For those who do not read and write the Chinese language, and therefore inaccessible to the Chinese press, the imagined world of Malaysian Chineseness shall forever remain an enigma, subject to all so manners of stereotyping, misinterpretation and outright demonisation.

Of all the newspapers in the various languages published in our country, the Chinese press remains the most vibrant in terms of serving its role as a public vehicle for the expression of its community spirit. With a total circulation of nearly a million, the Chinese press is a perennial feature of Malaysian life.

Despite the various efforts over the last century to curb and shackle this community spirit for various political reasons, the Chinese press has shown resilience as if it has a life of its own, due, I suspect, to a diversity of aspirations among its readership for self-expression. With the launching of the two Chinese news portals on the internet, the Chinese version of malaysiakini and www.merdekareview.com , fresh impetus has been injected into this articulation of the desire for greater freedom of expression.

Recently, a private radio station decided to join in the fray. They introduce a life broadcast of political commentary by distinguished commentators, while allowing listeners to call in and put forth all kinds of difficult questions to the panel speakers.

This is obviously a media first in Malaysia, at least in recent years. I remember vaguely a similar gallant attempt was made by Patrick Teoh on one of the state- run radio stations. During one of the sessions, listeners called in to make revelation about police corruption. The programme was terminated unceremoniously forthwith, and Patrick Teoh seemed to have retired from public broadcasting, which is a pity.

Government's intolerance

This new attempt at call-in live broadcast by the new radio station was entirely in the Chinese language. It was a novelty and became an instant hit with listeners. During the height of the MCA party election, candidates were invited to pronounce their respective platform, and listeners would call in with all kinds of critical and at times extremely embarrassing questions.

Shortly thereafter, the radio station announced that it was closing shop. A spontaneous wave of protest erupted among the listeners, claiming that, among other things, it was another sign of the government's intolerance for freedom of expression. A series of candle-lit vigil was organised, mourning another passing of a public vehicle for the democratic expression of the rakyat. Something like 10.000 people were believed to have participated in this outpouring of discontent.

A statement was issued by the radio station, to the effect that the closure of business was based entirely on consideration of profit and loss, and had nothing to do with political interference. The minister in charge of licensing radio stations said something similar. Unfortunately, the new found fans of the ill-fated station were not convinced.

At about the same time, another annual storm was brewing on another front. Outspoken members of the Chinese students in various universities were making a little too much noise about how election to their student bodies was made into a farce by interference from university administration. They were hauled before the university hearing boards for alleged infringement of various regulations. It is a Catch-22 situation in which the students could never win.

This sparked a protest among student activists. One student leader even took the university administration to court. A signature campaign was launched on the net, calling for the laws that have long stifled student bodies on campus, and degrading the institutions of higher learning to the level of boot camps. They collected slightly over 1000 signatures.

This is a puzzling phenomenon to some observers of public life in Malaysia. Why is the general public and the university students at large so cold towards this gallant effort to reform our universities, when overnight, there was such a spontaneous widespread wave of support for the reinstatement of a radio station?

Radio station opens, closes

In his usually controversial musing, prominent Chinese columnist Phoon Wing Keong wondered if the fans of the radio station constitute the kind of civil society group that could agitate for the birth of new democratic norms in the country. Obviously he does not think so.

For some time now, Phoon has been writing deligently on the question of civil society, exploring it as a possible catalyst for meaningful democratic change in Malaysia. He even organised an international conference on the civil society as a main theme a few months ago, when he was still attached to the New Era College, before he proceeded to China to pursue a PhD.

Usually, there is scant response to his insistence on discussing a subject in a community that is known for pragmatic politics rather than speculative theorizing. This time however, his slightly sarcastic comment on the phenomenon of media fans caused an unusual stir.

On the print media and on the Internet, fellow writers tried to chastise him for looking down on those people who would agitate for the reopening of a trend setting radio station. Any spontaneous protest against the oppression of freedom of expression is a manifestation of the democratic impulse among the rakyat. It is a rare attempt by Malaysians to assert their democratic rights as citizens of the country. It should be encouraged.

Then there are rejoinders to suggest that the closure of the radio station was entirely a matter of profit and loss, and that the decision for this closure was a commercial consideration, and not a political ploy as is commonly perceived.

This was followed by a discussion of whether a newspaper, a radio station or a net news portal is a public vehicle for the purpose of providing democratic checks and balances, or just a mere business venture dictated to predominantly by market forces. High ideals for the birth of the Fourth Estate are fine, but bread and butter issues must surely concern owners of mass media trying to sell their product to a very competitive market!

The public exchange of views was quite heated, with one writer branding Phoon as being guilty of elitism, and therefore blind to the need to mobilise the "grass-roots" on all fronts! Phoon published his reply, adequately I think, and this sparked off another tangential outpouring of divergent views.

Wholesome picture

I have reported this event in a very crude outline for a few reasons.

First of all, all those involved in this debate are not fans of the ruling parties. With rare exceptions, they are not die-hard opposition supporters either. You could say they are all on the same side, though what that side is, is something they have yet to work out. They do represent the new generation of younger Chinese "intelligentsia', a term I am reluctant to use for its murky connotations.

Sometimes, I get this impression that the arguments are flung at cross-purposes, partly because, in the Chinese translation, the term "civil society" has been rendered as "citizens' society". Also, the focus ought to have been more about the nature and function of civil society, rather than what would promote democracy in Malaysia.

Nevertheless, it is gratifying to observe from the sideline an intelligent discussion conducted without the usual malice and personal attack that has plagued public narratives in Malaysia. The net result of the emergence of claims and counter-claims is that one gets a wholesome picture of the complex problems involved in meaningful social actions in Malaysia.

What these participants in the debate may want to realise is that they are already members of a loosely-knit civil society engaged in a reflective discourse on the meaning and the content of social actions in Malaysia.

This sort of public engagement among apparently like-minded friends is particularly to be cherished. All too often, commitment to social action is driven by an emotional conviction in some ideological belief. Unfortunately, ideologies are tuned to the will to power, to dominate and so, the ideology of liberation often degenerates into an ideology of oppression in the hands of the committed actor. The hero becomes the villain in his turn.

It is when ideologies have been suspended, and the discourse is directed towards open-ended quest for truth that social action is prevented from being blind towards self-criticism and self-adjustment. It makes possible that transparency of communication that makes expression of views meaningful, rather than a unilateral airing of mere personal prejudices. It releases a great deal of social capital in the process. This is the sort of discourse that will forever be denied to the political parties.

It is a small oasis in a massive desert of sterile ranting and bitching. But at least it exists in Malaysia. Why it should be limited to the Chinese media is food for thought for all. These writers give you hope that people indeed deserve every bit of freedom of expression that they can get, and that giving them freedom will not be like giving flowers to monkeys. Bravo!