In Response to Rocky's Bru: Journo to Journo: How Low Can You Go?

Rocky's Bru: Journo to Journo: How Low Can You Go?

(Graphic of letter taken from Rocky's Bru)

I'm encouraged by the news (from Rocky's Bru) that a group of practising and former Malaysian journalists are writing to the Executive Chairman of Kumpulan Utusan, Tan Sri Mohamed Hashim Ahmad Makaruddin, to express their anger and disgust at the story on the late Yasmin Ahmad that the tabloid Kosmo! ran on July 27th, 2009. As they write in their email seeking fellow journalists' support for their letter: "Let's uphold the kind of journalism that this country so desperately needs."

Irregardless of whether it is based on the truth or not, the article, headlined "Takdir Yasmin", breached not only the journalist's code of ethics, but standards of human decency as well.

Since a journalist's first obligation is to seek truth and report it, why is this article in Kosmo! a breach of journalistic ethics? Because even if it is true, it violates another principle that journalists are obliged to uphold:

Minimize Harm - Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

According to this principle, journalists should:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

(From the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics)

In the case of Kosmo's article, the people behind it have violated this principle in at least four ways:

1. They have treated the memory of their subject, a recently deceased person no longer able to tell her side of the story, with disrespect, making allegations that may (given prevailing societal attitudes, prejudiced though they may be) diminish how she is remembered by Malaysians, and expose her family to odium.
2. They showed little compassion to her family and scant regard for the potential harm to her aged and frail mother.
3. They did not demonstrate any overriding public need that could have justified such an intrusion into their grief and privacy.
4. The mode in which they presented their report suggests that they have pandered to lurid curiosity, perhaps motivated by the need to sell newspapers.

It is therefore fitting that the journalists' letter rebukes Tan Sri so: "...if your objective is to practice ethical journalistic conduct and act with humanity, you have failed - miserably." They go on to ask him, "How much of your personal honour are you willing to part with in order to increase your circulation?"

All of us will be held to account for everything we write, before the One who reads and edits us all. In the meantime, Kosmo and its journalists involved with this article are accountable to us, their readers and colleagues. Let us make it clear to them that we will not stand by to see ethics breached.

Is their story true or false? I wholeheartedly second blogger Kama's wise words, words worthy of repeating and remembering (from here):

"...Yasmin has gone to meet her Maker. Our time will come soon. Seharusnya kita sadaqah Al-fatihah untuk arwah Yasmin and not go into this silly polemic about her gender. May her soul be placed among the blessed. Amin."

Now, may I pose this question, not to Kosmo!, but to all of us who are outraged by Kosmo's article:

Do any of us believe that Kosmo has a monopoly on unethical journalism in Malaysia?

First let's see what the principles of ethical journalism that we are bound to uphold are (adapted from the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics):

The duty of the journalist is to further public enlightenment as the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy, by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Journalists should:

1. Seek Truth and Report It - Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

2. Minimize Harm - Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

3. Act Independently - Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know. [Advocacy journalists may of course intentionally and transparently adopt a non-objective viewpoint.]

4. Be Accountable - Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

The letter to Tan Sri Hashim begins "July 27th, 2009 marked the darkest day in Malaysian journalistic history yet." In the light of the above, haven't there been days in Malaysian journalistic history just as dark as 27/7/09?

How about in the days just before the 1990 general elections, when "then opposition politician Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was depicted as selling out Muslim interests to Christians merely because he was photographed wearing ethnic Kadazan cultural headgear on which was a symbol resembling a cross. The photograph was splashed in the media and Razaleigh had little chance to counter the allegations". Utusan Melayu published the picture for three days, and Berita Harian's headline on May 19, 1990 was "Ku Li Junjung Salib".

How about something more recent, just eight days ago (22/07/09), when Pakatan Rakyat's position regarding the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock was grossly misrepresented in the pages of the New Straits Times?

Why do we not speak up and act against journalistic misconduct by all news outlets (including our own)? Why are we being selective? Surely our professional ethics apply equally to all, no matter what the victims' (and perpetrators') station in life is? Or is it just a case of double standards and whose ox is being gored?

