Sunday May 25, 2008

Putting his faith in a free press

By SHAHANAAZ HABIB

Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek outlines the tasks and challenges in creating a ‘new and freer media’.

Candid views: Ahmad Shabery outlining his vision for a new media in a recent interview.

Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek believes the opening of minds is important. A graduate in economics with a master in political science, this former University Malaya student union president (1981-1982), Shabery, is all for testing out new ideas like allowing a 30 minute live telecast of the parliament sitting daily, giving bloggers air time on TV once a week and encouraging open debates so that the best man wins.

Q: How do you feel about there being a lot of expectations on you as Information Minister?

A: I don't think there's really a lot of expectations. I don't think many people know me because I'm not a high profile guy.

I have been given the trust by the Prime Minister to run a ministry close to the heart of the people so I have to deliver something. I think there are tasks appropriate to bring back the confidence of the people especially after the bad showing in the general elections.

For me when (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) Pak Lah talks about reforms, it is not only in the judiciary and ACA. The reforms would not be complete if the government does not bring a new approach to the media. It's very important to provide the fresh air that people have been longing for a very long time.

Maybe that's where the expectation comes from. I don't know.

Q: Have you spent sleepless nights since being appointed to the post?

A: I'm lucky if I can sleep four hours a day (laughs). I don't have the weekends (off) as well. During the weekends I go back to my (Kemaman) constituency. I plan something for the people or go visiting places during the weekends. Politics is all about the weekends normally.

Q: What has been keeping you up?

A: During parliament time, I am an assistant whip so I have to be around all the time. Being the minister of Information, I have to monitor many things. My project is to understand other people's thinking so I have to be aware of what's going on. I must get myself informed otherwise I can't inform so I must follow everything.

Normally after parliament, I go back to the office around 6pm as I have some office work to do. I am there until 10pm or 11pm. Sometimes people like to see me around 11pm so I go back around 12midnight or 1am. Then I have got to browse through the blogs and the Internet till 2am or 3am. I spend two hours every night doing this before I go to sleep.

Q: Do you have a favourite Malaysian blog?

A: Not really. And I don't want to say because I don't want publicise any particular blog. We provide a Blog programme on RTM to promote everybody. I like to "google". I google issues and I pick up things said not only by bloggers but also newspapers or news portals. I also follow some international events. My favourite site is the New York Times.

Q: What are your immediate priorities as Information Minister?

A: Mind conditioning! The old belief is that that when the government fared badly, people will think it's because information was not good enough. And if the government does very well, people will say that they were doing their job. And if a candidate wins he'll says it's because he is a good candidate but if loses he blames it on the Penerangan (Information Department) and say they did not do their part.

This puts the burden on what the ministry is doing. But the (Information) ministry has only vehicle - RTM - and it's only one small part of the whole information flow system. There are so many others - TV3, Astro, the newspapers, the Internet which already have a penetration of 14mil right now. There's Wi-Fi and broadband - all those things - and we are only a small part.

I want to project the idea that in today's age of free flow of information every individual within the (Barisan Nasional) party or outside the party must come up with ideas.

The principle of free debate should be encouraged. I'm sure free debate is not going to harm the ruling party. But I have to convince (Barisan) people about that. And they have to improve themselves and they have to be ready to debate.

The era where you can sweep everything under the carpet or black out the opposition is gone. A long time ago, we blacked out Kelantan but we still could not win back the state.

Now you (Barisan) have to bring them (opposition) to the open and have a free debate and you must show that you (Barisan) are better. That's why we started the live telecast of parliament.

For some people, seeing the opposition leader live on TV was a taboo. They have never seen that before. But on the other hand, I could see the hunger for coverage from the opposition. After being suppressed for so long, you can see how gelojoh (overzealous) they are to get their views heard. But they have to be careful about that. Even when you talk about free media, it has to be done gradually. I don't know. It can be a gamble.

Q: What do you think of the state of the media in the country?

A: Normally, this refers to printed and the electronic media but actually the media is bigger now.

We have new media which is actually also provided by the government! The infrastructure for the Internet and Broadband has been provided by the government and this is all part of a free media. People can say anything through their blogs. There is no such thing as censorship or having to register or blocking out certain websites. So you have to look at it as a plus point. That the government has provided all this - except that we still have some old laws and regulations about managing the print media especially the annual licences. People are not happy with that because they think that it is a nuisance. For me, I think gradually we are going to see this aspect flow together with the spirit of open-ness. I'm not in the position to talk about print media because it is not under my portfolio (it comes under the Home Ministry). But I can say that there is a sense of new understanding among my colleagues in Cabinet that we are moving towards more reforms.

