Premesh Chandran
CEO, Malaysiakini.com
We refer to your e-mail that we received on 11/3/2010. You may have forgotten but we go a long way. We have been one of Malaysiakini’s earliest contacts during your humble beginnings during the Reformasi movement in 1999. We still recall your pioneer reporter Ajinder Kaur who had telephoned us and we had asked Malaysiakini who? Today you are without doubt the number one Malaysian news-portal.
We have never doubted and have always acknowledged Malaysiakini’s coverage during our lean and trying times. For example the reporting of the truth about the Kg. Medan “ethnic cleansing” case in 2001 which no other media, including the three Tamil newspapers did not cover at that time. We also acknowledge that some critical Indian problems have been covered by Malaysiakini.com over the years.
Having said that , please allow me to comment on the various points you had raised in your email.
About your denial of the claim of Malaysiakini being the voice for the underdog and of the voiceless.
This was in fact stated by Mr. Stephen Gan, in an interview to The Sun some time ago. In any case that is a highly desirable and valuable role for Malaysiakini to play and we would like to see Malaysiakini play that role.
About your point of Malaysiakini not showing any ethnic bias but that it is driven solely by its charter to promote freedom of speech, justice and democracy and that it does not black out news on Indian issues:
The story of the killing of P.Gunasekaran in police custody contains in it as much if not more injustice than the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, both of which happened on the same day. There was not a single mention of P.Guna’s killing in your news portal on that day. While for the death of Teoh Beng Hock, just on that day you carried 11 articles, not to mention the total number of articles that you have carried since, on the subject. What may be your reason for this gross imbalance in the reporting. Is Guansekaran’s killing less of an injustice than the death of Teoh Beng Hock? Is it less worthy a cause or unworthy a cause to even give it one report.
A similar scenario happened when last month, Muruges (28) was shot dead from the back by the Malaysian police in broad daylight before his brother’s eyes despite his brother pleading with the police not to shoot as he had already thrown his parang down and was actually walking back to his house. There was again zero coverage by Malaysiakini on this tragic and unnecessary killing. Is this event not significant enough a travesty of justice for it to be reported. Do events like these not fall within your charter of promoting justice. The three Tamil press carried the news as their headlines which made the Home Minister scurry to meet and pacify the murdered victim’s family – not that, that reduces the heinousness of the Police crime.
What we quote in these examples is but the tip of the iceberg. We cannot accept your assurance that you report events without a color bias. Just take a look at the extent of the problem of the oppression of the Indian poor by visiting our website. Yet none of that intensity comes through in the reporting in your news portal whose charter is not really very different from ours. Not even a little of that intensity can be seen on your site.
Because you do not carry reports of these extrajudicial killings and other critical problems afflicting the Indian poor you are contributing inadvertently to the continuation of these injustices. We do not know how many more extra judicial deaths there are going to be because of this general silence, even in the alternative media.
When the Catholic Church was burnt down at the end of last year Malaysiakini published 23 news reports, comments and articles (rightly) in just one day. But when the Hindu temple in Taiping was burnt down during the racial disturbances in June 2009, there was zero coverage by Malaysiakini.
There is no history of Malaysiakini doing eleven stories and/or 23 stories in any one day where the victim was an Indian poor or the event related to the Indian poor.
Concerning the critical problems of the Indian poor – yes, we agree that your good selves have given coverage on Tamil schools, bonded labor, temple demolishment and deaths in custody. But we once again repeat our humble opinion that your said coverage does not go according to the gravity of the injustices involved. For example, just last week there was a report in the Tamil Papers that 42% or an estimated 10,000 standard one pupils in Tamil schools cannot read or write at all because their parents could not afford to pay for the private kindergartens. We are looking at the far reaching consequences of this to the development of a significant section of Malaysian society. Is that not newsworthy? Is there no injustice in all of this? Or is it just that it does not play enough to the gallery. Where really is Malaysiakini on issues of injustices such as these?
