Two of my commentaries sidelined

Dear friends,

As usual, I have many things to comment on but I can’t find time to do it.

I am now in a saloon to try to add a little spunk in to my hair style. Ya, general elections is coming, so I need to be more presentable and I guess a tidy hair style seals it 🙂

While the hair stylists are ironing my hair now, I am drafting this post on my lappie computer because I want to share some grudges with you.

For those who read my column in Sin Chew, you may have noticed that I have not had article last month. One of the reasons was because I did not manage to write anything due to my busy schedules (especially when I was busy with my Parliament sitting), the other reason was because my articles were spiked.

I hereby share with you the main content two articles which were spiked by the editor/s of Sin Chew:

i) Topic: The argument between Johari Baharom and the police (Date: 13-4-2007)

I mentioned that the credibility and image of Johari Baharom was quite affected by the article which appeared in a website. An anonymous writer accused him of taking bribes and releasing a few big time criminals. Many BN MPs have extended their concern to him over the controversy at the Parliament MPs’ lounge, and Johari always seen full of grudges and anger whenever he talked about this case.

I then said that the police seemed quite caught in middle handling the probe on Johari as the police force is under his Ministry. That’s why IGP Musa Hassan said the probe in Johari’s case will be passed to the ACA. However, the passing of bucks also made Johari looked very bad as this has some how made him looked like he is suspected for involving in corruption. Johari’s name has been cleared after Minister Nazri declared that ACA’s probe into Johari’s case ended.

After that, Johari seems very serious in doing his job, especially in monitoring the works of the police. I cited the example of he called for hearing of 2 Emergency Ordinance complaints that I passed to him since last year. He was willing to listen to the reasons and arguments of both the police and the detainees’ families.

I also mentioned about his open argument with the police over the conflicting figures of crime rate in Sentul District, has made the Prime Minister to ask him to stop open the open bashing against the police.

I then said I was a bit sympathetic to him because the person who made the accusation against him in the net is faceless and headless, anyone can make such accusations in the net. I said the crux of the problem is Emergency Ordinance should be abolished, because EO can be abused by police officers, and it is like the ISA, where innocent persons can be detained for 2 years without trials. Some police officers have been accused using EO to threaten family members of crime suspect to pay bribe, if not the accused will be sent to Simpang Renggam.

This kind of corruption is commonly known. That’s why even if Johari never carry out “freedom for sale”, many people will not believe in him as “freedom for sale” is an open secret.

I then said that EO supposed to be used by police to curb the increase of crime, however, after police sending so many crime suspects to Simpang Renggam detention camp until the camp is over-crowded, the crime rate in the country is still in the rise and not the opposite, isn’t that proven to us that EO is not an effective tool to curb crime?

At the end of my article, I said no matter whether Johari has involved in the corruption case, it is good to see Johari being serious in carrying out his duty as a deputy internal security minister with power, and be serious in screening all the cases that were being sent to Simpang Renggam and monitoring the works of the police seriously.

佐哈里与警方的争议

郭素沁

互联网一则无名氏网页，指副国安部长佐哈里收取庞大的贿金，释放数名被警方在紧急法令下被囚禁的罪犯，令佐哈里骤然间成为各媒体封面新闻人物。

佐哈里力称自己的无辜，他指责警方在处理某些紧急法令的案子上办案不力，同时让他作决定的时间太短，所以他才释放这些被拘捕的人士。当在野党和民间团体呼吁佐哈里在被调查期间停职至调查结束时，令人意外的是，佐哈里的前老板（佐哈里在马哈迪担任首相时任政治秘书），即前首相马哈迪公然替他辩护，说佐哈里不会涉贪。但是，无论如何，佐哈里的公信力和名誉在这宗事件经已饱受损伤。

在本期国会会议里，佐哈里每到国会，便被许多国阵议员关怀询问。每一次，佐哈里总是满脸气愤和无奈地自我辩护，许多议员对他的事件都略带同情。

在媒体大肆报道佐哈里的事件后，大家于是把焦点放在警方身上。警方看来蛮尴尬，佐哈里是管理警察部队的直属上司，下属怎么去调查上司呢？于是，警察总长慕沙哈山说佐哈里的案子将交给反贪污局调查。但是，副国安部长的下属怎可叫另一个部门调查他的上司呢？这不但变相承认佐哈里涉贪，也是变相的越权。总之，警方怎么做，都对佐哈里不敬，都“里外不是人“。

