One way of working smart, especially on sensitive issues of public interest, is to work together. The major newspapers should take a common stand in deciding how it wants to play up certain issues deemed sensitive because they would embarrass and upset the government.

But because they are issues of public interest, you as a newspaper cannot in all conscience, ignore your duty to expose it, inform the public and hold the government accountable.

For example, in 1983, the government was trying hard to downplay the BMF loan scandal in which the Hong Kong subsidiary of Bank Bumiputra had lost some RM2.5 billion in dubious property loans, much of it to just two property developers.

But when a BMF officer was murdered in Hong Kong, The Star and Utusan Malaysia cooperated in hoisting the story to the front page of both newspapers. The New Straits Times and Berita Harian then could no longer afford to ignore the significance of the story, and were forced to follow up and catch up with their rivals.

In the end, the government could no longer hide the magnitude of the financial scandal because all newspapers had exposed it and stirred up public demands for a royal commission of inquiry.

Second, if your editors are too politically involved, or too cautious, then it is up to individual journalists to take the initiative and carve out acts of rebellion. The memorandum signed by the 581 journalists on World Press Freedom Day last year should be repeated many times over.

Journalists must sustain the pressure on the government to open up. Make your demands loud and persistent, if only to embarrass the government and force it to acknowledge the legitimacy of your complaints and to keep the issue alive in the public mind.

The memorandum should have actually made another round of signature collection to mark Word Press Freedom day this year, perhaps doubling or tripling the signatories, and resubmit it to the home minister to remind him that the journalists are demanding an answer.

Small acts of rebellion are important. When a minister or a top government officer orders you to highlight this, that or the other, or not to highlight it, and it doesn't make good news sense or it makes you or your newspaper look stupid or it insults the intelligence of your readers, then ignore him.

Don't tell your editor what he has ordered the press to do. Just use your own good judgment and write your story as you deem fit. Connive with your fellow journalists who covered the press conference to do the same. Journalists have cooperated in such ways in the past.

And you will be surprised that some of these ministers and government servants do learn fast not to order you about. They do understand that as much as they would like to protect the government from any embarrassing stories, you have a professional job to do to keep your readers informed and hold the government accountable.

Third, do not take no for an answer. Be persistent. Many government servants do in the end provide you with the information you want if you continue to push, persuasively and effectively. Or you can circumvent the no answer by going to other sources. Or just ignore it.

In 1978, I had requested permission from the Sarawak authorities to do a story on the Royal Geographical Society expedition in Mulu park, then a restricted area. On the day before I left, I received a reply: permission denied. I told my editor that I will act as if I never received the letter and flew to Miri. I entered Mulu park and did the stories on the expedition and the plight of the Penans with no problems at all.

I urge you to perform your duties as if there is no censorship. It is not your job to exercise self-censorship. Leave it to your editors to tie themselves into knots over whether they should please or displease the government.

I would like here to express a word of caution on the idea of a Press Council. Theoretically, a Press Council run by journalists to self-regulate the press is a good idea. It can act as an independent body to address public complaints and build on the strength and credibility of the newspapers and in the process force them to be more professional.

But I worry, given the state of our democratic institutions and the kind of editors that now dominate the newspapers, whether a Press Council could actually be detrimental to the cause of freedom.

Who will appoint the members of the council? How do you ensure that those who sit on the council will actually protect the interest of press freedom and professionalism? Because the Press Council will adjudicate and make judgments, it will set standards and boundaries. If it falls into the wrong hands, it will constitute yet another layer of control and censorship of the Malaysian press. Tread carefully.

Fourth, another way of pushing the parameters of freedom is to use the weight of the Human Rights Commission. Journalists should consider submitting a report to Suhakam on the state of the press in Malaysia and how the laws, regulations and system of ownership impinge on the fundamental liberties of freedom of expression and freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

What are the laws that need to be amended or repealed, how should ownership of the press be regulated to ensure the fundamental human right to freedom of information? Should political parties be allowed to control or own a daily newspaper?

This brings me to my concern that even the alternative press in this country is neither independent nor fair in its reporting. The alternative media is also seen as aligned to certain political parties and political interests.

Just as it attacks the mainstream press for its biases and silences, much of the alternative press is also as guilty of the same sins of political bias, omissions, lack of professionalism, substituting gossip, rumour and opinionated rantings for facts.

It pains me to read them just as it pains me to read the mainstream press. While I understand that the alternative press is trying to fill up the gaping hole on opposition news in the mainstream press, the approach taken, almost by everyone, does not in the end promote the development and values of free, independent and professional journalism in Malaysia.

As a citizen who wants to be well-informed, all I want for Christmas is the ability to subscribe to just one newspaper that will give me a fair and accurate reflection of the politics and economics of this country.

Instead I now have to read so many local and foreign newspapers, weekly magazines, watch foreign and local news, visit websites, listen to endless gossip, to figure out what is really happening in my country. This is a bloody waste of precious time. Dare I hope that my Christmas wish could ever become a reality?

[#1]Pushing the boundaries of press freedom, Part 1[/#]

ZAINAH ANWAR was a journalist with the New Straits Times from 1978-1984 where she started as a feature writer and then moved on to cover politics and foreign policy. The above edited paper was presented at a panel discussion on World Press Freedom Day organised by the Centre for Independent Journalism.