danger did not exist.

“Hence, it is in the interest of the public and the nation for civil society organisations such as CIJ to continue its work to further educate the public about media independence,” concluded the survey.

A Joint Merdeka Day Message

30 August 2008

Independence means that the nation is free from any imposed political domination; citizens are sovereign and are masters of their own destiny. For that to be true, they must at least be able to think freely, express and exchange opinion, and, obtain and disseminate information without fear or favour.

As we celebrate the 51^st anniversary of our Merdeka tomorrow and the 45^th anniversary of Malaysia’s establishment in two weeks’ time, we should be celebrating our political adulthood. We should be proud that as citizens, we are a truly sovereign people, ruled by nothing more than the collective free will of our citizenship. We invite all Malaysians to ponder before lighting fireworks and joining the parade: Are we truly free? Are we truly sovereign?

Are we free? Just on the eve of Merdeka Day, one of Malaysia’s most popular news portal, Malaysia Today, was blocked by internet service providers under the instruction of the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). This instruction denied millions of Malaysians, who have shunned the mainstream media, their primary information source. The MCMC has cited the Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998 to force ISPs to use their best endeavour “to prevent his/her facilities from being used to violate any law in the country”. It is unfortunate that MCMC acted without Malaysia Today and its editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin being convicted or proven in court of any criminal offence. By invoking the block, the MCMC contravenes the government’s promise of no censorship and less regulation in the internet, when the multi-media super corridor was launched in 1998. It has also broken the law as Section 3 of the CMA states clearly that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.” So, what has produced MCMC to toe the political line rather than adhere to the law?

Are we free? Just two weeks before Merdeka Day, the Home Ministry decided that we cannot read two more books, on top of at least 1443 books that were banned since 1971. One of the two latest banned books is a volume titled “Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism” authored by international experts and edited by renowned Malaysian sociologist, Prof Norani Othman. The book was published three years ago, so why the ban only now? Did the Home Ministry censorship board take three years to understand its content? In fact, are they capable of reading and understanding an academic book when they have not even produce a book review to pinpoint its flaws? Can we be a free nation when bureaucrats whose reading ability is questionable are deciding what we can and cannot read? Their power to curb freedom of expression stems from the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) which requires all periodicals to apply for annual renewable permits, which can be revoked and suspended by the Minister at anytime at his absolute discretion. In 1987, under Operasi Lalang eight newspapers were suspended. Operasi Lalang also saw the arbitrary detention of 106 socio-political activists.

Are we free? When questioning of government policies or the judicial process by citizens can land one in prison under the Sedition Act, 1948, when truth cannot be a defense against charges, where “seditious tendency” are broadly and vaguely defined, when newspapers can be suspended for allegedly containing seditious matter (Section 9), what’s left of our public space to discuss issues that matter most and are therefore often termed “sensitive”?

Are we free? When there are 66 persons still detained arbitrarily and indefinitely without trial for opposing the government’s policies under the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, when the Minister can subjectively ban any publications deemed to be “prejudicial to the national interest, public order, or security of Malaysia”, and his/her decisions cannot be reviewed by the judiciary. Are we free from the danger of arbitrary judgment of one politician? And, are we free when the very same repressive colonial laws that suppressed peoples’ struggles in the pre-Merdeka era are still continued and used randomly by the present government even after Merdeka?

Are we free? When citizens have no freedom of information to learn about public policies and decision-making process, when politicians and bureaucrats can easily deny public access to details of lucrative contracts and concessions, justified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA), is it any wonder that corruption and power abuse become rampant? When we pay taxes and yet do not have the right to know how the money is spent, are we really the boss of the government? Or have we, the rakyat, instead become slaves to the very people we have elected?

Unfortunately, we are not free given the flaws and shortcomings in the CMA, PPPA, Sedition Act, ISA, OSA and other media-related laws. We will continue to be enslaved until we become truly politically free and democratic. We had merely replaced foreign colonial masters with domestic ones who rule over us by insisting that we are incapable of thinking and making our own judgment.

A true national independence is, therefore, overdue. It is possible only if all the media-related laws are put under thorough reviews and after taking on board the concerns of all Malaysians, regardless of economic interest, social-cultural background and political affiliation. A parliamentary select committee on media law reform must, therefore, be made a priority in our quest for independence, democracy and good governance. Calls to celebrate or to substantiate our independence by any political coalitions, are hollow if without a concrete commitment and roadmap to media law reform.