Your editorial principle is not entirely based on Justice and Democracy we are sorry to say, but also on the appeal to the gallery.
The only space you had where the critical problems of the Indian poor were reported regularly was when you had a link to the HRP website. 99% of our reporting was just on that. Now that you have terminated that link, even that little is lost and effectively you have returned to the blacked out state as far these Indian issues are concerned.
Based on this pattern of reporting we cannot but come to the sorry conclusion that there is a definite element of ethnic bias in Malaysiakini. In this sense Malaysiakini is essentially an enterprise not unlike NST or Utusan that plays to their political overlords and to the gallery to sell their papers, than a portal that promotes freedom of speech, justice and democracy on its own merit. Malaysiakini in effect, though maybe not in intent, is blacking out the reporting of critical issues relating to the Indian poor.
Then on your claim that our attack on Malaysiakini is non-sensical:
With due respect, we have written to your good selves on numerous occasions earlier and brought to your attention and continue to do so, what we consider to be the abandonment of your principle of Independence and promotion of Democracy and Justice. The Editors of Malaysiakini are on our regular mailing list and there have been several mails in the recent past voicing out our concerns on the direction that Malaysiakini has been taking, that have reached your editors, but there has been no response. So, what are we to make of that?
In some cases where we sent in letters to be published in your portal, you have chosen not to publish those letters, the last one being “Who speaks for the Indians” . This was despite having e-mailed and faxed the letter and having received confirmation of receipt of the letter by your office,
So your claim of that we have launched a non-sensical attack now, is unbecoming of a news portal that claims to promote freedom of speech.
About your point on the Independence of Malaysiakini:
In reply to paragraphs 2 and 3 of your letter, if your “editorial direction on headlines” is such, we beg to differ. We cannot understand how “MIC” an insignificant acronym even in our Lexicon can be selected to be included in your headlines of the report of that event, when there was no occasion to invoke MIC or any other political party, other than out of mischievous intent. It is public knowledge that we disallowed MIC from participating in the event because we do not want to be manipulated either by them or by our detractors who may want to malign us. So, do not blame us for seeing mischief in the choice of your words for the headlines.
Relating to the same event of the 7th of March you posted a whole video titled’ “Uthaya Mandore of the highest order” which we consider to be a totally unbalanced report along with the written article on that event. There
was a very definite slant to that whole episode – only someone who is blind, cannot see that. So, whither independence?
Further, your Editors had decided unilaterally to terminate the link of Malaysiakini website to the HRP website purportedly because we were crowding out other blog postings. We were posting too many we were told. If we apply the same reasoning to the other blogs that you post in your “ Tops in Blogs” section we see on several days seven to eight blog postings in a row from Anwar Ibrahim, from Lim Kit Siang and from Charles Santiago. Why do you single us out. The reasoning does not suggest impartiality to us. To us it looks like you are losing your independence to the PR parties totally. Many of those blogs we posted have also taken a critical view of PR and their Mandores in their continuing neglect of the critical problems of the Indian poor. But this is our basic political position and it is no secret . So, we can only come to the conclusion that you terminated the link because it hurt some of your benefactors.
With no disrespect, if “too many posts” was indeed a problem then a solution could have been found – a way to reduce the number of postings could have been worked out, as opposed to the unilateral barring and blacking out of the link in a wily nily manner. There are several ways of doing this. Our Mr.Jeevan had suggested one way in an email to Mr.Stephen Gan but all we have got back up to now is silence.
Your Independence should not only be independence “in proclamation” but should also be independence “in substance”. You judge, whether we can be faulted if we do not see that substance.
Then with regards to your point about limited resources;
On the issue of the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock you had resources enough to pen eleven (11) articles in just one day but none whatsoever for the killing of P. Gunasegaran who was murdered at the Sentul police station on that day. Come on Mr. Premesh, you can do better than that.