Q: Although this does not come under your jurisdiction as you pointed out, what are your views on the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) and annual licences for newspapers?

A: It's not nice for me to talk about other ministries because that comes under Home Affairs.

But I can say there is some kind of new understanding, new views among my colleagues even in Cabinet to think about the appropriateness of this kind of rules and regulations which have their own history.

The annual licenses came after Operasi Lalang and it's related to the (Team A -Team B) fight of Umno in 1987 and how that fight transformed to emerging Malay nationalism and the reaction from the Chinese. Then there was the closure of The Star, Sin Chew and Watan. After that they came up with annual licences.

Q: On one hand the government talks about wanting a free and more open media, yet it sends conflicting signals by not renewing the licence of Makkal Osai (for a week) then lodging a police report recently against the media for publishing the Lingam video-clip Royal Commission report before it was made public? A: Even if you abolish the Printing Presses Act, the government still has to protect society on issues that can create unrest among the society.

I am not talking about protecting the government or those in power but protecting society as a whole. The government too has its own secrets for military and security reasons. The law is still the law. Freedom of expression doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want.

As far as the police report against newspaper is concerned, our worry is where is leak coming from. Is it from investigative reporting, a leak from the government printer. We want to ensure that when there is sensitive information like military and security, it's not going to fall (to the other people's hands).

Q: In this case it was not a breach of security and it did not impinge on the protection of society?

A: Well, it's still up to the press. If it's brought to the court, they can go and argue on that.

Q: Don't you see it as an act of intimidation of the media?

A: I think that's the risk you (the media) have to take when you write something. The issue is not about the report because it was going to be made public anyway but the issue is how the leak can occur. It may be on our side. The police report is not necessarily going to lead to prosecution of the newspaper. The report on the leak can be on our side - could be our printer, could be government officials because at the end of the day the integrity of the government is how you abide by the regulations.

Q: But why then was the police report lodged only a week later? If it was a serious matter, surely the police report should have been made immediately? A: The decision was made after the Cabinet meeting and Cabinet only met on Friday (the first news report on the Royal Commission report appeared six days earlier on a Saturday).

Somebody brought it up in Cabinet and asked how come it (the Royal Commission report) is made known to the press before the Cabinet, so it gave grounds to the Prime Minister's Department (to make the police report).

Q: The press usually works on the scoops and breaking news from sources which include ministers. Lodging a police report is like telling the press they need the government green light for stories.

A: You can defend yourself saying that there is no such thing as 'don't publish' or that it is not a classified document. The media has the right to defend itself. It's different from ISA. Don't worry. But there's a risk.

Q: Still isn't the police report a form of intimidation to strike a psychological rasa takut (fear) in editors so that they are frightened to publish (reports before it is made public even if they have it)?

A: I don't think so. Why you takut? In the first place, when the editors decide to publish something which is not yet properly released, they must be willing to take the risk. In the newspaper world, a scoop is important to sell the newspaper so you want any gain. No pain no gain (laughs).

Q: How has the Parliament live telecast been going so far?

A: So far so good. There were hiccups on the first day. People wanted to take advantage of it. If it does not come to the point where people have the wrong perception of parliament and parliamentarians - that should be alright. We will do some public survey after this and let the Cabinet decide whether to continue or not with the live telecast.

I watch it on TV looking at the presentation and listen to how it sounds like on the radio. So far it's quite okay. There's quality but it can be improved.

Q: You were against the telecast after the first day's fiasco and PM supported your decision to call it off but then Cabinet decided to let it go ahead. Why?

A: In the first place, it was quite a gamble for me to introduce this. I thought of it as our new baby. I love it and I don't want to kill it. But I feel when you have a baby and people want to kill your baby or abuse it, then it is better not to have the baby at all. I felt very sad.

There was no sign of appreciation especially from the opposition side. They were asking for this kind of thing (live telecast) for so long then they abused it. So I felt so sad about it and I said we might not have it rather than having something that you love and allowing people to abuse it.

I presented the matter to Cabinet and the Cabinet said "please give it a chance and let's prolong the trial period." I had good support from Datuk Seri Nazri (Aziz) who is in charge of parliament who said that we should carry on. I went along with him.

Q: Often RTM puts out only positive news on the government and only reports negative news on the opposition? Will we see a more balanced approach?

A: I think we will come to the stage. I don't want to run RTM. That shouldn't be the role of the minister. I told them what they report has to be of news value. But I am not going to tell them that this is of news value or that is of news value or what should be on the headlines and what shouldn't be because they are the practitioners. They should know better. Even myself I told them don't carry any story of me if you think it is of no news value. Sometimes I put my hand out to stop from airing anything because normally when ministers travel the (RTM) crew will cover the event. I told them that's not necessary. I have a strong belief that over exposure is also not good for people like me or even for anybody!