We call upon all Malaysians to press for the demand of media law reform by endorsing the 2008 Memorandum on Media Freedom on www.benar.org. The campaign for media law reform is extended to 27 October 27 2008, the anniversary of 1987 Operasi Lalang. Until we can ensure the freedoms of citizens and the media, Merdeka is not achieved. Let us fight for our second independence, this time from domestic authoritarianism – Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!

A Joint statement by

1. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)

2. Benar for Free and Fair Media (Benar)

3. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)

4. Civil Rights Committee, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC-KLSCAH)

5. Civil Society Initiative for Parliamentary Reform (CSI@Parliament)

6. Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI)

7. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section (KLSCAH-YS)

8. Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)

9. National Alliance of Bloggers (All-Blogs)

10. People’s Parliament

11. Empower (Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti, Selangor)

12. Sister in Islam (SIS)

13. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

14. Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)

This statement was initiated by Benar and WAMI. For details, please contact Wong Chin Huat (019-3502823) or Maria Chin Abdullah (0133422931)

F4CC Claudio Castiglioni

Just when the people running the show at Proton would wish the name MV Agusta (“MVA”) will stay buried forever it raises its ugly head yet again.

This time we have our former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir, jumping on the news via his blog and claiming vindication for their decision to foray into MVA. Needless to say, Tun’s comments were reported by Malaysiakini verbatim when they updated their report entitled “MV Agusta – Proton sells for RM5, Harley buys for RM350 million”.

When we talk about a fair media, it must also extend to the online media; bloggers and online news portals, especially an outfit like Malaysiakini that many regard as anti-government. People generally see the mainstream boys as the guilty of bias and, quite frankly, there is not much to disagree over this popular view. But are Malaysiakini and Tun Mahathir playing by the rules we believe in?

Mislead by Numbers

This is what the great Tun said in his blog: “Some months ago Husqvarna, a division of MVA which manufactures scrambler sporty off-road motorcycles was sold to a German company, BMW for 90 million euro (RM450 million). Now the rest of MVA has been bought by Harley-Davidson Motor Cycles of the United States for RM350 million.” Tun further argued that Proton has lost approximately RM800 million by selling Agusta for only RM5. “The buyer (GEVI Spa) invested one euro and made 160 million euro,” he said. Malaysiakini offers no challenge to these figures presumably because it is in tandem with their original headline. Tun’s comments serve their agenda.

As it turns out both the Malaysiakini headline and Tun’s comments are deliberately misleading because they are not really comparing like with like and they should know better.

Details on the earlier BMW deal for the Husqvarna brand have been rather sketchy. While the ball park 90 million Euros is the figure that has been widely reported, the ‘construction’ of the deal in terms of what went to the owners and what was assumed debt is unknown. Tun Mahathir simply assumes the entire 90 million Euros had gone to the owners. It is unlikely to be that way because we know from this latest deal, MVA is still debt laden and it is highly improbable that the banks would agree to a deal that sees the Castiglione family enjoying the cake exclusively.

This latest deal is a lot more transparent. Of the total consideration of US 109 million, we know from the Associated Press report (and reflected in Malaysiakini) that the figure includes US70 million of MVA’s existing bank debt assumed by Harley-Davidson. In other words, the owners got the difference of USD39 million and not the entire US109 million. Tun Mahathir and Malaysiakini would want you to think it was the larger sum.

So what is the point of my argument?

Well, US39 million is still RM125 million more than one Euro but it is rather disingenuous to say that Proton had lost RM800 million by simply lumping in assumed debt when it suits the agenda.

We know that from Proton’s press release on June 16, 2006 that the company would have been subjected to a potential liability of RM923 million if MVA had gone into bankruptcy ( see  bernama news) ). This was the existing debt incurred by MVA well before Proton set foot in Italy and which Proton was happy to shoulder entirely with just 57.7% of the company. The Castiglione family, which still owned the bulk of the remaining shares, was home free. I suppose Proton had no choice but to grandfather the debts or the company would not have the ‘prized’ 57.7%.

GEVI Spa, in buying Proton’s stake, assumed the responsibility for the debts. It would of course be farcical to add the debt to the one Euro received by Proton and call that the sale consideration but that’s exactly what Malaysiakini and Tun Mahathir are both doing when it helps to cast the Proton management in poor light.

Why did Proton acquire the interest in MVA?

There was much talk about operational synergies prior to the acquisition but show me just one mainstream paper that had asked what Proton could have learned from a motorcycle manufacturer to help it make better cars. Indeed what could Proton learn from MVA that it could not learn from Mitsubishi and Lotus?

In Proton’s June 16, 2006 press release, the company poured cold water on the idea of synergies. Tengku Mahaleel and Tun Mahathir would beg to differ of course.

