A strike for press freedom

SIAR TANPA PREJUDIS

A strike for press freedom
18 Nov 08 : 9.00AM
By Zedeck Siew
');
// -->
zedecksiew@thenutgraph.comPrinter Friendly Format -->
THE politics of Utusan Malaysia, with its championing of Malay rights, has raised concerns of late. The influential Malay-language daily is unapologetic about pushing forward the Malay (some would say Umno) agenda, often running roughshod over the sentiments of the other races.
But the Utusan Malaysia of today is very different from the Utusan Melayu of the 1950s and 60s. Then, the influential newspaper was independent, free to voice the concerns of the Malay heartland and take the government to task over perceived shortcomings.
The man who came to embody Utusan's struggles back in its heyday was Singapore-born Said Zahari. The actions of the then editor-in-chief were prime points of contestation for Malaysian press and politics.
For his role in the Utusan Melayu strike of 1961 — a protest against Umno's takeover of the paper — Said Zahari was barred from entering Malaya by executive order. This restriction was only lifted when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister.
For being part of the Singaporean left, he was accused of being a communist, and now holds the dubious honour of being the second longest-serving political detainee of the island state, having spent 17 years banished to Pulau Ubin.
Such a lack of historical perspective afflicts both the man and the newspaper for which he once stood. The Nut Graph sat down with the 80-year-old press veteran and activist to find out what the paper he helped build was like in its more idealistic days; the effects of the takeover of Utusan by Umno; and its impact on press freedom.
TNG: Tell us what Utusan Melayu was like in the 1950s and 60s.
Said Zahari: The people who worked in the Utusan of those years, ever since the Singapore days, were not only journalists; they were also political activists. Journalism and politics were inseparable, because those were the years when we were fighting against colonialism. We wanted to contribute to the fight for independence — and Utusan always played a very important role in that.
When the Tunku (Tunku Abdul Rahman) won the 1955 general election, he knew Utusan supported the Perikatan (Alliance) government. But with this support, we wanted the government to fulfil all the promises it made during the election campaign. We insisted that we needed full independence, not Merdeka setengah masak. That was our line. With the independence agreement with the British, we would still be under the influence of outside [forces] — our former colonial masters, just wearing a different mask. Economically, they would control us, as things such as the rubber plantations were still owned by the British.
I remember telling the Tunku: "Utusan is owned by the Malays. It is supposed to serve the Malay community, not to serve a small group of Malays who are members of Umno. There are Malays in the Labour Party, in the People's Party; Malays in PAS."
Umno, at that time, would have only had a couple of hundred members. So it was not fair to force Utusan Melayu to serve only Umno.
Scene of the Utusan strike (Pic from Meniti Lautan Gelora, courtesy of Said Zahari)
The 1961 strike was a reaction to Umno's bid to control Utusan Melayu's editorial policy. Why did they want the paper so badly?
Utusan Melayu was the most influential newspaper in Malaya at the time. Our actual circulation was very small: about 25,000 copies a month, at the most. But a large percentage of the Malay population lived in the rural areas, and three-quarters of our newspapers went to the villages. What they would do was simple: every morning, they'd come to the coffee shop before they go to the sawah. One Utusan Melayu would be shared by so many people. In terms of readership, we probably had hundreds of thousands.
Umno had its own party newspaper, called Suara Umno or something like that. It wasn't very influential; even some Umno members didn't read it. They were looking for an alternative, and Utusan was definitely the best option for them.
Why go on strike?
I happened to be editor-in-chief at the time. I was in my thirties. They all said, later, that I was too young, and therefore I took a very tough stance on the issue.
Leslie Hoffman was one of these people. He was the former editor-in-chief of the New Straits Times; he had been in Singapore, with the Straits Times, and then moved up after independence. We were friends for many, many years. When we went on strike, Leslie was very worried. He asked me why I did this, saying, "You know you are fighting against the government, and you can never win."
I said, "I know I cannot win. But I'm not fighting against the government. I'm fighting to maintain the principle of freedom of the press. I'll lose — so be it. Utusan journalists will be remembered as journalists who tried to prevent the taking over of newspapers by the government, or political parties in power. That's all."
A point of curiosity in your memoir Meniti Lautan Gelora is Siaran Mogok, produced during the strike, which started on 21 July 1961. Could you tell us more about it?
Siaran Mogok was a bulletin — a few pages long and edited by Usman Awang — which reported daily activities: what was going on, who came to support us, the issue of why we went on strike itself. It was circulated among the staff, and whoever came.