数日前，首相署部长纳兹里在国会宣称，在反贪污局调查后，佐哈里已被证实无罪。在佐哈里遭受一系列破坏性的报道后，他看来更认真对待和监督警方的工作，同时使用他身为副部长的权力了。

去年我曾致函向他投诉两宗在紧急法令下被拘留的案子，至今仍无下文。当我向他重提这两宗个案时，他便很积极地反应。他在一个星期内在国会一个会议室内召开听证会，听拘留犯家人和警方的说词，这种前所未有的态度可真令人激赏。

接着，我们看他严正的看待吉隆坡罪案急升的问题，他要拜访吉隆坡各警区的警察局，同时针对冼都区的罪案的数据与警方公开争论，说警方误导公众和首相，令首相不得不开声叫两造停止通过媒体争论。

无论佐哈里是否是因为之前紧急法令的事件而恼羞成怒的与警方对质，但是，话说回头，单凭网页上一则无名氏的谣言而指佐哈里收贿放人，对他或有欠公正，因为这种谣言可放在任何人的身上。佐哈里事件的问题根源，在于紧急法令。紧急法令其实是变项的内安法令，让警方可在不经审讯的情况下把涉及罪案和黑社会活动者拘留在新邦令金扣留营。一如内安法令，警方可以在拘留他们两年后再延长扣留。

在一些个案里，一些不良警官或者是自称与国安部高官有关系的“跑腿“，便会对涉及打架或黑社会活动分子索取庞大的贿金，否则便恫言把他们送往新邦令金扣留营。也因为如此，当佐哈里“以贿金换自由“的案子发生后，很多人都不禁怀疑他是否涉贪，即使佐哈里真的没收贿金，他也很难令所有人信服，因为拘留犯“以贿金换自由“是坊间相传的“秘密“。

换句话说，长久以来，紧急法令已成为一个容易让警方和国安部官员贪污和滥权的法律。其实，很讽刺的一点是，这法令表面上是一个防止罪案发生的法律，但是当被送往新邦令金扣留营的嫌疑犯逐年增加，造成该扣留营达到“爆棚“的情况后，我国的犯罪率还是有增无减，同时还造成好些人被逼坐冤狱，这不就证明这条法律的失败吗？到底警方要把多少人送进新邦令金扣留营后才能减少罪案的发生呢？

佐哈里事件，令人关注到紧急法令是个可让警官和高官贪污滥权的法令，也再次唤起社会对这侵犯人权的法律的关注。不论佐哈里是否曾涉贪，如果佐哈里因此事而开始做一个有实权的副国安部长，严正的审核所有被警方送往新邦令金的案子，以及认真的监督警方执行任务，那倒也是件好事。

（13-4-2007）

ii) Tun Dr Mahathir and Press Freedom

I started this article by criticizing Zainudin Maidin for interfering in BBC news reporting. Zam was reported meeting with the editor-in-chief of the Asia News Section where he protested the way BBC broadcast the interviews of opposition leader who have been rejected by the Malaysian people. Zam said such news broadcast of BBC not only will not improve the bi-lateral relations of both Malaysia and Britain, it also show that BBC did not respect the rejection of the Malaysian people towards the struggle of the opposition.

I said I was very shocked to read about such move from Zam. How can an information minister intervene into the news report of the media of foreign country, especially a country like Britain? Just imagine if one day when our TV station show the interview of opposition leader of our neighbouring country and the information minister of our neighbouring country come to make protest against the interview, I am sure the media in Malaysia will react strongly to it because this is interference in the authority of our media.

When I attended a seminar in Singapore that day, it was 2 days prior to the polling day. I was surprised to see the press conference of Dr Mahathir being shown in the TV news in Singapore TV, but when I came back to Kuala Lumpur, I could not find this news appeared in any newspaper except Malaysiakini.

2 days after that, I flew to Bali to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conference, an Indonesian MP asked me whether Mahathir and Anwar and patched up, if not, why did Mahathir ask the voters to support Anwar’s party? I was really taken a back when I heard her question, it was too complicated for me to explain a complicated love-hate relations among Mahathir, Anwar and Badawi (

A political observer told me that it is ironic to see that when Mahathir was in power, he always hated the internet media, especially Malaysiakini that sang different tune with him. But when he is out of his position, he has to use Malaysiakini as a channel to voice his dissenting voice against the government now.

I don’t know whether Zam will protest against the media in Singapore and Indonesia that published Mahathir’s statement. However, as a former Prime Minister, he has to depend on internet and foreign media to express himself, like opposition parties now. No wonder he always told the media that he has lost his freedom of speech now.

