One of the 'mothers against ISA (Internal Security Act)' who has worn the anti-ISA badge daily, recounted her story on Mother's Day last May 13, of a pisang goreng seller asking her if she is employed by 'ISA' upon seeing the badge.

You would think that at least people in the Klang valley (the hub of press and media activity?) would have some inkling of the ISA. Obviously there is not enough dissemination of information on the ISA.

We assume that our newspapers would do some public education. However, not everybody has the time and inclination to read the papers. Too many people in the city are busy making ends meet, and probably get home just in time to catch a little TV before sleeping.

The ISA may even be kosher in the press. Not too long ago, a friend complained that even The Sun carried a rather flippant opinion about the ISA. The article gave the impression to readers that we are not as bad as some other dictatorial regimes and we should be thankful that we have only the ISA as the most evil thing.

A 'little more' independent

We have said often enough that our local dailies are mouthpieces of political parties and repositories of self-censorship, no thanks to the myriad of laws on licensing, sedition, public order and national security.

Given these, private ownership of the press may not by itself be an assurance of press freedom. This makes the furore of the takeover of Nanyang Press by MCA appears like an overkill. Still, many would protest this allegation as readers claim that the Chinese-language dailies are a little more independent. So we have come to that - a little more than a little, is more.

It's not press freedom really, some say. It's the loss of credibility of the MCA as representative of the interests of the Chinese electorate. It's another groundswell of public opinion against the MCA leadership after that resignation-comeback episode of Dr Ling Liong Sik last year. Some people are clearly still upset. Current reports on the takeover seem to confirm this.

There may be a host of other reasons not yet to the fore as writers, readers, employees and supporters are prepared to turun ke jalan (demonstrate in the streets). A Chinese-based reformasi is the last thing the state wants brewing after the Malay and Muslim unity quandary and it remains to be seen if the state will claim a crisis conjuring moral panic along the lines of Chinese unity in the days to come.

Whatever the reasons as yet unsaid the point remains that the takeover of the two dailies by MCA represents a consolidation of power over a vehicle of public information and education. The takeover by MCA has presented us with the opportunity to think about media democracy and freedom across the board.

In several of these debates, free press in terms of access to public debate leading to an informed, participating self-governing constituency may be equally threatened by private power, the market and government.

Corporate profit

Close to the globalisation rhetoric is the idea that the market supports free press. This view was in fact supported by two of the speakers at the talk on press freedom organised by Sin Chew Jit Poh in early May in response to a question from a BBC correspondent. No other view was offered.

There is a growing counter opinion among media observers on this. The freedom of the market is freedom to make transactions. The market is not driven by any idea of democracy for self-government. In other words, corporate profit does not equal democracy despite the rhetoric of investors.

The 'market' is capital and not people. The market gives people what they want within the range of what is most profitable to produce and/or in the interests of the producers.

Investors or corporate media owners have been known to kill news detrimental to business interests. For example, Disney owns ABC news. In 1995 Disney killed an ABC programme investigating employment practices at Disneyworld. Rupert Murdoch had BBC removed from his Asian satellite television in the mid 1990s, when several government's opposition to the BBC news service threatened his commercial plans in the region. Our local examples are rarely exposed in order to serve political or business interests as well.

From this, there is no reason to believe that the dangers of private concentrations of power are less than dangers of the state.

Government intervention

The government has a monopoly on the 'legitimate use of force'. It has power to imprison and regulate. However, the view that the government should step in to regulate media when private ownership determines and control content may not be the answer. Government power needs to be checked by an independent judiciary whose vigilance may strike down any governmental regulation or break up any corporate monopoly threatening to subvert speech and free press.

In our case, we have become suspicious of government intervention as we know that in this present day, we have more regulations to curb press freedom than to allow it. This suspicion may not have entertained any consideration about the 'protection' of domestic media and cultural industries in relation to the global media with its links to the global capitalist political economy brought by the World Trade Organisation. That is a whole area of concern in media democracy.

We are fortunately (or not) still grappling with issues of "manageable proportions" at the local level.

What can we do, the seniman jalan (street artistes) of protestors, the 'little people' who are not politicians or corporate moguls? What is our power as media consumers? I gather we are still at the testing-the-waters stage.

'Writer's block'

I think we put too much faith in the established print and broadcast media for our staple of information. Would it not be interesting if the 41 writers against the takeover actually develop a different way of articulating their views on current issues?

A friend who attended the writers' press conference at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall on May 26 thought writers and supporters could try and explore a totally novel way of writing during the campaign period (of protest).

She thought about a 'writer's block' as she calls it, where writers and supporters gather at a point or different points in public areas during the period and put up their writings. It is a form of direct engagement with people who are not otherwise NGOs, reformasi crowds, whatever. It is a form of protest and community building.

We could develop free public computer systems or community networks to democratise information over the Internet. I hear that residents in Subang have begun some initial stages of a similar project. There is a small Internet radio project underway.

One recent Saturday, I was pleasantly surprised by a group of enterprising young people who entrenched themselves at the pedestrian walkway near the Central Market. It was an ISA protest. One of the street artistes informed me that about 2,300 leaflets in Bahasa Malaysia on why the ISA must be abolished were snapped up by the hour!

We could do so many things to engage civil society in issues of liberties, freedom of information, speech and expression. The market place of ideas has several paths. Press for freedom*.

* The title of this article is taken off a car sticker developed by a small band of journalists for May 3, 2001, World Press Freedom Day.