There was a lot of support for us, from everywhere. There were opposition party members, of course. And believe me, even Umno people came to visit us to support our strike! Yes, Umno from certain branches. They supported us, they said, "Utusan should remain an independent newspaper."
With that kind of support we managed to carry on, until slightly over a month, on 30 Aug, when I was stopped at immigration [trying to come back from Singapore]. They organised a group of people to break the strike from within; without me they acted. Once there was news that I was banned from coming back, it was the beginning of the split within the camp.
What were the immediate effects of the strike? Was there a loss of confidence, now that readers were aware that Utusan Melayu was biased?
In the beginning, no. In fact, the circulation increased after the strike, very much, almost immediately. It was backed by government support. In fact, that was what (subsequent editor-in-chief) Ibrahim Fikri said: we broke the strike, [and] now Utusan is very rich.
People in general did not really understand the reasons for the takeover. But I told the Tunku a long, long time ago: "Tunku, you want Utusan to serve only Umno; it can no longer be the Malays' voice. Slowly, people will understand. Even if they buy the newspaper, it will not be because they support you, but because they have no alternative."
Tunku Abdul Rahman (Pic from Meniti Lautan Gelora, courtesy of Said Zahari)The Tunku said: "No, no, we'll make sure it won't happen."
"Okay, good luck to you," I said.
In retrospect, what was the significance of the the Umno takeover?
The death of press freedom started with the Utusan strike, although this was not generally understood at the time. The thinking that it was a turning point was very appropriate, because when you talk about control of the press being taken over by the government, or political parties in government, it started with Utusan.
I told Leslie: "Mark my words. Now that they are taking over Utusan, they are taking over our freedom to run a newspaper as genuine journalists, like you and I feel it should be. In the next few years, even the Straits Times will be taken over by them."
Later on, when groups affiliated with the MCA started taking over Chinese-language newspapers like Nanyang Siang Pau, people started to remember what happened to Utusan Melayu. Forty years later, and exactly the same thing happened.
Part two: Utusan today, the ISA and ketuanan Melayu

The Nut Graph "Utusan will become very irrelevant"
Interview with former Utusan Melayu editor-in-chief Said Zahariwww.thenutgraph.com/utusan-will-become-very-irrelevant - Cached
Utusan will become very irrelevant"
19 Nov 08 : 9.00AM
By Zedeck Siew
');
// -->
zedecksiew@thenutgraph.comPrinter Friendly Format -->
JOURNALIST Said Zahari was a seminal force in Utusan Melayu during its heyday as an independent publication. He led the paper's 1961 strike in protest of a takeover bid by Umno, which resulted in him being banned from entering Malaysia. The ban was only lifted in the 1980s.
A consummate man of letters, Said has written two memoirs, Meniti Lautan Gelora and Dalam Ribuan Mimpi Gelisah (available in English as Dark Clouds at Dawn and The Long Nightmare, respectively). He is currently working on a third.
In part two of this exclusive interview, The Nut Graph talks to the former editor and political detainee about what he thinks of Utusan today, the ketuanan Melayu concept, the role of draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), and what needs to happen before there is freedom for the Malaysian press.
TNG: With the 1961 strike in mind, it is clear that Utusan Malaysia today is a very different animal than it was during those times. What do you think of the newspaper now?
Said Zahari: Now we can see that, although Utusan can survive with government support, they have lost complete credibility.
Look at the recent incidents against Teresa Kok. And then, why has this Chamil Wariya suddenly become a short story writer? I remember talking to some of the Utusan people who came to see me. I said: "What the hell are you doing this? What are you trying to prove?"
It's because of this kind thing that people will lose confidence. Last week I read a report, referring to Malay-language newspapers, which said that the circulation for Utusan and Berita Harian has come down to about 200,000. It was up to one million before, with the Sunday paper; the daily paper used to have 300,000 to 400,000. Now it's so low.
I told them: "If Utusan is stupid enough not to see this, then Utusan will become very irrelevant." Nobody will care for Utusan anymore. Now that people have the internet, they have an alternative.
Senator Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee, in a statement about the Umno Cheras-sponsored Tabung Azan, was quoted as saying "akhbar Utusan Malaysia milik orang Melayu, sinonim dengan perjuangan Umno, maka tindakan Teresa [Kok] itu samalah seperti menggugat kepentingan seluruh umat Islam."
