In June 1997, I spotted an article in The Times

that reeked horribly of Anglo chauvinism. The writer was proud that the inherent superiority of Anglo-Saxon values, coupled with the meticulous separation of powers that produced a world-class British administrative system emulated by the world over, made Hong Kong and Singapore shine in international trade.

Never mind that 1997 was the year in which London transferred close to seven million people from freedom to communist authoritarianism, or the fact that the pseudo-democracy in Singapore is made possible through the benevolent dictatorship of the People's Action Party , the writer praised the achievements of the Brits to the skies.

Utterly disgusted, I decided to have a try at the mighty pen, and wrote a letter to the editor, calling the writer a 'racist' and 'white-supremacist', who 'would no doubt receive a few pats on his back in return if Rudyard Kipling was still around'.

To my dismay, the letter was returned a few days later, with a note from the editor's office that it could not be published because the content failed to address the issues. I then sought advice from a British friend, who took a look at the letter and said, 'I can feel your indignation, but I can't see your argument, really.'

According to him, I was venting my spleen rather than engaging myself in an exchange of views. This experience with The Times taught me a great deal about the interaction between the press and the reader.

Months later, I again came across some views on multiculturalism in the Independent

that I felt in my bone were flawed.

After a few moments of sober pondering, I put my critical thoughts into words and had them sent, via the Internet, to the editor. I saw my letter published, first time ever in my life, in a respected British broadsheet the next day. I was overjoyed. Well, who would not?

Sworn enemies

Such generosity is hard to come by in Malaysia. While it is very common to see the Daily Telegraph

quoting the Guardian and vice versa, their opposing ideologies notwithstanding, Malaysian newspapers often behave like sworn enemies bent on outdoing one another, especially the Chinese press.

Malaysiakini

, for instance, is hardly mentioned by the mainstream press, for the obvious reason that it is perceived to be an 'anti-government' news organisation. In the case of Sin Chew Daily, it is probably shunning malaysiakini because the online newspaper was the 'culprit' that exposed the ignominious airbrushing of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim out of a group picture.

For the past week, there has been a series of writings in the Exchange Platform column of Sin Chew , criticising a number of writers, media observers and commentators who have in recent days been raising the issue of the distorted media culture within the Chinese press, mostly via Oriental Daily News . There is, of course, no love lost between Sin Chew and Oriental Daily , but like it or not, the latter now is the only Chinese broadsheet available for one to comment and write freely, albeit relatively, on the Chinese media industry in Malaysia.

Three years ago, Sin Chew vehemently denied playing a role in the takeover of Nanyang Press by MCA. This stance is now becoming increasingly untenable. Since the news of Sin Chew being one of the shareholders of Nanyang Siang Pau came to light, the best-selling Chinese daily has been evasive about the details of the deal, hence its wrath at the 'irritating' voices calling for it to come clean. In constantly raising the issue of press freedom and media ownership, the columnists, it seems, are going for the jugular.

The dilemma is, by writing for the Oriental Daily , these columnists, some of whom quit writing for other major dailies after the MCA take over, are inevitably seen by Sin Chew as 'partners in crime'. Ad nauseam, it chastised them for seeking to undermine its 'integrity' and 'long established credibility' with 'innuendos' and 'insinuations' through a rival daily.

There is no denial that Sin Chew made a few blunders recently. One of its senior writers described, confidently but terribly wrongly, The New Yorker

of the United States and the Guardian of Britain as 'tabloids', an ignorant comparison roundly refuted by a couple of the columnists. Well, for Sin Chew , eating crow is not a virtue. Later, its editor-in-chief in Exchange Platform reiterated, rather self-servingly and self-righteously, that Sin Chew 'doe not seek to deceive its readers'. I wonder where he was when Anwar's image was taken out of the group picture.

Press hegemon

One more thorn in Sin Chew 's side is the repeated criticism that Sin Chew harbours the ambition of being a press hegemon in the Chinese-speaking world outside China. Judging from the fact that the consortium now has publications, dailies and weeklies in Malaysia, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Canada and the United States, there appears to be some truth in the allegation.

Surprisingly, instead of addressing the foregoing issues head-on with arguments and facts so as to silence its critics, Sin Chew , touting itself to be a 'broadsheet', has resorted to lashing out at them, accusing them of jealousy, blind hatred, slander etc. Pretty much like what I did with my first letter to The Times , Sin Chew 's responses are based purely on emotions, devoid of substance.

The 'broadsheet complex' of Sin Chew is only a tiny reflection of the failure of the Chinese press in Malaysia to respond to the subtle changes that have taken place over the years. Chinese Malaysian newspapers are slow to realise certain quarters within the Chinese community have become sophisticated, increasingly shaking off their emotional attachments to the cultural role of the Chinese press. For these people, it is the duty of the media of all languages to act as a fourth state vis a vis the government. If the ruling classes should be subject to the most stringent public scrutiny, so should the Chinese press.

Having enjoyed all the applause and praise for their role as a cultural vanguard over the years, the Chinese press is now finding it hard to come to terms with this gradual paradigm shift. It continues to see itself as a righteous force upholding integrity and justice for the community, and refuses to be subject to monitoring of any form by other civic groups. (To ward off public criticism, Nanyang Siang Pau has even set up an internal evaluators council!) When dignity is slain, one begins to see all the hollow accusations coming to fore, while the crux of the question remains unanswered.

This extreme image consciousness of the Chinese press is succinctly summed up by a friend of mine as narcissism syndrome. It is as if constantly asking the mirror on the wall: who is the most upright Chinese newspaper after all?

Thanks to the Internet, for those who are tired of the mainstream Chinese press, they can now go to the Free Media

for some breathing space.

Want to know how sincere the editors of the Chinese press are about serious and in-depth dialogues and debates with the reader? Try submitting a critical piece of argument in response to any feeble editorial, and see if it will see the light of the day. Good luck to you.