It is not that you do not have the resources, it is just that you have allocated the resources in such a way The critical issues of the Indian poor are not significant, not as significant as the other issues relating to the other ethnic groups, because the Indian poor are a powerless minority. And that, exactly,is our point. The fact that the event relates to the underlying injustice in our system does not seem to inspire coverage, in spite of your mission statement claim that Malaysiakini promotes the cause of justice.
If that was not the reason, maybe you wish to clarify.
Over the past five years we have had long chats with your Mr. Kabilan, Andrew Ong, Anand, Indra and Pragalath, the last chat repeating and reaffirming our grouses on the critical Indian problems was with you Mr Premesh at the old Sri Paandi, Bangsar last year which lasted over an hour. But all these chat seem not to matter.
Our finding after years of analysis is that the current Indian problems have reached a critical stage because of UMNO’s policy of exclusion of the poor and underprivileged Indians from the national mainstream development of Malaysian society. What has aided that, is the continuation of similar policies in the PKR, DAP, PAS in the PR ruled States. Almost all NGOs’, civil society and the print and electronic media including Malaysiakini are contributing to this outcome knowingly in many cases and maybe unknowingly in a few cases.
In conclusion we are a political party which chooses not to play to the gallery. We are not desperate politicians to maintain selective silence and allow injustices to prevail. We will continue speaking without fear or favor and this attracts labels of sectarianism. But we are not sectarian, rather we are victims of sectarianism. We as political activists will continue championing justice for the victims of this sectarianism. which we hope to achieve through our struggles.
If Malaysiakini takes the position of “press worthiness” i.e. what appeals to
the majoritarian gallery – the 92% Malay Muslim, Chinese sections of our society we beg to part ways with that version of Justice. If Malaysiakini takes the position of Universal Justice, then there is plenty of room for us to work synergistically together to promote that Justice.
And finally, the last thing we want is the emergence of Main Stream Media 2.
We would like to also discuss these issues in person with you and Stephen
and come to a shared perception on these various issues and turn the
relationship around to be a more productive one. I will call to set up that
meeting shortly.
Thank You
S. Jayathas
Information Chief, HRP.
CEO, Malaysiakini.com
We refer to your e-mail that we received on 11/3/2010. You may have forgotten but we go a long way. We have been one of Malaysiakini’s earliest contacts during your humble beginnings during the Reformasi movement in 1999. We still recall your pioneer reporter Ajinder Kaur who had telephoned us and we had asked Malaysiakini who? Today you are without doubt the number one Malaysian news-portal.
We have never doubted and have always acknowledged Malaysiakini’s coverage during our lean and trying times. For example the reporting of the truth about the Kg. Medan “ethnic cleansing” case in 2001 which no other media, including the three Tamil newspapers did not cover at that time. We also acknowledge that some critical Indian problems have been covered by Malaysiakini.com over the years.
Having said that , please allow me to comment on the various points you had raised in your email.
About your denial of the claim of Malaysiakini being the voice for the underdog and of the voiceless.
This was in fact stated by Mr. Stephen Gan, in an interview to The Sun some time ago. In any case that is a highly desirable and valuable role for Malaysiakini to play and we would like to see Malaysiakini play that role.
About your point of Malaysiakini not showing any ethnic bias but that it is driven solely by its charter to promote freedom of speech, justice and democracy and that it does not black out news on Indian issues:
The story of the killing of P.Gunasekaran in police custody contains in it as much if not more injustice than the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, both of which happened on the same day. There was not a single mention of P.Guna’s killing in your news portal on that day. While for the death of Teoh Beng Hock, just on that day you carried 11 articles, not to mention the total number of articles that you have carried since, on the subject. What may be your reason for this gross imbalance in the reporting. Is Guansekaran’s killing less of an injustice than the death of Teoh Beng Hock? Is it less worthy a cause or unworthy a cause to even give it one report.