They distorted Teresa Kok's stand on certain issues — the azan, for example. These things have been disproved, but they were all deliberately distorted. They use Teresa Kok as an anti-Malay symbol. So they spread this over, along with the idea that Utusan is synonymous with Umno. Then when Teresa sued Utusan, they said: "We must defend Utusan." Because she is Chinese, she is from DAP, therefore she is anti-Umno, anti-Melayu, and anti-Islam. But it is not true! And this was not the original issue!
This is what happens when a small group of people manipulate the news, and make use of the name "Melayu". People don't discuss the real issue itself. It's as simple as that.
The Pakatan Rakyat need to do more than boycott Utusan. Particularly, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and PAS should go around to the people, to the grassroots, to explain that to play communal and religious issues will not solve the country's problems.
"Ketuanan Melayu" is a major part of the current political rhetoric. What are your thoughts on the concept?
I just want to say, I don't understand why Umno wants to play the role of "tuan". Why do you want to talk about "ketuanan Melayu"? The symbol of that is the Agong — and nobody can touch him. Who worries about a Chinese [Malaysian] or Indian [Malaysian] becoming the Agong? As for economic matters, the constitution and the New Economic Policy guarantee a lot of rights for the Malays. There's nothing at stake for "ketuanan Melayu". Enough lah.
What Umno should be concerned for is "kepimpinan Melayu" — orang Melayu jadi pemimpin bangsa Malaysia. In other words, you make sure that Malays can be leaders of Malaysia, for this whole nation, not just Umno.
They make "ketuanan Melayu" an issue because when they are in trouble, they think they can unite the Malays on this. But it won't work now because of the new media. The different views are well known. People will understand where you try to bluff, to cheat.
You are perhaps most well known for having been detained under Singapore's ISA, spending 17 years on Pulau Ubin. What are your thoughts about detention without trial? Has there ever been a point in Malaysian history where the ISA was necessary?
The ISA in Singapore is similar to the one here. Both exist not for the internal security of the country, as they claim, but always for the interests of the political leaders in power.
Let's go back to the origins of the ISA, when the British declared Emergency. The purpose of the Emergency Regulations, ostensibly, was to fight against terrorists — the same so-called terrorists, the Malayan Communist Party, that had helped them during the war. But when arrests were made, not many communists were arrested. There were more leaders of the Malay nationalist groups who were taken: people from the Malay Nationalist Party, and so on.
Said carrying buckets of water during his time on Pulau Ubin (Pic from Menitis Lautan Gelora, courtesy of Said Zahari) So [the explicit reason for the ISA is] rubbish, to me. Till today, there has not been a case where an ISA detainee has been proven to be a terrorist. The ISA has always been there to intimidate the people. It is at the apex of all sorts of laws that frighten the people.
Among these laws are the Official Secrets Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act, which affect the media directly. You are also known as a press freedom advocate. In your memoir Meniti Lautan Gelora, you observe that the most vocal proponents of press freedom come from opposition parties and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Are journalists themselves doing enough to defend their autonomy?
Journalists of today work for newspapers owned by certain groups with certain interests. If they do not serve their owners, they may not be able to continue working. There is this struggle between personally thinking of the role of journalism, and the fear of losing their livelihood. People from NGOs don't have worry so much.
This is why until now I don't remember any of the mainstream newspaper editors discussing freedom of the press. They may comment on how the anti-media laws affect their daily operations, but they don't severely criticise these laws.
Because of all this fear, the minds of journalists are controlled. Under these circumstances, the future of the Malaysian media depends on what the journalists themselves think. If their own minds are not free, don't even talk about press freedom — one's creativity, the most important tool for a journalist, is gone.
Journalists have to decide that they should be free to express their opinion. Then change can happen. We have to start from there. It is possible, but we may need some time.
What are your thoughts on new media, such as those represented by the internet? What do you think is this nascent form's role in Malaysian discourse?
The traditional media is now beginning to realise that they can no longer play the most important role in shaping public opinion. The situation has changed. For one, there are all the alternative, opposition papers. But on top of that, there is the internet: news portals and blogs.
The thing about blogs and all that is that people have a medium to express. They comment on each other's writing — and this is a good thing for our country, because things are becoming more open. You will get a number of people writing rubbish, but it doesn't matter. I can write, and I may not be right in giving my opinion, but let other people say where I am wrong.