Not many knew (and Proton kept silent on the issue) that MVA had been under temporary receivership since 14 November, 2002 and that the receivership proceedings were terminated in mid November 2004 only because of Proton’s infusion of the 70 million Euros (RM368 million) – see the forum here. And that wasn’t all because in FY2006 Proton made a provision for RM136 million, bringing the total amount to the figure of RM504 million mentioned earlier. I believe this represented the amount of working capital that was pumped into the company to keep it afloat after the acquisition. Credit Suisse also observed that MVA would need continuing financial support and they are probably talking in excess of RM100 million if the FY2006 figure is a yardstick to apply.

So what was the turnaround plan for MVA? Was there any viable plan? Do not forget the company had great brands which we now see are worth millions. Tun Mahathir and Tengku Mahaleel could both see the value and they deserve credit for this. But what made them think that Proton, already struggling in their own backyard in their car business , could turnaround MVA when even the Italian family could not? And they surely know more about motorcycles than both these Malaysians.

Also, where was the Chairman of Proton when the deal unfolded? Datuk Azlan Hashim was a senior partner of Azman Wong Salleh & Co., a large local accounting firm. As a seasoned accountant, why couldn’t he see the cash demands on Proton and the poor balance sheet of MVA? Why did the board approve the deal to purchase the 57.7% stake when it would be sucking so much cash out of Proton? What do they do during board meetings?

So why did Proton dispose of MVA so soon after the acquisition?

I believe the answer lies in the report by Credit Suisse.

This adviser stated in their report that the future for MVA was not looking bright. Well, MVA hung on to dear life, long enough for Claudio to sell the brands at good prices and end up with more money in the pocket for the Castiglioni family and perhaps finally free from enormous debts. But remember that this was made possible by the incredible gift of at least RM504 million from Proton.

Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing, so now Tun Mahathir thinks the ACA should investigate the role of Credit Suisse who was paid a huge consultancy fee to advise Proton’s management who executed the sale.

Tengku Mahaleel’s contract was not renewed so we will never know whether he could be as savvy as Claudio. The cynical might even ask what the real reason behind his sacking was if he was so worldly and wise.

Now, what could the board do when they have such a bleak report from their highly paid and well known adviser? To hang tough would require people with nerves of steel. Claudio may well be a truly savvy guy, but what could he really do but wait, especially when proton had effectively gifted his family RM504 million? The situation in Proton was different; people had jobs and rear ends to safeguard. So sell and hang the decision on the adviser.

Who is behind GEVI spa?

A reader at the People’s Parliament, MFZ, thinks that GEVI Spa is a front for good old Claudio. He does not say why but I would tend to agree with him.

I share this view because Proton’s initial outlay of 70 million Euros (RM368 million) was for a new issue of shares such that Proton owned 57.7% of the enlarged shared of MV Agusta. In Malaysiakini’s report (quoting the Associated Press), it is stated that “MV Agusta is privately held, and the Castiglioni family owns 95 percent of its shares.” The only way for the family to own 95% of MV Agusta is that the shares previously held by Proton are now in their hands. Thus, based on this reasoning, I believe that Claudio Castiglioni bought back the company for nothing after Proton had gifted him at least RM504 million. What a charmed life!

So many questions deserve a proper answer. It is events like this that I wish we have a freedom of information act so the people know who to extract blood from.

If you believe freedom of information is good for the nation, please visit http://benar.org and endorse the 2008 Memorandum on Media Freedom.

Malaysiakini today reported that more than 100 journalists covering the ongoing Parliamentary sitting are staging a boycott after the Parliament administration restricted media access to the lobby, and barricaded the area. The journalists were outraged and stunned by the latest ruling which resulted in the entire lobby being cordoned off, apparently on security grounds. (Picture from Malaysiakini)

During the dialogue on June 1, 2008 with journalists at the National Press Club, Datuk Zaid had challenged journalists to get their act together and do a proper job. In an interview with Malaysiakini a couple of weeks ago, I was asked how I felt towards his comments. My reply was that whilst the journalists embark on pushing the envelope, Zaid and his colleagues in Parliament must also pull together in the same direction or media freedom will remain a dream.

Well, what can one make out of this latest move to restrict journalists’ access to the lobby? Apparently, this is the first time that Parliament has enforced such a ruling and the basis for this is reported to be security concerns. Last Friday, Parliament had already dished out a ruling that limits to five the number of journalists an accredited media organization may send up the hill. Parliament is not a place where anyone can walk into unchecked. If they think there may be journalists who could some equipped with C4, how hard is it to search 100 from tip to toe? In any case, the majority of Malaysian journalists are not really the gung-ho type if what Zaid is true.