So, let me put the question back to all the journalists who are rightly outraged at Kosmo: How much of our personal honour are we willing to part with in order to increase our circulation (prospects, promotions, popularity, etc.)?

In other words, when our Editor reads us, will He find us fit to print, or fit to spike?

Lest we be found wanting, we must be mindful of what we ourselves and our colleagues write. For the sake of our integrity, we must speak and act whenever and wherever we see journalistic ethics being compromised, and we must do so in spite of our political beliefs and personal interests. Let's uphold the kind of journalism that this country so desperately needs.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

You can download a printable copy of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics in full here (in PDF format).

(I am a member of Hartal MSM, a mediawatch group which had its beginnings in December 2007 in The People's Parliament, an initiative convened by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim. The group seeks to promote a free and fair media as an impetus to Malaysia's stalled nation-building process. The views expressed here are solely my own)

An Open Letter to the Executive Chairman of Kumpulan Utusan

Tan Sri Mohamed Hashim Ahmad Makaruddin,
Executive Chairman, Kumpulan Utusan.
(corporate@utusan.com.my)

Tan Sri,

I am writing to express my indignation and abhorrence at your story headlined "Takdir Yasmin" on the late Yasmin Ahmad, that your tabloid Kosmo! ran on July 27th, 2009. (I justify my use of the words "you" and "your" by the fact that you are the Executive Chairman of Kumpulan Utusan. The buck stops with you, sir, and nowhere else.)

Irregardless of whether it is based on the truth or not, your article breached not only the journalist's code of ethics, but standards of human decency as well.

Since a journalist's first obligation is to seek truth and report it, why do I say that your article breached journalistic ethics? Because even if it is true, it violates another principle that journalists are obliged to uphold:

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

According to this principle, journalists should:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

(From the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics)

In the case of your article, you have violated this principle in at least four ways:

1. You have treated the memory of your subject, a recently deceased person no longer able to tell her side of the story, with disrespect, by making allegations that may (given prevailing societal attitudes, prejudiced though they may be) diminish how she is remembered by Malaysians, and expose her family to odium.
2. You showed little compassion to her family and scant regard for the potential harm to her aged and frail mother.
3. You did not demonstrate any overriding public need that could have justified such an intrusion into their grief and privacy.
4. The mode in which you presented your report suggests that you have pandered to lurid curiosity, perhaps motivated by the desire to sell newspapers.

Whether we like it or not, Tan Sri, all of us will be held to account for everything we write, before the One who reads and edits us all. In the meantime, we are accountable to our readers and to our fellow journalists.

May I co-opt blogger Kama's words (from here) to express my own view:

"...Yasmin has gone to meet her Maker. Our time will come soon. Seharusnya kita sadaqah Al-fatihah untuk arwah Yasmin and not go into this silly polemic about her gender. May her soul be placed among the blessed. Amin."

Kosmo! is hardly the only newspaper in your group which regularly breaches journalistic ethics. Your other papers too, frequently have been rightly condemned, for very serious lapses in standards. How could this have happened to the news organisation pioneered by such by such illustrious journalists as Bapa Wartawan Abdul Rahim Kajai, Pak Sako and Pak Samad?

To be fair, Kumpulan Utusan is not the only Malaysian media organisation that behaves without concern for ethics. It's safe to say that the general level of professionalism and integrity within Malaysian news media is quite low. That, however, is a subject for another letter.

In order to mitigate and make amends for the damage you have done, may I humbly suggest that Kumpulan Utusan does the following:

1. Apologise unreservedly (and prominently) to the family of the late Yasmin Ahmad. (You have done so today, in the main headline on Kosmo's front page. Well done sir, it's the first step)
   
2. Devote substantial space in your papers to discussing her work and how her talent and creativity changed Malaysia.
   
3. Devote substantial space in your papers to discussing the challenges faced by the transgendered community in Malaysia. Please work with them to dispel the prejudices and social stigma that they live with.
   

May I also suggest that your organisation commit yourselves demonstrably to upholdoing the basic tenets of good journalism.

