Hugo Young, the celebrated Guardian columnist, wrote shortly before his passing last September: if the separation of journalism from politics doesn't mean journalists constantly challenging the extension of arbitrary authority, what's the point of not being a politician?

If one abhors Anglo-American hegemony and is quick to dismiss Young's remarks as 'incompatible with Asian journalistic ethics', think again.

Chu Anping, an erudite Chinese scholar and the editor-in-chief of Guang Ming Daily of China in 1957, once vowed to speak up for the average Joe and exercise political monitoring on the government, adding that 'the duty of the press is to expose problems, while the job of analysing and solving issues should be left to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'.

I suppose silencing political dissents is one of the oldest professions too. Before these bold statements had a chance to sink in, Chu was sacked from his post in a merciless purge of dissidents by Mao Zedong, and the very first attempt to create a responsible and independent press in New China was stillborn.

Although Guang Ming - which means 'brightness' literally - lives on, many in China today regard it hardly better than the People's Daily , the mouthpiece of the CCP.

Chu and Young represented two cultures that were poles apart, yet their views on journalistic professionalism cut across time and space. So much for the Asian values.

Curbing journalistic excesses

While the mainland Chinese press has since been emasculated, the debate on the state of the British press remains vibrant. Wary of the aggressive, opposing stances taken by the Daily Mail and the Independent on the newly adopted European Constitution, Martin Kettle of the Guardian felt compelled to urge for a better British press. In his opinion, the British media is increasingly shaping policy, rather than providing unbiased commentary and analysis.

As expected, Kettle's call for greater scrutiny on the British press was, to many, reprobate and repugnant. Albert Scardino, Guardian 's executive editor of news, retorted that 'it may be Whitehall self-protection rather than journalistic outrageousness that is standing in the way of a better press'. He is dead against regulation or scrutiny by ministers and politicians, and sees the way out for the 'journalistic excesses' in more reporting about oneself and each other.

Wise words indeed, but not applicable to Malaysia though.

As I have written before, instead of fostering a journalistic culture of debate and exchange of views, the Malaysian press is stifling creativity and enlightened public discourses. With dozens of dailies of various languages and hundreds of thousands of magazines and publications competing for the relatively small market, it appears that Malaysians are spoiled for choice.

But on a closer look, the reality bites. Worse still, many of the dailies are so locked in a cut-throat competition that they are only trying to get ahead of the rivals by revamping layouts and sensationalising news, not providing insightful and in-depth analyses or comments.

Sin Chew and Genghis Khan

Nanyang Siang Pau , for instance, has seen its content deteriorating at fast pace since the MCA took over it. When Ting Chee Seng, a former president of the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, chastised some politicians for not serving the interests of the people, a couple of articles appeared in Nanyang seeking to clear the reader of the impression that Ting's scornful remarks were directed at Ong Ka Ting, the MCA chief. Interestingly, when Ong was embroiled in the triad controversy late last year, Sin Chew Daily came to his rescue through an editorial, trying to explain the whole thing away.

Nanyang recently forged a partnership with the Hong Kong-based, ultra pro-Beijing Wen Weibao , ostensibly with a view to broadening the horizons of the Malaysian reader on the staggering rise of Greater China. For those who see the future of the Chinese race in the CCP, they can now read with relish more Beijing-friendly news content in Nanyang . But the pact with Wen Weibao could be seen as a move to arrest Nanyang 's declining circulations.

If the problem with the British press lies in too much 'journalism-with-attitude', the shame of the Chinese press in Malaysia is its wantonness in carrying or translating foreign articles without having to pay a penny. A classic example is Sin Chew 's translation of a Times news report on Genghis Khan last month. In the original text, Lois Rogers, the Times medical editor, reported that Genghis Khan 'inseminated so many women that he created a pool of at least 16 million male descendants.'

Sin Chew 's translation was largely faithful, with the exception of a clearly added remark that '(this act) promoted racial integration'. Word for word, I checked the Times news report, and failed to find any comment or conclusion to that effect. This had me wonder if it was meant to inflate the greater China complex of the Sin Chew reader for its hegemonic agenda?

Having new players joining the fray may not necessarily raise the standards of the Malaysian press. The Oriental Daily , for instance, has undermined its claim as a credible alternative when it sought to endear itself to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi during the general election in March. Furthermore, it seems more obsessed with fighting against Sin Chew than setting a new trend in Chinese Malaysian press industry.

Sudden thaw

However, the sudden thaw in the decades-old enmity between Sin Chew and Nanyang , evidenced by the concerted effort of the four major Chinese newspapers to encircle the fledgling Oriental Daily , prompts one to doubt Sin Chew 's denial of some role in the takeover bid of the Nanyang Press.

As for the Malay press, Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian have been serving Umno so well for the last four decades, and there are no signs that the ruling classes are ready to let go of this privilege. In tandem with the vehement Umno divisional nominations, it seems that the editors of the two Malay dailies are working hard to create or supply issues - from the neglect of the Malay language to the death of Massa , a Malay magazine - for Umno politicians to put up a brilliant performance in the general assembly in September.

Are we in need of a media ombudsman? Well, the rapport between Malaysian politicians and journalists is already too strong to be undone. As a popular Chinese saying goes: it is easy to invite the gods into the house, but hard to send them away.

Would British journalists catch on to this Chinese adage?