This move is symptomatic of the government’s cluelessness when dealing with a crisis. Was there a crisis? For sure, the last few days had been rather traumatic for Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. The attempt by SAPP to call for a vote of no confidence in the PM wasn’t nice at all but that pales on the excitement scale when compared with the (C4) bombshell by the most famous blogger in Malaysia, Raja Petra bin Raja Petra Kamarudin (also known as RPK).

In a statutory declaration (SD) dated June 18, 2008, RPK declared that he was reliably informed that Acting Colonel Aziz Buyong, a C4 expert, was the person who had placed the explosives on various parts of the Mongolian lady, Altantuya’s (apparently already dead from two gun shots to her head) body in the presence of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor (wife of the Deputy PM Najin Tun Razak) and Norhayati (wife of Aziz). He further declared that he was reliably informed that a military report confirming the aforesaid was handed to the Prime Minister, who then passed it on to his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaludin, for safe-keeping. Next, he was told that one of Rulers is also aware of the on-goings.

Haris Ibrahim in his blog The People’s Parliament labeled this SD as “the mother of all bombshells”. Indeed so for if what RPK has declared can be backed up, it means Datin Seri Rosmah, Aziz and Norhayati are all accessories after the fact, if not before the fact. That means murder punishable by death. It also means the PM and his SIL are both guilty of covering up a heinous crime and this calls for stiff jail time. As for the Ruler, I suppose he can always say that he is waiting to see if the others will do the right thing.

It is probably this SD by RPK that has caused the Parliament administration to make these bizarre rulings. We think they simply do not want questions on this SD and to keep the press away on security grounds seems so stupid. After all, they could have easily deflected all questions with a standard “matter is under investigation, so sheesh” statement. It unnecessarily tarnishes the government’s attempt to portray itself as being more open and friendly towards the media and the people’s thirst for information.

Mirror, mirror…
STRAY THOUGHTS
by A. Asohan

On June 1 2008, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, the de facto law minister taunted journalists who attended the dialogue with him at the National Press Club with this question, “….do you take up an unpopular issue with your news-owner?”

Picture courtesy of Malaysiakini

Benar hopes the mainstream news editors will rise to Zaid’s challenge and also not ignore other issues that people want answers to. While this may take time given the lackadaisical attitude of the editors (exemplified by Zaid when he noted that only one senior editor had bothered to attend the gathering at the NPC) and the uncertainty how far and fast the envelope may be pushed, Benar, which is not subject to such conditions, would certainly raise issues as it see fits on behalf of ordinary Malaysians.

When Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became the 5th Prime Minister of Malaysia in 2003, he had promised quite a lot. Perhaps no other promise had endeared more to the Malaysian public than the promotion of a culture of zero-tolerance on corruption and the fight against this menace without fear or favour. On March 8, 2008 the public delivered a stinging rebuke to the Barisan Nasional government for its failure in this and many other things. Without transparency in government, the fight against corruption was always going to fail.

The Maika Scandal

The controversy surrounding the issue of Telekom Malaysia shares to Maika Holdings way back in 1990 refuses to dissipate.

On 23rd May, 2008 readers at the popular web site Malaysia-Today were able to access a copy of the police report filed by Klang resident Thiagarasan A/L Palaniaya (the website identifies Thiagarasan as the Klang MIC chairman) demanding that the police conduct an investigation on the alleged losses, misuse of power, mismanagement and criminal breach of trust which had occurred over the allocation of Telekom shares to MIC in 1990.

Thiagarasan states in the police report that back in September 1990, the Finance Ministry had made a special offer or allocation of 10 million Telekom Malaysia (TM) shares to Maika Holdings. At that time, TM shares were generally traded at price levels in excess of RM10 per share. In 1992, the Indian community found out that the MIC wound up with only one million shares.

What had happened?

On May 16, 1992 Tan Sri G. K. Rama Iyer, the then Managing Director of Maika Holdings revealed that Samy Vellu was informed at 6.10 am on October 5th 1990, that Maika had been offered 10 million TM shares and of the probability of obtaining full loan financing and that Maika intended to take up the entire allocation of 10 million shares. Rama Iyer further disclosed that Samy Vellu replied that there must have been a mistake. The offer to Maika should be for one million and not 10 million. According to Samy Vellu, the remaining 9 million shares were meant to be allocated to “other MIC bodies”.