If you do make amends, and seek to repair your organisation's seriously damaged reputation and credibility, may I wish you all the best in your endeavours.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart
(A Malaysian blogger)

P.S. Tan Sri, you can download a printable copy of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics in full here (in PDF format).

(I am a member of Hartal MSM, a mediawatch group which seeks to promote a free and fair media as an impetus to Malaysia's stalled nation-building process. The views expressed here are solely my own.)

A Translation of "Gurindam Fasal yang Kelima" from Raja Ali Haji's "Gurindam Dua Belas"

In my earlier post in honour of the late Capt. Yusof, I quoted part of Raja Ali Haji's Gurindam Dua Belas. Gurindam are words of wisdom set in verse, usually in the form of couplets.

For the benefit of readers from elsewhere, I tried Googling for an English translation, but in vain. Until one is found, may I offer this attempt at bringing these words of an eminent scholar, historian, poet and alim to a wider audience.

Translation of Gurindam Fasal yang Kelima, from Raja Ali Haji's Gurindam Dua Belas

If the well born you would identify,
look for their kindness and courtesy

Those who are happy and prosper,
waste and idleness do foreswear

If the noble you would perceive,
look you at how they behave

if it's ones with knowledge you require,
of questions and learning they never tire

As for the wise, it's easy to tell,
in this world, for the next they provide well

If the good natured are whom you seek,
when they're with company you must peek

I am not a scholar of Raja Ali Haji's works, nor am I of the literati; I will therefore defer if any of them wish to disabuse me of my literary pretensions.

If it were solely up to me, I would have translated the third verse to read:

If the noble you would perceive,
learn you for what they strive

However, as translators must always remind themselves, "I can decide what a line should mean when I write poetry of my own."

There is a Dutch translation somewhere out there, done by Elisa Netscher, a colonial official and historian who collected, transcribed and translated Malay manuscripts. If you have it, or come across it, would you send me a copy? I would be most grateful to you.

I humbly dedicate this translation to A.A.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Is This the Standard of Journalism Practiced by the New Straits Times?

(screenshot of article taken at 1650hrs, 24/7/09)

(Disclosure: I am a member of Hartal MSM*, an advocacy group that calls for a Paper-free Tuesday -- "No buy, No lies")

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

From "The Elements of Journalism": What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect

When a news organization's editorial policy is dictated by its owners, the quality of its journalism is often the first thing to go out the window (followed closely by its credibility, reputation and circulation figures). The general level of integrity and professionalism in our news media notwithstanding, I have to say that this "online exclusive" op-ed piece from the New Straits Times (22/7/09), entitled "They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching?", is as egregious a case of journalistic misconduct as I have ever come across. Lest I be accused of making that claim just because I disagree with the article in question, please allow me share with you my reasons for saying so:

1) The writer made a significant error of fact by claiming that the purpose of the Royal Commission of Inquiry was "to probe the chary [sic] death of Teoh Boon Hock [sic]".

This is untrue. PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said (bold emphasis mine): "The Royal Commission will be set up according to specific terms, which is to scrutinise and study the procedures related to interrogations that are used by the MACC. It will also identify if there were any violations of human rights during Teoh’s interrogation."

The PM also made it clear that Teoh Beng Hock's death would NOT be investigated by the RCI, but by an inquest. He thus rejected the most critical component of what Teoh's family, Pakatan Rakyat leaders and civil society have been demanding all along.

Why is this error significant? Because the writer uses it to impugn the character and motives of Pakatan Rakyat and its leaders throughout the article, beginning with the headline itself. A major thrust of the article is to show that even when their demands have been met, PR leaders (ostensibly for selfish political reasons), will continue to criticize the RCI. Without this "misinterpretation" of the facts, his thesis cannot stand.

The full import of the PM's statement should have been quite obvious to the writer. He has misrepresented Pakatan Rakyat's position, and as of 1650 hrs on 24/7/09, this remains uncorrected.

