I am tempted to say something after reading Rehman Rashid's letter .
I was at the ERA consumer panel discussion on Suhakam recently and heard Rehman speak on 'Freedom of Press'. I hate to paraphrase him since I didn't take much notes of his speech, but a few things did stick in my mind.
He said that press freedom is about diversity of choices (versus the freedom of expression as I interpreted it). We have, besides the Barisan Nasional-controlled newspapers, Harakah and many Internet sites.
'Let a hundred flowers bloom', was the phrase he borrowed. He said that there are many more newspapers now versus 15-20 years ago (so life is much better). He said that everyone has an opinion and an ass, and sometimes you can't tell which is which.
He said that reporters are not advocates - they just report, so don't expect them to fight for the public. He said journalists stick to their professional code of basing their writings on facts. It is the lack of facts (information) that is the problem, not the lack of freedom. (Hence, legislation that prohibits access to information is worse than legislation restricting press freedom).
He said that there is no such thing as objective writing there is no one truth. Many reporters will see many sides of the same story. Everyone should expect pro-government messages from pro-government newspapers.
He then proceeded to posit the notion that perhaps civil rights and freedom were privileges, and not rights per se. What if you don't believe you have rights, but are instead given privileges?
It is hard not to disagree with some of Rehman's points. It is equally as hard to agree with some of them.
The diversity that Rehman talks about (compared to15-20 years ago), is certainly debatable. While there may be a few more newspapers, the number of newspaper owners has shrunk since the MCA took over ownership of some of the Chinese dailies.
Quantity by numbers does not equal diversity of views. Also, despite a boom of Internet sites during the 1998 Anwar Ibrahim crisis, the number of online media sites has dwindled tremendously. (Not to mention that funding for them has dwindled as well).
The notion of civil rights and press freedom as privileges that Rehman suggests is very much like the 'Asian Values' debate on democratisation and civil rights that Dr Mathatir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew have championed.
This narrative conveniently serves the political elites in power, and has been debated and dismissed by many academicians. If we believe that the state is all benevolent and powerful and that citizens are only bestowed rights, then maybe we should accept such notions as colonialism, slavery, authoritarianism, racism etc.
I think we have progressed beyond the era of the patriarchal state system of governance. Citizens elect the government that govern them, not the other way around. There are also such things as 'universal rights' that are basic to all human beings, if one is to believe the litany of literature and the declaration of many United Nations-sponsored conventions.
As for journalists not being public advocates (and merely technical reporters), I am surprised at the contradiction of this statement. As Rehman himself admits, that as part of New Straits Times, he is 'serving his master'.
If so, then he is being an advocate for his 'master'. How different is serving one's master and serving the general public? Why can journalists 'fight' for their masters but not for the public which is seen as beyond their duty? There is no such thing as being neutral, we are all advocates of something, we are all pushing, selling something.
To me, a truly honourable profession has a code higher than 'serving your master' or 'do the job you've been assigned well'. Doctors have, 'First, do no harm'. Planners have a code of 'Upholding the public good' before anything else.
I'm not a journalist, so forgive me for saying this - aren't journalists supposed to be watchdogs for the public?