A similar scenario happened when last month, Muruges (28) was shot dead from the back by the Malaysian police in broad daylight before his brother’s eyes despite his brother pleading with the police not to shoot as he had already thrown his parang down and was actually walking back to his house. There was again zero coverage by Malaysiakini on this tragic and unnecessary killing. Is this event not significant enough a travesty of justice for it to be reported. Do events like these not fall within your charter of promoting justice. The three Tamil press carried the news as their headlines which made the Home Minister scurry to meet and pacify the murdered victim’s family – not that, that reduces the heinousness of the Police crime.
What we quote in these examples is but the tip of the iceberg. We cannot accept your assurance that you report events without a color bias. Just take a look at the extent of the problem of the oppression of the Indian poor by visiting our website. Yet none of that intensity comes through in the reporting in your news portal whose charter is not really very different from ours. Not even a little of that intensity can be seen on your site.
Because you do not carry reports of these extrajudicial killings and other critical problems afflicting the Indian poor you are contributing inadvertently to the continuation of these injustices. We do not know how many more extra judicial deaths there are going to be because of this general silence, even in the alternative media.
When the Catholic Church was burnt down at the end of last year Malaysiakini published 23 news reports, comments and articles (rightly) in just one day. But when the Hindu temple in Taiping was burnt down during the racial disturbances in June 2009, there was zero coverage by Malaysiakini.
There is no history of Malaysiakini doing eleven stories and/or 23 stories in any one day where the victim was an Indian poor or the event related to the Indian poor.
Concerning the critical problems of the Indian poor – yes, we agree that your good selves have given coverage on Tamil schools, bonded labor, temple demolishment and deaths in custody. But we once again repeat our humble opinion that your said coverage does not go according to the gravity of the injustices involved. For example, just last week there was a report in the Tamil Papers that 42% or an estimated 10,000 standard one pupils in Tamil schools cannot read or write at all because their parents could not afford to pay for the private kindergartens. We are looking at the far reaching consequences of this to the development of a significant section of Malaysian society. Is that not newsworthy? Is there no injustice in all of this? Or is it just that it does not play enough to the gallery. Where really is Malaysiakini on issues of injustices such as these?
Your editorial principle is not entirely based on Justice and Democracy we are sorry to say, but also on the appeal to the gallery.
The only space you had where the critical problems of the Indian poor were reported regularly was when you had a link to the HRP website. 99% of our reporting was just on that. Now that you have terminated that link, even that little is lost and effectively you have returned to the blacked out state as far these Indian issues are concerned.
Based on this pattern of reporting we cannot but come to the sorry conclusion that there is a definite element of ethnic bias in Malaysiakini. In this sense Malaysiakini is essentially an enterprise not unlike NST or Utusan that plays to their political overlords and to the gallery to sell their papers, than a portal that promotes freedom of speech, justice and democracy on its own merit. Malaysiakini in effect, though maybe not in intent, is blacking out the reporting of critical issues relating to the Indian poor.
Then on your claim that our attack on Malaysiakini is non-sensical:
With due respect, we have written to your good selves on numerous occasions earlier and brought to your attention and continue to do so, what we consider to be the abandonment of your principle of Independence and promotion of Democracy and Justice. The Editors of Malaysiakini are on our regular mailing list and there have been several mails in the recent past voicing out our concerns on the direction that Malaysiakini has been taking, that have reached your editors, but there has been no response. So, what are we to make of that?
In some cases where we sent in letters to be published in your portal, you have chosen not to publish those letters, the last one being “Who speaks for the Indians” . This was despite having e-mailed and faxed the letter and having received confirmation of receipt of the letter by your office,
So your claim of that we have launched a non-sensical attack now, is unbecoming of a news portal that claims to promote freedom of speech.
About your point on the Independence of Malaysiakini:
In reply to paragraphs 2 and 3 of your letter, if your “editorial direction on headlines” is such, we beg to differ. We cannot understand how “MIC” an insignificant acronym even in our Lexicon can be selected to be included in your headlines of the report of that event, when there was no occasion to invoke MIC or any other political party, other than out of mischievous intent. It is public knowledge that we disallowed MIC from participating in the event because we do not want to be manipulated either by them or by our detractors who may want to malign us. So, do not blame us for seeing mischief in the choice of your words for the headlines.