2) The writer used at least two of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in argument, specifically:
a) he used emotionally loaded words, selectively. Against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, followers and their actions, he had this to say, without any supporting evidence (my emphasis in bold):

• band of noxious supporters
• toxic Pakatan demonstrations
• defiant rants
• this mob
• sly pre-emption
• Pakatan’s instigation
• parrot his all-time favourite bellowing
• pressing for a RCI
• howls of protest
• partisan party sycophant
• sly pre-empts
• Another sly pre-empting ploy
• last week’s rampage
• Pakatan Rakyat minions
• brutish smugness
• mob fury
• lynching, Malaysian-style

For the cabinet and government leaders, he has this instead:

• most pragmatic decision
• strongly endorsed the setting up of the RCI

b) he attributed prejudices or dishonourable motives to his "opponents", again without offering any evidence in support:

"They were almost certain of getting a favourable Cabinet response but the hyperboles and sly pre-emption that senior Pakatan leaders discharged seemed to have given the appearance that the goading provoked the Cabinet into agreeing to the RCI."

"But let’s not be surprised that Pakatan would claim credit for their RCI ingenuity."

"Pakatan leaders’ pressing for a RCI had a disingenuous purpose:... Pakatan people will be nudged aside from the glare of suspicion..."

"Now anticipate the howls of protest, even if it makes sense to expand the scope of the RCI’s inquiry to include all possibilities."

"Kit will find other specious means to further pile the burden of attestation on Najib to prove that the RCI is “absolutely independent” and will do their job fearlessly."

"Pakatan Rakyat minions will insist no less than a guilty verdict, that some MACC perp pushed Teoh Beng Hock out of the 14th floor to his death for no reason other than wanting to torture the young man.

3) To further his attack on his "opponents", the writer has subverted the meaning of words, obscuring the truth. For example, he describes Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a former vice-chairman of Transparency International’s Board of Directors no less, as a "sycophant", i.e. "a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favour by flattering influential people". To be sure, Tunku Aziz is a member of the DAP, but has the writer any evidence to show that Tunku Aziz has ever attempted to win favour by flattering influential people in DAP, Pakatan or anywhere else? If the favour of "influential people" is what Tunku Aziz sought, would the DAP have been the right party for him to join? One would have thought that there might have been much more "favourable" opportunities elsewhere, say, working for certain news media organisations.

One more example: the writer characterised Pakatan Rakyat's response to Teoh's death as a "lynching, Malaysian-style". To "lynch" is to punish violently or to execute, without due process, for real or alleged crimes. Another definition is "to punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry." It is a crime punishable by law in Malaysia, and it is what the writer accuses Pakatan Rakyat of doing to the MACC. Can he show how, and by what stretch of the imagination, can Pakatan Rakyat's actions thus far be construed as a lynching?

The irony is that the exact opposite may be argued, without any need for verbal obfuscation. Teoh Beng Hock was either a witness or a suspect in an alleged crime, and was, prima facie, in the custody of the MACC. If the reports of Halimi Kamaruzzaman's, Tan Boon Hwa's and Dariff Din's experience of the MACC's interrogation methods are reliable, then there is probable cause to suspect that Teoh too, may have been the victim of high handed interrogation tactics. Did Teoh's interrogators limit themselves to asking questions? Was psychological or physical violence used on him? Is it true that during his 10 hour interrogation, "officers dragged him to a window on the 14-story building and threatened to throw him out," as the Phillipine Daily Enquirer's website, quoting anonymous, "well-placed sources and officials close to the MACC", reports?

Considering the state of law enforcement and criminal investigation in Malaysia, with our history of suspicious deaths in custody, routine denial of access to counsel, allegations of politically motivated selective prosecution, the lack of real transparency and accountability, and our government's apparent inability to institute reforms (such as the IPCMC), isn't it reasonable for Malaysians to be asking those questions? All this, plus the inescapable fact that whatever was done to Teoh was done in OUR NAME, makes it a moral imperative that we actively work to uncover the circumstances surrounding his death. Asking our public servants tough questions, exploring the possibility that they have behaved criminally, and being very skeptical about the answers they give us, is not lynching, it is demanding that they be accountable to us.

