When the National Union of Journalists and the Bar Council asked me to speak on how important sources of information are to reporters, I was slightly puzzled.
Puzzled, because I have never asked myself that question. Indeed, how significant are our sources in our work as journalists? I would say critical — for without them, there will be no news.
Unless, of course, if you consider stuff that comes only from official sources as news.
But surely, official sources do not have complete monopoly on truth. And if journalists cannot get the truth from official sources — which is often the case — they will need to find it somewhere else.
My personal experience, as part of an investigative team for The Sun , offers an illustration of this.
In 1995, working with two colleagues, I helped unearth the deaths of 59 detainees, mostly Bangladeshis, in Semenyih — an illegal immigration detention camp just outside Kajang, Selangor.
They died of beri-beri, a symptom of malnutrition, and typhoid, a contagious disease as a result of unhygienic conditions. Both diseases are easily preventable.
Criminal neglect
We wrote that this was a case of criminal neglect on the part of the police who ran the camp since little food and medical attention were given to the detainees. The story was spiked hours before it went to print.
When it became known that the newspaper was not going to run the report, the investigative team decided to hand the information over to Tenaganita, a non-governmental organisation that supports migrant workers.
It wasn't until Tenaganita exposed the deaths at a press conference — and these deaths were more-or-less confirmed by the government — that the newspaper had the courage to run the story. But not without four major revisions.
That was not the end of the story. The whistle-blower, Tenaganita director Irene Fernandez, was subsequently arrested for spreading "false news" under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, a law originally used to muzzle the press.
Those who wrote the story were interrogated by the police for more than three days.
Clearly, the report would not see the light of day if not for our sources. One was the individual who alerted us to the deaths. He was a labour recruitment agent who was seriously troubled by his conscience. Others included those who had spent months in the detention camp.
Most notable was a doctor in Kajang Hospital, who told us that she was shocked to have encounter beri-beri, a World War Two disease which no longer exists in Malaysia. Or so she thought. She had never seen beri-beri in her professional life until she was posted to the hospital.
But there were those who were not so forthcoming in providing information — they included, yes, the official sources, especially the police and the hospital administration.
Timely issue
This discussion on the need for journalists to protect their sources is timely.
Only last week, two British journalists refused to reveal their sources in their story on Bloody Sunday — where British troops shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights protestors in Northern Ireland.
The journalists vowed they would go to jail rather than name four soldiers they interviewed for a series of hard-hitting reports on the 1972 killings.
The two — Channel 4 News reporter Alex Thomson and his former producer, Lena Ferguson — refused to identify their sources, despite an order from the tribunal investigating the tragedy.
The pair have two weeks to reveal the names or they will be held in contempt and could face a prison sentence.
Ironically, families of the dead argued that the anonymous soldiers could provide vital information on whether the troops overreacted and fired unprovoked on civilians on that fateful day.
In 1972, the Lord Widgery tribunal exonerated all troops and cast aspersions on some of the dead, but a fresh investigation was called in 1999, after decades of campaigning by the bereaved.
The soldiers claimed to have come under sustained attack by gunfire and nail-bomb. None of the eyewitness accounts saw any gun or bomb being used by those who had been shot dead or wounded. No soldiers were injured in the operation, no guns or bombs were recovered at the scene of the killing.
A promise is a promise
And this is what the two journalists said about their predicament.
"I gave an undertaking to the soldiers that I would not reveal their identity. I intend to stick to that. A promise is a promise and that is all there is to it," said Ferguson, who now works for the BBC in Belfast.
Meanwhile, Thomson said: "The principle that you do not betray your sources is absolutely fundamental, not solely to our journalism but to everybody's investigative journalism. It cannot be compromised and if that means serving a prison sentence to defend that principle then that is precisely what I shall do."
I couldn't agree more.
Revealing our sources, after having promised them anonymity, is not an option for journalists. That would have a "chilling effect" on the media, especially investigative journalism. It would deter potential sources from approaching journalists with information which is of public interest.
As it is in Malaysia, we are already living in a state of fear. There are enough laws out there — 31 to be precise — to discourage potential informants from going to the media, and to keep a tight lid on press freedom. They don't need journalists who can't keep their promises.
Prove Mahathir wrong
At the Malaysian Press Institute awards six years ago, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad told some 700 journalists who attended the gala event to behave themselves.
He said Malaysians should not be unduly ashamed of laws which curtail their freedom of expression.
"Are we ashamed that there is no freedom of the press in this country?" he asked. "Do we, forever, have to apologise to the rest of the world for our laws. Could it be, perhaps, that we are right and they are wrong?"
Later that night, he presented a number of awards to journalists picked by a panel of veteran journalists.
One of the winners was "Shattered Dreams", the report about the deaths of immigrants in the detention camps, a story originally considered unfit for publication.
Despite the irony of the award, Malaysian journalists have yet to prove Mahathir wrong.
Prosecution witness
As to the source which made the award-winning report possible, he was detained by the police for close to two months, ostensibly on immigration charges. He was after all a Bangladeshi, but has rights to permanent residency in Malaysia.
It is not known what happened to him when he was under police incarceration. Not surprisingly, however, he changed his story when he was released. He ended up as a prosecution witness in the Irene Fernandez trial, and told the court that he couldn't remember much about the episode.
Indeed, sources are crucial to journalists. But more important are sources who are willing to stand by their stories even when put under pressure from the authorities. Equally important are journalists willing to protect the identity of their sources when threatened by the law.
Sadly though, there are not many of these brave individuals around, both journalists and informants.
The above is a speech given at the 'Journalists, Press Freedom and the Law' forum organised jointly by the National Union of Journalists and Bar Council on May 10, 2002.
