We represent three civil society organisations concerned with events transpiring from the media expose of a high-ranking government officer who had allegedly uttered mocking words against minority ethnic groups and the subsequent media expose of the reporter involved.

The controversies have raised concerns regarding freedom of expression and media ethics that need to be discussed and addressed.

Firstly: The racist sentiment allegedly expressed by the government officer is of public interest and significance even though, or especially because, it was done behind closed doors.

Much has been said about the remarks that Hamim Husin, the Federal Territory National Civics Bureau (BTN) assistant director, allegedly made at a Puteri Umno function on Sept 27.

Some denounced him as ‘racist’, and while he himself has said that his words were taken out of context and misinterpreted, there are others who are nevertheless defending his ‘misinterpreted’ words in terms of the context (said to a private function) and content (that Malays reserve the right to rule Malaysia).

However, even if Hamim were speaking in his personal capacity – which is the official position of the BTN according to a 29 September media release – his words, if true, convey a bigotry that is at odds with his position (whether he is a contract employee or a civil servant is a moot point) in a government agency established to inculcate patriotism and leadership values in youths.

Racist remarks can further erode confidence in an agency that is already troubled by past allegations of offering racist content and political propaganda in favour of the ruling federal government.

The cabinet response to order a probe into the speech he gave is a good move. However, we urge the authorities to also look into the broader issue of racism in its institutions to make this investigation a meaningful exercise.

Secondly: All parties concerned, including the media, should not expose a journalist to potential acts of violence.

Given the controversial nature of this case, posting the reporter's photograph to illustrate the method used by the journalist to obtain the story is a highly irresponsible act. Online media Agenda Daily' s publication of the reporter's photograph exposes her to security risk and threats of bodily and sexual harm, especially since her photograph has been re-posted at various blogs and online discussion lists.

While the undercover reporting method may be controversial, it is not criminal, whereas the threats to commit violence against her definitely are.

We condemn unequivocally the threats being levelled at the reporter and call upon the police to stop any investigations against the journalist and the media organisation. Instead, the authorities should ensure the safety of journalists and media organisations to report on matters of public interest.

Thirdly, the ethics of undercover reporting is an issue for the media and society to discuss and not another excuse for the authorities to ask for more media control.

Though undercover reporting is a vital journalism tool, there are strict guidelines for its use since it involves deception, which compromises a crucial journalistic element – trust. Any decision to undertake undercover reporting has to be thoroughly weighed by the editorial team to ensure it is justifiable and defensible.

According to various codes of media ethics, it is only to be considered when there is no other way of obtaining crucial information of high public interest, and the how and why it was done must be publicly explained in the same story.

The international journalism excellence school Poynter gives a good rundown of justifiable situations, in which the public interest must outweigh the possible harm, which includes the physical danger to the undercover reporter during and after the job, as well as the impact on others involved.

In many countries, when undercover journalism is used for a news-breaking item, the media and society use the opportunity to engage in a healthy debate to learn what would be the best practices to adopt should the media be faced with a similar situation in future.

We note the proactive action of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) in discussing the issue at their recent exco meeting, as reported on Oct 9. While the NUJ has stated its support for both reporter and the method used – on condition that the report was true – other journalists, academics and media-related groups are still debating the ethics of this issue.

We urge the media to actively address ethical concerns in its daily work and openly report on this to show accountability to media ethics, especially when trust is a big issue in our highly restrictive media environment.

Rather than having more legal measures and 'Big Brother' methods to monitor newspapers to check against ‘deliberate sowing of discord’, as announced by the Home Ministry on Oct 6, we reiterate the need for an independent media council for the active promotion of journalism ethics and media self-regulation, and a tandem repeal of restrictive laws.

In the short term, media organisations should seriously consider having an internal ombudsman to monitor their own practices and reject state interference in editorial matters. Indeed, the media can serve as a useful and socially significant platform for civilised dialogues between communities in addressing emerging issues that can bring about tension, friction and conflicts in society.

Lastly, lest we forget the original controversy, we call upon the authorities to look into the issue of race and racism by addressing the broader factors and policies at work, and to brook no tolerance when there are calls to commit violence over a difference of opinion.

The writers represent Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), Charter 2000 and the Writers' Alliance for Media Independence (Wami) respectively.