I also told them don't ever distort news! If you think you do not want to cover it - then don't, but don't distort because that's bad.

This applies to opposition news too or even things like when (Tun) Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) or (Datuk) Mukhriz (Mahathir) say things like asking Pak Lah to resign. I said if it has new values to carry but don't distort. The emphasis is on news value. It should be like that.

People are very sensitive about politics and I feel that we have been covering too much of politics. That's why when people talk about free media what they really mean is free political expressions.

But news is not just about politics. There are so many other things. So I may give guidelines to RTM on some issues but they must be savvy enough to choose issues which portray the interest of people as a whole. This takes time. They are also adjusting.

Q: What have you learnt from your predecessor (Datuk Zainuddin Maidin otherwise known as Zam)?

A: Well, my predecessor is a very detailed person. He loves RTM very much and he is more hands on than me. I am more of a conceptual man. I like to give guidance and my predecessor - because he was a journalist - I think his passion of journalism was much more prevalent than me so I think the approach is different.

Being an ex-journalist, his focus was on news. He's a man of integrity because he did not interfere with the business side. He let the professionals handle the business side which is something that I will continue. When you are there (as Information Minister), people come to you not only about news but to sell films, movies asking for airtime that kind of thing. So that's where there are a lot of complaints.

As far as Datuk Zam is concerned he is known not to interfere (in the business side).

Q: But some say Datuk Zam was one of the reasons Barisan lost so badly in the general elections and that he did not do a good job as he was shoving Barisan news down people's throats?

A: Well, maybe that's the thinking of those days. But that's the lesson that could be learnt by everybody. He was only implementing the thinking of everybody during that time. But that kind of thinking was not only his kind of thinking.

Even (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim's time (as Deputy Prime Minister) he (Anwar) used to be like that. So Zam's only a continuation. Don't tell me during Anwar's time it was more free.

Q: How did you find your meetings with bloggers?

A: I have met them many times but it just a friendly kind of thing, never organised like calling everybody to a big hall.

Some of the bloggers are my friends. I' ve know Rocky (of Rocky's Bru), (Datuk) Kadir (Jasin) - much earlier than before I became a minister.

The bloggers are not a set of extraordinary people. They are just like you and me but some are more prominent than others because of their views, analysis and ways of writing things. I thought why don't I meet them because there are things I can learn from them. We've known each other much earlier than I got something in politics. And I'm willing to listen (to their views).

After I was sworn in as minister, I still remember you were the first to interview me and you asked about bloggers and I said I wanted to meet them.

But among the bloggers there was a lot of scepticism. Some said "I don't trust this man. They want to identify us and send us to ISA" that sort of thing. I don't want to answer them. I must prove my sincerity.

When I meet, I don't meet for nothing. I have to give something and a little thing that I can offer bloggers is to give them 20 minutes of prime air time. But even then there are complaints. Some say "what is 20 minutes" "why only 20 minutes when you (RTM) waste time on so many other things".

But for me, 20 minutes of prime time is something that I myself as a minister of information never had. I never took the opportunity for myself. I never go for the Bersemuka Dengan Media or have a special programme for me on RTM.,

I never did that but I gave the avenue for the bloggers because I think some of their ideas can be shared by others. They should value it in terms of free advertisement for their site. But it's up to them whether they want to value it positively or negatively.

For me, the process of opening up the minds of people is what's more important. We have to accept the fact that in this society we cannot believe in stereotypes - that only one person is right and others are not. You have to debate, give different views and the best man will win. I'm sure the best man is on the government side because we have good performance and track record on our side. We must believe that - that our record is a good record and what we have done is what is best for the people. We must believe it and we must be able to engage and talk with people about it.

Q: Would you be willing to give the opposition more air time and radio time?

A: It's up to the news value (they bring). We have not come to the stage where we have political broadcasts where people talk about the party and so on. I still believe that things have to be gradual. If you want to come to the media, you have to think about whether you and what you say are of news value. I am not talking about the opposition alone - even on my (Barisan) side.

Q: What do you think of ministers who call up editors to run a story or picture?

A: I am not aware of that. I would never do that.

Q: In an Umno assembly a few years back, you criticised the existence of lembu suci (sacred cows) in the party, people who were protected. But now some blogs have referred to you as lembu suci Pak Lah - someone who is above criticism and 'protected'?

A: Well, this is the risk of taking public office. People may say anything. This is the risk of open-ness. Sometimes a lot of people - during the era of open-ness - like to use that avenue to attack somebody but they are not ready to be attacked (themselves). I have time to defend and I have time to attack.

News Poll

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs

Latest from StarProperty