It doesn’t look like regional weekly magazine Far Eastern Economic Review would make that much-awaited retraction or correction as fervently requested by malaysiakini after the former made a journalistic slip-up in a controversial piece, ‘Leveling the field’, in its Feb 8 edition. 

A subsequent “clarification” from Review didn’t help much either as it still implied that the Malaysian news portal did receive funding, although indirectly, from infamous financier George Soros - despite vehement denial from both malaysiakini and the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (Seapa). 

Some people might have wished that time would help blow this issue over, and that we all could then get on with our lives regardless. But this is no ordinary journalistic inaccuracy - which perhaps could settle for sheepish silence on the part of the perpetrator - because it has wider implications upon press freedom and, equally important, on efforts of individuals and groups to widen the parameters of freedom of expression in Malaysia. 

Keen observers of Malaysian politics - and one would think that Review is one of them - would tell you that one cannot even afford to appear to be linked to a foreign funding body that is especially associated with Soros, the man who has been heavily demonised by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (and also other leaders in the region) since the height of Asia’s financial meltdown. Indeed, the recent past would tell you that it is a cardinal sin to be connected, no matter how flawed, with Soros. 

Jittery elite 

And connections have been attempted. The newly-appointed parliamentary secretary to the Information Ministry, Zainuddin Maidin, or simply Zam as he’s widely known within the local journalistic circles, has already made that nasty connection recently (The Star, Feb 12) if only to help ‘substantiate’ his claim that malaysiakini has dubious credibility and, therefore, deserves to be barred from attending official functions such as media conferences held by government ministers. As we all know, the Information Ministry has so far denied the news portal press accreditation that it requires. 

One may argue that such a view, especially coming from someone whose naive or blinkered notion of press freedom revolves around the ability of local journalists to interview government ministers at close range, shouldn’t be taken seriously by concerned and thinking Malaysians. 

(Incidentally, serious students of journalism may have a tough time trying to contain their snigger at this opinion.) But, on the other hand, this very view may somewhat denote the antics of a ruling elite that has gone jittery for various reasons that we will delve into later. At the very least, Zam’s allegation of malaysiakini’s connection with Soros suggests a desperate attempt at tarnishing the reputation of the news portal. 

Sections of the mainstream media were also poised to display, nay flaunt, this “newsworthy” foreign linkage. Pro-establishment New Straits Times (Feb 3), for instance, beckoned its readers to this “horrendous reality” via its banner headline that screamed on top of its front page, “George Soros funds malaysiakini, says Review”. 

Pregnant sarcasm 

As it turned out, malaysiakini’s denial (of receiving Soros funding) took a backseat in this report. It’s the kind of headline that hints of a newspaper, for obvious reasons, desperately seeking Soros. Compare this with The Sun’s composed coverage (page 6) on the same day of the same issue, headlined “Malaysiakini denies receiving funds from Soros”. 

And of late, government-controlled Radio Television Malaysia (RTM), particularly TV1 and a few other mainstream media had carried ‘news’ and ‘analyses’ that tried to put malaysiakini in a bad light. 

The malaysiakini denial didn’t stop others, like Zam, from pointing their accusing fingers at the news portal. New Sunday Times’ Other Thot-er, Kadir Jasin, with pregnant sarcasm recommended on Feb. 4 that “… the news portal may want to rename itself ‘Soroskini’…”. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar also jumped on the bandwagon, questioning the credibility of the news portal (The Star, Feb 16). 

The ‘interest’ in malaysiakini is, to be sure, not sudden. The online newspaper, one would think, has long been an object of grave concern of the authorities and perhaps even certain sections of the mainstream media. The Review controversy seemed to have provided them the excuse or the occasion to openly cast aspersion and suspicion against malaysiakini, with the hope that its credibility will be eroded and many Malaysian Internet users would turn away from it. 

There are possible reasons why certain groups in the country have now shown greater ‘interest’ in malaysiakini. For one thing, the news portal is essentially experimentation with the freedom that is made available in cyberspace. 

Balanced journalism 

The success, or otherwise, of this project is, I would argue, a concern of the government’s for it has, as intimated above, wider implications upon freedom of expression in Malaysia especially at this juncture of the country’s history where the political hegemony of the ruling elite is experiencing cracks. Moreover, the success of this experimentation could provide a useful model or example for others to emulate. 

Secondly, despite certain blunders made along the way, the news portal has by and large managed to build up its own credibility by offering readers exposés, news and views that seldom see the light of day in the mainstream media. 

The news portal also tries to provide balanced journalism, although this is often hampered by its inability to cover government functions because of the press accreditation problem, and also by the fact that public statements from the opposition and critical NGOs get relatively easier airing in this news portal compared to the mainstream media that often deny them the much needed democratic space. Furthermore, its relatively smaller number of journalists could also limit its ability to cover a wider range of issues. 

Be that as it may, in certain cases its unearthing of certain issues inevitably reveals the journalistic inadequacy and a lack of professional ethics in certain mainstream press. 

Thirdly, the fact that malaysiakini strives to be bilingual means that it aims at a bigger outreach. Items in the English language would cater to largely the middle class, the corporate sector, and foreign readers, among others; while those in the Malay language would appeal to particularly the Malay community, especially the reformasi types, and certain sections of the rural community. 

Growing popularity of alternative media such as malaysiakini and Harakah, to name but a few, normally haunts and disturbs the ruling elite, and recent history would show that the powers-that-be would be inclined to arrest that popularity in more ways than one. 

Finally, the letters’ column in malaysiakini provides ample opportunity for concerned and interested Malaysians to discuss issues and policies of public import. In a democracy, it is hoped that such discussions would be crucial feedback for lawmakers before they embark on new policies and regulations that eventually affect the lives of the ordinary Malaysians. 

Overtly critical 

In other words, there are things that need to be discussed, and done so in an intelligent, open and civilised fashion. In this regard, many, if not most, essays written by writers for malaysiakini address important issues of the day. 

Although there are a few mainstream newspapers, such as the NST, that do provide extra space for letters, theirs, however, often do not provide letters that comment on certain government policies especially those that have the potential of being overtly critical. 

The malaysiakini episode indeed makes a mockery of the Malaysian government’s professed commitment to easy access of information and freedom of expression, particularly in relation to the much-publicised Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project. It also suggests a lack of accountability and professionalism within certain sections of the international media. 

Malaysiakini