I quoted a survey done by Freedom House in United States which has carried out a study on the impact of law, political and economy environment towards Malaysia last year, it said that the press freedom in Malaysia has dropped even further, we are ven behind East Timor, Philippine, Indonesia and Thailand.

The statement made by Zam and the way the media boycotted Mahathir’s statement to Ijok voters have further proven that the analysis carried out by Freedom House was correct.

At the end of the article, I mentioned that as a former PM who has controlled Malaysia for 22 years, Mahathir has never expected that his statement will be blackout by the local media and he will come to the extend the urge the people to vote for opposition parties………. If he has expected this, may be he would not have curbed the media through law and politics, may be he will give more rooms to the opposition parties, and may be Malaysia will be more democratic and open ………

敦马与新闻自由

郭素沁

上个星期，我飞往新加坡出席一个研讨会，在飞机上看到报载我国新闻部长赛奴丁对媒体说，他在英国公干时，曾会见英国广播电视台亚洲新闻组的总编辑丽达海尼，抗议该电视台给被大马人民拒绝的在野党领袖在该电视台针对大马国情发表政治观点。

赛奴丁说，英国广播电视台此举并无助于英马两国之间的关系，它也不尊重大马人民拒绝在野党斗争的民主权力。

看到这一则报导，我感到好不惊讶。一国的新闻部长怎可干预他国媒体的新闻报导，特别是英国那样崇尚新闻自由和民权的国家？如果有一天我国电视台播放邻国在野党领袖的访问，而该国的新闻部长前来我国向我国电视台抗议的话，我国的媒体肯定会作出一定的反应，因为这简直干预我国媒体的主权呀！

后来我就此事致电某位巫统的议员，我说：“首相伯拉怎可允许他的内阁部长去干预他国媒体的新闻自由呢？他以为他可像控制大马广播电视台那样的管制英国广播电视台吗？如果我是英国广播电视台的编辑，我肯定大肆报导赛奴丁向英国广播电视台作的抗议新闻，以让全世界知道马来西亚是个霸权与钳制新闻自由的国家。”此君曾留学海外，深知外国媒体对新闻自由的执著，他在电话里尴尬的笑着说：“以后如果你要来电对我讲笑话，请勿在上午打来。”

当笔者在新加坡时，恰好是依约补选投票日前两天，该国的电视新闻播放前首相敦马哈迪的记者会，敦马呼吁依约选民投票支持在野党，以给国阵政府传达一个强烈的讯息。两天后，笔者前往印尼出席国际国会联盟的会议，一位印尼的议员见到我便很兴奋的问道：“敦马哈迪和安华和解了吗？为何敦马呼吁选民支持安华的党呢？”我后来才知道，原来敦马呼吁依约选民支持在野党的声明都刊登在国外，在国内，大概除了电子报“当今大马”之外，国内的媒体都对敦马此项声明只字不提。

一个关注东南亚政治的外国朋友对研讨会的与会者说，当敦马哈迪在位时，他经常批评互联网媒体，特别是“当今大马”报导与政府唱反调的新闻，但是现在他竟然要通过“当今大马”来发表声明。

我不晓得新闻部长赛奴丁会不会对新加坡和印尼的媒体刊登敦马哈迪与国阵政府唱反调的声明，向该这两个国家的媒体抗议录，但是很讽刺的一点是，身为大马掌权22年的前首相，现在居然与在野党无异，要通过互联网和国外媒体来向人民传达讯息。难怪他之前多次对外说，他已经失去了言论自由。

根据美国一个倡议扩大自由的组织，自由之家（Freedom House）针对我国去年对影响媒体运作的法律、政治与经济环境的分析，指我国的新闻自由度又进一步的下滑。在本区域的新闻自由程度来说，大马甚至落在东帝文、菲律宾、印尼和泰国之后。

其实，新闻部长赛奴丁向英国广播电视台抗议该电视台播放大马在野党领袖的政治观点，到前首相和在野党领袖违反国阵政府意愿的言论要在国外才看得到，都证明了自由之家上述世界新闻自由排行榜的真实性。

当年在国内呼风唤雨22年的敦马大概做梦也没想到，他会在下台后，和国阵领导层产生摩察，他的言论会被国内媒体封杀，他会在忍无可忍之下叫人民投票支持他曾经非常痛恨的在野党。。。。。。如果他当年预料到如此下场，或许，他可能不会过分的通过法律和政治来钳制国内的媒体，或许，他会给在野党更大的言论空间，或许，马来西亚今天会更加的民主和开放。。。。。

（4－5－2007）