When [Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad] started blogging, within six months he had the most widely read Malaysian blog. Why? Because people want to know what Mahathir has to say. Let him speak. And this is the time you can attack Mahathir if you think what he says is wrong.
Former Utusan editor-in-chief YusofIshak (Pic from Meniti Lautan Gelora,courtesy of Said Zahari)What are your hopes for Utusan?
I have an emotional attachment to Utusan. Politically, journalistically, I grew up in the paper. That feeling is still there, in spite of my hating their current policy.
When I took over the editorship from Yusof Ishak, Utusan played our role in serving the Malays. But we wanted it to be not just the Malays. Back then, the paper was in Jawi. For our second phase we planned Utusan Melayu Muda, in Rumi script. Through Rumi, we would reach non-Malays; we could serve the Malayan people. Kepentingan rakyat was our focus back then: democracy, social justice, freedom.
Of course, I would love it if Utusan Malaysia could somehow go back to the spirit of the Utusan Melayu of the 1960s. I think there are people who feel like me, but I don't know how widespread this feeling is.

MULA MEMBLOG BILA DAH KENA BLOG.....

TARIKH hari ini, 26 Mac 2010 sempena hari Jumaat, Penghulu Hari yang sangat mulia, saya yang begitu diselubungi dengan pelbagai perasaan; marah tentu sekali, memulakan suatu fasa yang terpaksa, iaitu mempunyai blog sendiri setelah seluruh warga Utusan telah disekat dari melayari sebarang social networking!
Namakan apa sahaja sama ada dari Friendster, Tagged dan terutamanya Facebook. Mungkin sukar untuk anda mempercayainya? Utusan Malaysia sekat kemajuan dalam IT? Buktinya adalah berikut;
" This Page Cannot Be Displayed
Based on your corporate access policies, access to this web site ( http://www.facebook.com/ ) has been blocked because the web category "Social Networking" is not allowed.
If you have questions, please contact your corporate network administrator and provide the codes shown below."
Iaitu setiap kali anda cuba untuk melayari sebarang jenama rangkaian sosial yang ada di internet.
Saya juga seperti anda, sehingga kini sukar mempercayai dan menelan hakikat yang sepahit ini. Terasa ingin saja kembali ke Zaman Batu, duduk dan tinggal di gua-gua batu, tanpa pakai baju dan ..... ya, hidup seperti orang Zaman Batu!
Rangkaian Sosial Facebook yang menjadi medan luahan pelbagai rasa dan kata terutama kalangan wartawan di Utusan Malaysia telah melakukan dosa, dosa besar yang tidak terampunkan.
Apakah dosa-dosa itu? Maka soalan itu harus ditanya sendiri kepada si empunya kepala yang mengeluarkan arahan supaya FB disekat? Hanya dia yang lebih tahu! Hanya dia yang dapat menilai FB yang beliau dapati penuh dengan keburukan, penuh dengan kejahatan, penuh dengan segala macam elemen-elemen yang negatif maka kerana itu melayari FB hukumnya haram.
Tambah lagi FB merupakan produk ciptaan Yahudi, maka apa layaknya bagi umat Islam untuk melayarinya lagi! Jelas 'haram', untuk apa kita melayarinya lagi?!!!!!
Tidak begitu gerangan bos berkenaan yang mengeluarkan arahan agaar pihak IT Utusan sekat, haramkan penggunaan FB di kalangan warga Utusan, terutama para wartawannya. Wartawan Utusan yang selama ini telah terbukti hebat malah begitu hebat tanpa perlu adanya FB!
Tetapi cukuplah seharian semalam, apabila mulanya berkuatkuasa 'pengharaman' FB di Utusan secara rasmi.
Sehari itu dirasakan benar-benar terputus hubungan dengan dunia luar, mati kutu sungguh! Malah pengharaman ini menjadi bahan jenaka yang sangat menyakitkan setiap kali bertemu dengan rakan-rakan yang selama ini ditemui di FB. Kami terpaksa bergelak ketawa bagi menghiburkan hati yang benar-benar terkilan, kesal dan marah apabila FB itu disekat.
Ah, cukup membosankan!!!!!
Dan kesempatan di ambil sepenuhnya apabila pada lewat petangnya saya berpeluang bertemu dengan Encik Zaini Hassan yang kebetulan sedang enak menikmati kacang goreng Nganyin bersama Encik Arifin Nordin dan Radhuan Hassan (Kosmo). Ikuti sebentar lagi bicara panas antara kami itu!