GOVERNMENT TO ENGAGE BLOGGERS IN CYBERSPACE
By SHAHANAAZ HABIB
KUALA LUMPUR: The Government will take on bloggers in cyberspace and respond to wild and baseless allegations raised in blogs.
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said remaining silent was no longer an option.
He acknowledged that the Government had overlooked the need to engage the new media, which was a new dimension in shaping public opinion, in the recent general election.
The Government had not been savvy in engaging the new media and lost out in cyberspace, he said, adding: “But we live and learn.”
Najib said this during a question and answer session at the Asia Media Summit 2008 here yesterday.
He in fact has started the ball rolling by putting a reply through his press secretary Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad to a posting on Malaysia Today, a news portal run by Raja Petra Kamaruddin.
Najib said it was obvious that the Barisan Nasional Government would now need to engage the new media.
“We need to have people who are active participants of the new media, who are sympathetic and understanding of the government’s position.
“Therefore, instead of just criticising them (the new media) or running them down, the best thing to do is to engage them. Hopefully they will understand our perspective,” he added.
To another question, Najib said the Government gave the mainstream and new media a great deal of latitude to criticise.
However, he said: “There is a line which shouldn’t be crossed” because it could undermine the wider interest of society.
On action taken against blogger Raja Petra, Najib said he was charged with breaking the laws of the country – making baseless allegations and seditious remarks.
He said Raja Petra had been free to criticise the Government “very robustly and stridently” in his blog for years and the Government had not taken any action against him.
“But when certain things he said constituted a very serious attack against the institution, the Attorney-General decided that he had crossed the line,” Najib said.
Other than the new media, he said the established media too had become more critical since the elections.
“If you read the newspapers on a daily basis, you will see that they don’t hold back their punches. If they know there are weaknesses or abuse of power anywhere, they will latch on to these and criticise the Government and individuals openly,” he said.
In an immediate response, blogger Ahirudin Attan (Rocky Bru) welcomed Najib’s announcement that the Government would respond to allegations, saying:
“This is really good. It’s better late than never and it’s something for the blogging community to rejoice because blogging is about interacting with each other.”
The National Alliance of Bloggers president said one of the alliance’s aims was to get the Government to take part in blogging.
“This is because blogging is also about giving feedback to the Government and it’s great that the Government is picking up the opportunity (to blog).”
DAP’s PJ Utara MP Tony Pua, who is also a blogger, felt that the Government should be earnest in replying to issues or allegations levelled against it, pointing out that the Government should not use the medium only to win over public opinion.”
“If the allegations are indeed wild, then its response to correct them is welcome. But if it’s only to put down frank criticisms, then it'll defeat the whole purpose.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if I understand 'engage' in the same way as our DPM. To me, to engage means to get involved in a dialogue from which, hopefully, some understanding of both sides of the issue will result. It is not about 'them' understanding 'our' perspective with no reciprocity. It still comes from a 'we know better' approach. Besides, DPM seems to be suggesting that their engagement basically involves responding to 'wild and baseless allegations'. Why not respond to sound suggestions and ideas as well? What would be the difference between this 'engagement' and what the cybertroopers were doing before, except now, presumably, they actually put names to their comments?
Especially when at the same time, there was this:
Wednesday May 28, 2008
PM:GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT 'ETHICAL JOURNALISM'
KUALA LUMPUR: There is no such thing as absolute freedom and the media should not be ashamed of “self-censorship” to respect cultural norms, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The Prime Minister said different societies held different values, and while it might be acceptable in secular countries to depict a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, it was clearly not the case here.
“In a globalised world where news travels in the ‘blink of an idea’,, cultural insensitivities and arrogance can lead cultures and nations to collide,” he said in his speech at the Asia Media Summit 2008 yesterday.
The text of his speech was read out by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Abdullah said his Government continued to support “ethical journalism”, and its fundamental consideration was to have a media that was not only free but also responsible.
He said the Government also wanted the media not to undermine racial and religious harmony to the extent that it could threaten national security and public order.
“I do not see these laws as curbs on freedom. Rather, they are essential for a healthy society.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-censorship is what the media has been doing for a long time. Its use is insidious and results in journalists evading writing about the truth out of fear. I was at a forum in Kuching where journalists there said that they had to self-censor in order to keep their jobs. This is a very different thing from being mindful of sensitivities.
It is because we are forever self-censoring that no issues of any importance, particularly regarding our relations with one another, are ever discussed. This is why we then never solve anything. But journalists are expected to not talk about race or religion at all. THAT is what is deemed being culturally sensitive here.A couple of years ago, a photo of Nori Abdullah, Hanis Tun Hussein and me appeared on the cover of The Star because we had been at the launch of a seminar on Islamic Family Law reform. I know The Star was criticised for this simply because they were seen as 'interfering' in Muslim affairs. Also my editors at The Star once wanted to ban a piece I did for my column criticising the Islamic Family Law that had been pushed through Parliament simply out of fear that it would offend 'someone'. Never mind that a lot of women, including Muslim women senators, had protested against the passing of the law and it is now in fact being reviewed by the AG's Chambers.
So, does the PM mean more of this? What was unethical about it?
I can't wait to ask that question this Sunday.





