A minister suddenly announces his resignation. In response, everyone, including the media, pleads for him to reconsider. He, in turn, waves farewell to his supporters, and jumps on a plane for an overseas break to clear the cobwebs and think again about "his decision".

The head of a sports body also announces his resignation. This comes after a debacle which sees the top players under his charge - players who had been hyped as world beaters by the media when really they were too green or too far over the hill - being trashed by an unfancied side.

In response to his announcement, the entire committee under him predictably comes to his rescue. Being equally honourable, they assert that the responsibility for the disaster is a "collective" one and ask him to withdraw his resignation letter which, of course, he does. Strangely, having admitted collective responsibility, the committee doesn't in turn feel that all its members should tender their resignations and a new committee set up. But that's another story.

Throughout history and in many countries, there have been numerous accounts of individuals "doing the honourable thing", sticking to some code of conduct that, somehow, helps to separate us humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.

It has nothing to do with bravery or valour. It has everything to do with having "maruah" or pride and taking responsibility for one's actions or one's position.

And in some societies, an individual who brings dishonour to his/her family or the wider society indeed has very little option but to "do the honourable thing", ranging from becoming a social outcast to taking his/her own life.

Just as possibly every other society has such codes, so, evidently, do we here in Malaysia. Not only do we "boleh", but we have somehow, magically, developed it to a fine art so that, instead of atoning for our mistakes, we use this code of conduct to gain mileage.

Take this idea of resigning, especially from high public office, for example. In countries like Japan and even in England, there have been accounts of public officers who resign their positions at the whiff of a scandal. No backing down, no rethinking of their decisions, just a straightforward, sincere resignation. Not so here.

For quite some time now here in Malaysia, public officers, including politicians, have taken the easy way out by passing the buck. They put the blame on others, especially their subordinates and even foreigners when, really, it is so obvious that the problem lies at their feet.

And, of course, more often than not, our blessed mainstream media have played along, pampering the officials concerned, not willing to disturb a single strand of hair on their heads.

But these recent, widely publicised (announcements of) resignations in high places seem to suggest that a new level of political wayang kulit (shadow play) is now being played by the powers that be.

And, perhaps without knowing it, but, more likely, because their reporters have been so socialised into approaching issues only from a particular angle, the mainstream media, even in these circumstances, become subservient, with its personnel acting more like public relations managers than inquisitive, questioning reporters.

So, the moment such decisions are announced, apart from going into fits of frenzy, mainstream journalists, on the whole, begin acting like die-hard teeny bopper groupies who can't believe that their hero has stepped down. And this fawning disbelief is reflected in the questions they ask and the pieces they write.

It's as though some built-in mechanism suddenly takes over, guiding the journalists every thought and behaviour. And questions that beg asking are suddenly deemed taboo, taken over by inane waffling and endless "analyses" of what's trite and tiresome.

A few weeks' back, former journalist and current Suhakam member, Zainah Anwar, published in malaysiakini some pertinent points regarding journalism and journalists ([#1] Pushing the boundaries of press freedom [/#], May 20-21). Like many other critics before her, she urged mainstream journalists to test the parameters.

Unfortunately, ever so often - as in this present situation of resignations - these journalists, in response, insist that the boundaries are fixed and inflexible.

Poppycock. Despite the current structural and operational media controls, the boundaries are never fixed but constantly shift over time.

Journalists need to be aware of this and be aware of the moments when greater leeway is possible. And, frankly, right now is a good a time as any to check out the elasticity of the parameters.

After all, the general elections and the party assemblies are over and done with; the economy purportedly is on the upturn; the government has become confident enough to establish Suhakam, whatever its detractors may say.

And, to top all this, the health minister has even become so bold as to lash out at individuals suing the government for negligence, as in the tragic case of the woman who was given HIV-contaminated blood. Calling these suits "not in the nation's interest", the minister then depicts these poor victims of negligence as potential troublemakers, rather than tragic unfortunates.

It is statements like this that the mainstream media should query and critically assess, rather than merely report. More so at a time when many people in the public eye are purportedly trying to behave honourably by resigning or offering to resign.

The mainstream media may well discover that it is awfully difficult to behave honourably when the dominant system and the people at the very top refuse to do so.