By turning the very meaning of this word on its head, this "journalist" from the NST has insulted the memory of all who have suffered lynching at the hands of the powerful. He has made a mockery of the idea that our government and law enforcement authorities are accountable to the Rakyat; he seems to have chosen to serve power, rather than be an independent monitor of it.

With Malaysia at the crossroads in the aftermath of 8/3/08, advocacy journalism has become a "weapon" in the political "war" to determine which path our country takes. It is a genre of journalism that intentionally (and transparently) adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for a social or political purpose. It is certainly not new, and it is not disreputable per se; The Economist is an example of a publication that practices it quite well.

However, while advocacy journalists may justifiably eschew their newsroom colleagues' credo of objectivity (i.e. being neutral and not taking sides in their reporting), this does not absolve them of all standards of ethical journalism. Here is the bare minimum that they have to meet (adapted from here and here):

1) They must acknowledge and declare their editorial position and bias up front. Doing so will inform readers as to where the writer is coming from and allows them to employ their critical faculties accordingly. Working to promote a particular point of view without disclosing one's true stance is shilling.

2) They must be truthful, accurate, credible and ensure that every statement they make is factual and based on evidence from neutral sources. In other words don't spread propaganda, don't take quotes or facts out of context, "don't fabricate or falsify", and "don't judge or suppress vital facts or present half-truths". Requiring that media outlets refrain from spreading untruths and falsehood is not too much to ask for, is it?

3) Even if they do not provide equal time for their opponents' views, they must at least understand & address their opponents' relevant points & criticism - they must never ignore, trivialize or distort them. They must be fair and thorough.

4) They must use honest arguments & never resort to the crooked thinking and dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments. Avoid slogans, ranting, and polemics. Instead, "articulate complex issues clearly and carefully."

5) They must not allow their bias to turn into rose coloured glasses, or worse, a blind spot. They must not spare their own cause the tough, critical questions and scrutiny.

Without adhering to these most basic of standards, the resulting media "product" will be nothing more than propaganda, and bad one at that.

Had it come from a political party's media mouthpiece, the article might have been just bearable. After all, political propagandists and shills may rightly claim that they are not bound by any ethics, and are not obliged (or interested) to help citizens seek the truth. They may thus abandon even the pretence of reasoned discourse and honest logic, and to please their masters, may be as chauvinistic and as partisan as they please.

However, coming from the New Straits Times, the news outlet that is Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print, one which claims that "Our goal is to be the preeminent provider of news, information and entertainment and to achieve total customer satisfaction through our professional and highly regarded workforce that values quality, integrity, innovativeness and personal service", it is nothing short of an abject disgrace.

It stands to reason that the NST's lofty goal will remain out of its reach so long as its journalists (and editors) choose to behave like members of the oldest profession, and not as members of an honourable one. Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that they will keep on plying their trade quite profitably, so long as we Malaysians keep availing ourselves of their services.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

* Hartal MSM is a mediawatch group which had its beginnings in December 2007 in the People's Parliament, an initiative convened by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim. The group seeks to promote a free and fair media as an impetus to Malaysia's stalled nation-building process.

Fair Winds and Following Seas, Captain

We belong to God, and to God we will return.

The Ancient Mariner, Capt. Muhammad Yusof b. Haji Ahmad, passed away peacefully on 19 June 2009. He was 62, and leaves behind his beloved wife and four children.

Capt. Yusof started blogging as the Ancient Mariner on 14 November 2006, with a post entitled "Well, steady as she goes and full speed ahead ...", making an interesting observation that the word "blog" had nautical associations too. Ever since that first entry, he sure went "full speed ahead" with his blog, steadily posting up to 25 entries every month. He claimed to blog strictly for his own pleasure, but that did not stop him from informing, educating and certainly entertaining us. Although his modesty prevented him from claiming it, his writing most definitely made us think as well.

His blog entries came with interesting vignettes and anecdotes from his life at sea and on land, including warm descriptions of the people he had known, the places he had been to, and the books and poetry he had read. They attest to his gentleness and quiet erudition, and evoke memories of a time long since gone, when civility and courtesy was the mark of an Officer and a Gentleman.