Thus after Samy Vellu had contacted the Finance Ministry, the letter of offer was retracted and Maika’s allocation was reduced to 1 million shares.

Samy Vellu’s response to this disclosure was that Maika Holdings did not have the capacity (funds) to purchase the TM shares but this was denied by Rama Iyer (NST, Dec 10 2003). Indeed, in 1992, Rama Iyer had disclosed that a letter from Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bankers Bhd offering RM50 million to finance the purchase of the 10 million shares was received on October 6th 1990.

In a statement before Parliament after the scandal broke, then Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim disclosed that since Maika had stated that it could take up only one million shares, the other nine million shares were allocated to three companies proposed by Maika because to his “ministry’s knowledge, the three companies represented the interests of the Indian community” (The Star, April 30, 1992). According to one Pasamanikam, a Maika director at that time, Maika did not reject the Finance Ministry’s offer and did not propose that the nine million shares be allocated to other companies. He further revealed that Maika had indeed raised a RM50 million loan to facilitate the acquisition of the entire 10 million shares even before the Finance Ministry had withdrawn its offer.

The 3 companies that received the 9 million shares were named by Thiagarasan in the police report as:

* A name search at the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) website does not return these names. These 2 companies may have been wound up or the names may have been changed.

** Positive search result at SSM; company number is 177706-U

The media did not question the basis upon which these 3 companies, with so little capital, were deemed to be companies representing Indian interests. And how could a company with RM250,000 capital, let alone the RM2 or RM3 ones, afford to buy RM45 million worth of TM shares?

The Anti Corruption Agency investigated this case and no further action was deemed necessary. To the public at large this should mean everything was above board and Samy Vellu was unfairly tarnished. Yet the saga refuses to die down, perhaps because people believe there had been a cover up.

On behalf of the people and in the spirit of the transparency in government promised to the people, BENAR would ask the Ministry of Finance and the Anti Corruption Agency to clarify some lingering doubts so that people who are suspected of wrongdoing are either cleared or brought to account for their actions.

1. At whose behest were the 9 million TM shares, originally earmarked for Maika, re-allotted to the 3 companies listed above?
2. How did the Ministry of Finance satisfy itself that the companies nominated for the 9 million shares represented the interests of the Indian community? If all that it did was to rely on the statement or representation of someone, who was that person?
3. How did the 3 companies finance the purchase of 9 million shares? As TM is a large entity in an important industry, there should have no shortage of willing buyers, both foreign and local, for a large block of TM shares at perhaps a discount to the market as a sweetener. With the eventual selling price more than double the offer price for the TM shares, and thus a low lending risk, it would not have been difficult to obtain short term loans from most banks or even their brokerage houses to fund the purchase of the said shares. Thus the rationale that Maika did not have the financial resources to execute the deal is rather feeble. After all, none of the other 3 companies could be said to be financially capable to purchase millions of Ringgit worth of shares with their paid up capital.
4. What were the ultimate profits made by the 3 companies? The sales would most likely have been done on a block basis. Even if the shares were sold off in smaller chunks, it should not have been difficult for the ACA to trace the cash movements through the bank account(s) of these companies to determine the ultimate gain on the disposal of these shares. According to Maika Holdings, it earned a profit of RM5.6 million from the sale of their million shares. Nine times this would amount to some RM50 million if the 9 million shares were sold at around the same time.
5. How were the profits made by the 3 companies distributed? Did the ACA test the claim that the 3 companies represented the interests of the Indian community?In Thiagarasan’s police report, he claimed that Clearways Sdn Bhd had paid RM2.318 million and APC and SBN had paid RM4.85 million to Tafe College. The total of these amounts is less than one-fifth of the possible profits. BENAR believes the authorities should reveal the actual amounts paid by these 3 companies towards causes that benefit the Indian community to demonstrate the veracity or otherwise of the claim that these companies had the interests of the Indian community in their hearts.
6. Were other transactions investigated? In the police report Thiagarasan lists a series of multi-million ringgit movements in what appears to be Samy Vellu’s personal bank account between April 4, 1992 and May 1992. The documentation for these transactions was apparently disclosed by one V. Subramaniam in 1993. Did the ACA determine whether the cash involved was derived from the gains arising from the sale of the 9 million TM shares?

Let us hope there are meaningful answers to these questions so we can respect the decision that was made by the government in this saga.

Walk proceeds, Zaid booed by journos

Please click below to see more videos

Zaid did not endears himself to journos, Part I

Zaid did not endears himself to journos, Part II

Q&A: Zaid vs editors, Part I

Q&A with Datuk Zaid, Part II