Relating to the same event of the 7th of March you posted a whole video titled’ “Uthaya Mandore of the highest order” which we consider to be a totally unbalanced report along with the written article on that event. There
was a very definite slant to that whole episode – only someone who is blind, cannot see that. So, whither independence?
Further, your Editors had decided unilaterally to terminate the link of Malaysiakini website to the HRP website purportedly because we were crowding out other blog postings. We were posting too many we were told. If we apply the same reasoning to the other blogs that you post in your “ Tops in Blogs” section we see on several days seven to eight blog postings in a row from Anwar Ibrahim, from Lim Kit Siang and from Charles Santiago. Why do you single us out. The reasoning does not suggest impartiality to us. To us it looks like you are losing your independence to the PR parties totally. Many of those blogs we posted have also taken a critical view of PR and their Mandores in their continuing neglect of the critical problems of the Indian poor. But this is our basic political position and it is no secret . So, we can only come to the conclusion that you terminated the link because it hurt some of your benefactors.
With no disrespect, if “too many posts” was indeed a problem then a solution could have been found – a way to reduce the number of postings could have been worked out, as opposed to the unilateral barring and blacking out of the link in a wily nily manner. There are several ways of doing this. Our Mr.Jeevan had suggested one way in an email to Mr.Stephen Gan but all we have got back up to now is silence.
Your Independence should not only be independence “in proclamation” but should also be independence “in substance”. You judge, whether we can be faulted if we do not see that substance.
Then with regards to your point about limited resources;
On the issue of the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock you had resources enough to pen eleven (11) articles in just one day but none whatsoever for the killing of P. Gunasegaran who was murdered at the Sentul police station on that day. Come on Mr. Premesh, you can do better than that.
It is not that you do not have the resources, it is just that you have allocated the resources in such a way The critical issues of the Indian poor are not significant, not as significant as the other issues relating to the other ethnic groups, because the Indian poor are a powerless minority. And that, exactly,is our point. The fact that the event relates to the underlying injustice in our system does not seem to inspire coverage, in spite of your mission statement claim that Malaysiakini promotes the cause of justice.
If that was not the reason, maybe you wish to clarify.
Over the past five years we have had long chats with your Mr. Kabilan, Andrew Ong, Anand, Indra and Pragalath, the last chat repeating and reaffirming our grouses on the critical Indian problems was with you Mr Premesh at the old Sri Paandi, Bangsar last year which lasted over an hour. But all these chat seem not to matter.
Our finding after years of analysis is that the current Indian problems have reached a critical stage because of UMNO’s policy of exclusion of the poor and underprivileged Indians from the national mainstream development of Malaysian society. What has aided that, is the continuation of similar policies in the PKR, DAP, PAS in the PR ruled States. Almost all NGOs’, civil society and the print and electronic media including Malaysiakini are contributing to this outcome knowingly in many cases and maybe unknowingly in a few cases.
In conclusion we are a political party which chooses not to play to the gallery. We are not desperate politicians to maintain selective silence and allow injustices to prevail. We will continue speaking without fear or favor and this attracts labels of sectarianism. But we are not sectarian, rather we are victims of sectarianism. We as political activists will continue championing justice for the victims of this sectarianism. which we hope to achieve through our struggles.
If Malaysiakini takes the position of “press worthiness” i.e. what appeals to
the majoritarian gallery – the 92% Malay Muslim, Chinese sections of our society we beg to part ways with that version of Justice. If Malaysiakini takes the position of Universal Justice, then there is plenty of room for us to work synergistically together to promote that Justice.
And finally, the last thing we want is the emergence of Main Stream Media 2.
We would like to also discuss these issues in person with you and Stephen
and come to a shared perception on these various issues and turn the
relationship around to be a more productive one. I will call to set up that
meeting shortly.
Thank You
S. Jayathas
Information Chief, HRP.
No comments:
Post a Comment