That never prevented him from speaking his mind and rocking the boat, though. Far from it, he made many very sharp and accurate observations of life in Malaysia and possessed an equally sharp wit, which he kindly tempered with his good nature and humour that pervaded his blog.

He was very socially conscious. He frequently posted entries that touched on justice, democracy, civic duty and fairplay for all Malaysians (and even Singaporeans). He was never the chauvinistic partisan in his politics; even-handedness and noble principles was the cynosure by which he charted his course.

In an entry early in his blogging career, he wrote:

"I believe most of my blogging contemporaries (read: my age group) indulge in political commentaries. However, at this stage of my life or in the September of my years, to quote Sinatra, I no longer weigh the world's problems heavily on my shoulders nor do I share everyone's enthusiasm for a daily dreary fare of bellyaching and nit picking a la Naipaul* and his ilk. I honestly believe that we truly deserve the government that we have got. Period."

However, when corruption and injustice reared its ugly head, Capt. Yusof embraced his civic duty with determination and vigour. Soon after news of the PKFZ scandal broke he wrote this:

"...if you see something which needs to be done, something which affects you, your family, and even your country, you are not going to think, ah, what will the neighbours or your friends think. You are just going to do it."

Our problem, "the fire" as he called it, is this:

"Of late we are seeing the country going to the dogs with greedy politicians, corrupt police and judiciary, racial disintegration, religious bigotry and worse, an apathetic and a very gullible citizenry. Our founding fathers must surely be turning in their graves right now."

He ended by sounding this clarion call for us Malaysians to act:

"So all hands on deck for we cannot remain on the sidelines forever, on the outside looking in, nor can we just engage in ad hoc fire fighting. The proverbial ball, as they say, is in our court. The time and the place, my friends, is here and now ... "

Ever the consummate operations man who walks the talk, Capt. Yusof dedicated himself to exposing the PKFZ scandal, making it his personal mission. In a series of hard hitting blog entries (including a compelling letter to the PAC) starting from 25 July 2007 right up to 7 July 2009 (just 12 days before his passing), he laid bare the hanky-panky and shady dealing that went on, calling the perpetrators "modern day pirates now robbing this country blind". He acted without fear or favour; "old friend" Datin Paduka O.C. Phang (then PKA GM & PKFZ Chairman) and schoolmate, Datuk Shahrir Samad (then PAC chairman) were not spared questions & criticism.

Capt. Yusof used his extensive network of contacts and knowledge of Port Klang to organize, analyse, share and interpret the relevant data and news reports, greatly helping us to make sense of what was going on. He regularly posted updates, sometimes "scooping" the mainstream media and breaking the news before anyone else.

A powerful tool he used was to frame series of sharp pointed questions regarding the scandal, many of which remain unanswered by the authorities. His credibility and authoritativeness even led opposition leader YB Lim Kit Siang to consult him before tabling a motion in Parliament to debate the PKFZ scandal.

With his passing, the Malaysian blogosphere has lost a steadfast, principled and dedicated voice for justice, rule of law and good governance. He will be fondly remembered and deeply missed. May Malaysia be blessed with citizens as worthy as Capt. Yusof.

Al-Fatihah
in respectful memory of
Allahyarham Capt. Muhammad Yusof b. Haji Ahmad

Gurindam Fasal yang Kelima from Gurindam Dua Belas
by Raja Ali Haji (Capt. Yusof's illustrious forebear from Riau)

Jika hendak mengenal orang berbangsa,
lihat kepada budi dan bahasa,

Jika hendak mengenal orang yang berbahagia,
sangat memeliharakan yang sia-sia.

Jika hendak mengenal orang mulia,
lihatlah kepada kelakuan dia.

Jika hendak mengenal orang yang berilmu,
bertanya dan belajar tiadalah jemu.

Jika hendak mengenal orang yang berakal,
di dalam dunia mengambil bekal.

