In a move that's calculated to narrow the ideological and political gap between the ruled and the ruler, the Malaysian government recently announced its intention to do away with, or at the very least relax, its protocol requirements pertaining to official functions where the political leaders are normally physically seated away from the people, the purportedly treasured voters.

With this new ruling, it is envisaged that the rakyat can now sit next to their leaders, having little chats and presumably even discussing matters of public import in a more amicable and relaxing manner.

This endeavour, predictably warmly welcomed by a mainstream newspaper in its editorial recently, is essentially aimed at regaining the government's credibility which has taken a heavy beating, particularly among the Malay community since the Anwar saga unfolded. The unceremonious and hasty dismissal of Anwar Ibrahim as deputy prime minister and deputy president of Umno, the long-drawn Anwar trials, among others, have all played a role in putting the Mahathir administration under the people's close scrutiny.

Incidentally, while the government is still at it, i.e. reducing protocols, we hope that it will also get rid of the time-consuming, patience-testing and hierarchy-reinforcing greetings of " Yang Berbahagia, Yang Berhormat, Tan Sri, Datuk Seri, Datuk, Datuk Paduka, Datuk Wira, dif-dif kenamaan yang lain... " (where greetings for the ordinary folk are at the bottom of the heap) and replace them with a simple, inclusionary and non-elitist " Tuan-tuan dan Puan-puan yang dihormati ", or " Saudara dan Saudari yang dihormati ".

One wonders at this juncture, though, whether this willingness on the part of the leaders to "sacrifice" otherwise important protocols in order to be physically with the ordinary people, and to listen to them attentively, deserves the rakyat 's sense of humble gratitude towards their seemingly obliging leaders. After all, it looks like this planned rapport would require many more of such get-togethers to be organised nationwide, which may incur a lot of time, patience, human and material resources, let alone money.

That said, this attempt to reduce the leader-led gap is, however, feeble and superficial, a short-term measure at best. For what is really at hand is the larger issue of the eroding right of the Malaysian people, the electorate, to express their views, make criticisms, show grievances, offer suggestions, and also to be consulted by the leaders on many issues of public importance.

Engaging in debates and discussions is expected, especially in a democracy where the rakyat would touch on matters affecting their lives, such as government policies and actions, through various means particularly the mass media. It is also here that the government and its leaders are made accountable to the people whom the former claim to represent.

Indeed, people's feedback on certain government policies through the mass media is crucial in ensuring that the government of the day would not be out of touch and out of tune with the people's wishes and aspirations. It is, in other words, a measure to prevent a government from becoming, to borrow a celebrated term of the last century, "irrelevant" to the people's ordinary lives. To do otherwise would cause serious cracks in the government's political hegemony.

That is why it is of utmost importance that the mass media in this country operate under conditions that are politically conducive and democratic so that journalists and editors, on the one hand, may not have to exercise self-censorship, biased reporting and, worse still, exude sycophancy, and the people, on the other, may express their views without fear or favour.

But before we can attain substantially such a situation, several prerequisites will have to be met. For one thing, laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, Internal Security Act, etc. must be repealed or amended accordingly. Furthermore, the pattern of media ownership that impinges upon major media needs urgent restructuring to ensure that one media outfit does not grow into a monstrous conglomerate.

Only then can the rakyat "meet" the leaders without even having to indulge in, say, a bumper durian feast where you cross-leg with affable but smelly, burping leaders. Political leaders and policy makers will then have to deal with the people through, among other things, comments, criticisms, observations made in the mass media whose editorial and political independence is jealously guarded.

Otherwise one will have to contend with a scenario where a mainstream newspaper would periodically change its physical format, logo or masthead in an inherent desire to shed its stale and even emasculate image. It may even advertise itself as a newspaper that dares to be bold, ever willing to take on the bull by its horns. But, unfortunately, at the end of the day, it may well be contented with playing a role of a lapdog.

This penchant for superficial change can be likened to the antics of an old man donning a Superman cape and underwear hoping against hope that he would be able to fly to greater heights. As we all know, it takes more than just alluring attire to reach for the sky.

Consequently, you'd still have the Cabinet ministers and other politicians in the ruling coalition making and hogging the headlines, almost to the point of pushing the few available views of other people, especially those not on the government's side, to the margin of the newspaper pages.

Hence, if a political leader said, for instance, that there were "instigators" who provoked a certain local body or organisation to do something that he considered politically negative, then you would have no one, including the media themselves, seeking the vital clarification as to who those instigators were. And if the government were to claim that there were "foreign enemies" out to create trouble in this country, the media would not feel "disturbed" as to ask the nagging question of who those enemies were.

It would be tragic if the muffled mainstream media one day find themselves instead becoming, after an accelerated erosion of people's democratic rights is left unchecked, a stumbling block - not a bridge - to a closer, though not necessarily servile, relationship between the people and their government.