Good morning. I stand here today as a journalist with the traditional media, known increasingly over the decades as the mainstream or government-controlled media.

We have acquired the label not because of the function we should perform but because of what many have become as a result of the Printing Presses and Publications Act which gives the government total control over whether our owners can continue to publish the news.

While we are generally left alone to perform the function of inform and educate, our role of watchdog is the one that causes the hackles to rise on the bureaucratic back.

The pressure comes on when we highlight inefficiencies in the system and question development projects whether at federal or local level.

All this is old news and you have no idea how boring (from a news perspective), not to mention tiring, it is to keep saying the same thing again and again.

The irony is that those of us who remind the government that a democratic society has the fundamental right to free speech and expression  with all its limitations  become targets while the public, for whom we speak and fight, seem to be deaf.

  • The public seems to have forgotten that we are their only means of finding out whether the people they duly elect to government, or cause to become elected when they exercise their right not to vote, are doing their job of running the country the way it should be.

  • They seem to have forgotten that government projects and the government itself run on taxpayers money and as such owe a duty to the public to be transparent and forthcoming in all dealings. To do this we need access to information and the freedom to expose any shortcomings or corruption.

  • Most importantly, the public seems to have forgotten that we are their voice in a democratic country, a la Malaysia or any other, and that by allowing the continued existence of media laws which restrict and shackle reporters they wilfully mute their own voice.

  • We understand that years of control have created cynicism and a sense of helplessness. We are not advocating violence or even civil unrest but the public, as members of a participatory democracy, must demand for their rights within the existing processes and mechanisms.

    • Four scenarios

    The burden is now on the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to be more vigorous in educating the public in what its rights are and to place media freedom as an issue of priority and to remind the government of its duty to adhere to any covenant, agreement or resolution it has signed which promises press freedom.

    This is what having an annual publishing permit has resulted in:

    Scenario one: Reporter comes back with story, briefs the editor and writes the article. The editor clears it for use but it is not published as an editor higher up the food chain decides the article may put the papers publishing permit in jeopardy.

    Scenario two: Reporter comes back with story, briefs the editor and writes the article. The editor junks it without consulting other editors as other similar stories have been junked.

    Scenario three: Reporter comes back with story, briefs the editor but leaves out details that he/she notices is generally censored. Unsurprisingly, the article makes print!

    Scenario four: Reporter comes back and tells editor there was no story.

    There are exceptions to the above in the mainstream media but they number a few. They keep trying in the hope that one day, the story might see the light of day.

    Evil of censorship

    I must add here that quite a few editors are sympathetic to their reporters frustration. Some remember the freedom they had when they were writing.

    Many have stood up and still stand up for their reporters when the government expresses displeasure over an article critical of it or its leadership. Except when they have their facts wrong, it is rare that a reporter is penalised or punished just because the government or owner was not happy.

    The evil of self-censorship is that it is infectious. Many editors worth their salt are throwing up their hands in frustration because very few of their reporters have the dedication and commitment to stay with an issue.

    It is becoming more rare that reporters turn up at press conferences and actually ask questions.

    Suhakam commissioners from the first term would remember that although there could be 20 reporters present, maybe only three would ask questions  one from the mainstream, one from the new media and one foreign journalist.

    Many of us concerned journalists have decided to address this since the memorandum of 1999 by conducting workshops and forums for our colleagues so that they know that a licensing provision only prohibits what is published; it doesnt prohibit us from thinking or asking questions. The group is slowly growing.

    We are doing our part to improve ethical and professional standards. We need Suhakam and the public to do their part. Media freedom is not a battle for a handful of martyrs but should be one where all of us work side by side.

    If the Chief Justice of Malaysia can come out and say that mega defamation awards have a chilling effect on media freedom, what about Suhakam? What are you going to do?

    SHAILA KOSHY, a chief reporter of The Star , delivered the above speech at the Suhakam office on World Press Freedom Day yesterday during the handing over of a memorandum signed by almost 1,000 journalists asking for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act.