Jika hendak mengenal orang yang baik perangai,
lihat pada ketika bercampur dengan orang ramai.

(An English translation here)


Raja Ali Haji's wise words describe our dear Captain so well. Fair winds and following seas, Captain; may there be no moaning of the bar, when you put out to sea.

Are Vernacular Schools the Obstacle to a United Bangsa Malaysia?

In May 2009, blogger Kijangmas and his friends submitted a memorandum to the Malaysian Minister for Education, asking that the "menace of vernacular schools be totally eliminated" from Malaysia. What were their reasons for this request? They claim to believe that "...a strongly united Bangsa Malaysia will never be achieved as long as the menace of Vernacular Schools (National Type Schools or SJK) exists on Malaysian soil," (my translation from the original in BM). They also claim that vernacular schools (in their words a "divisive social cancer") are the reason why some Malaysians are "unpatriotic", harbour "anti-Malaysian" attitudes, "subversive" and "traitorous".

What heinous crimes would you have to commit, to be branded as "unpatriotic", "anti-Malaysian", etc. in their book? Not very much. Amongst other things, you could qualify by:

1. promoting Mandarin and Tamil (which they refer to as "foreign languages") in Malaysia. They believe doing this is against our Federal Constitution
   
2. "over-exaggerating" the contributions of immigrants in the formation & development of Malaysia

In the same memorandum, Kijangmas and friends also state their belief that the languages & cultures of Malaysian minorities must be removed from all national and public roles and confined to private community matters only, because, as they claim, that is what our Federal Constitution requires.

How did they arrive at their opinion of Malaysians who were educated at vernacular schools? Reading their blog, their beliefs seem to be based not on objective data, but on anecdotes, racial prejudice and stereotypes. One such stereotype that Kijangmas employs is this:

"These functional illiterates end up as a cheap source of semi-indentured labour in the motor workshops, auto accessory shops, in the building trades, sleazy unisex salons, become cetak rompak aficionados, stalk shopping malls to harass shoppers with a myriad of worthless gizmos and, in the case of many if not most Tamil-educated Indians, become low wage general workers, lorry drivers and assorted hired hands for the towkays."

So, are Malaysians educated in vernacular schools really unpatriotic and anti-Malaysian, as Kijangmas would have us believe? Let's look at some data. Recently, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research conducted an opinion poll, the National Youth Survey 2008. In it, a total of 2,518 randomly selected Malaysian youth between the ages of 20 and 35 were interviewed by telephone about their perceptions of lifestyle, current issues, values, politics, and their own levels of civic and social involvement. The report of the poll results can be downloaded from their website. Here, I would like to highlight just one interesting finding from that poll.

As part of of the questions used to gauge the respondents' social values, they were asked to complete following question:

If you can only choose one identity, would you say that you are...?

The results are as follows:

(Source: Page 30, National Youth Survey 2008 by Merdeka Center)

43% of those polled chose to identify themselves as Malaysians first. This is not surprising; as I have written about here, we Malaysians are not amongst the most patriotic people in the world.

What is interesting, however, is when those results were further analysed by looking at which type of school respondents had been educated at:

(Source: Page 31, National Youth Survey 2008 by Merdeka Center)

52% of respondents who had been to a Chinese school chose Malaysian as their identity. In contrast, 39% & 37% of those who had been to National & Tamil schools respectively, identified themselves as Malaysians first.

So, what are the obstacles to a united Bangsa Malaysia? Clearly, not vernacular schools per se. To answer that question truthfully will take lots of soul-searching, reflection & honest conversation among Malaysians. However, I'm willing to say that intolerance, racism & chauvinism will figure prominently on that list. I'm also willing to say that it is those three attributes that drive Kijangmas & his friends.

The next time Kijangmas comes across someone in the "building trades" or a "low wage general worker", perhaps he should pause & think hard before calling them unpatriotic & anti-Malaysian; for all he knows, in that person could beat the heart of a Malaysian truer than he.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Note: Please do visit all the links I attached to read the posting or article in its entirety. In that way you can judge for yourself if I have quoted them relevantly & in context.