By Ding Jo-Ann
HOW did the press cover the protest in Kuala Lumpur on 5 December 2010 over the Selangor water tariff hikes? According to reports, more than 4,000 protesters attempted to march from Masjid Negara to Istana Negara, to call for the return of water rights to the people. Protesters, however, were thwarted with tear gas and water cannons fired by the approximately 600 police present. At least 48 individuals were arrested for illegal assembly.
The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) examined five newspapers reports on 6 December 2010 covering the event. From the reports, it appears that many newsrooms are ignorant, whether deliberately or otherwise, of the fact that the right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
Indeed, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has recommended repeatedly, from as far back as 2001, that the police assist so that demonstrations can be carried out peacefully. Yes, believe it or not, police are meant to assist, not obstruct peaceful demonstrations.
Suhakam’s 2007 “Bloody Sunday” report in fact recommended for police to consult protest groups on suggested procession routes. The police were to provide traffic control to ensure processions proceed smoothly and minimise public disruption. This seems a much more sensible and efficient way to handle protests as opposed to the current method of obstructing demonstrators and firing tear gas and water cannons at them. The 2007 report also suggested that peaceful assemblies need not require permits, but merely prior consultation between organisers and the police.
In reporting on last Sunday’s protest however, newspapers seemed to accept unquestioningly that gatherings without permits are illegal. And that protesters, even peaceful ones, who refuse to disperse, could justifiably be shot at with tear gas and water cannons.
Here is CIJ’s review of the New Straits Times (NST), Utusan Malaysia (Utusan), Sinar Harian (Sinar), The Star (Star) and theSun‘s (Sun) reporting on the protest. It is accompanied by our own ad hoc rating, from a fairness and freedom of expression (FOE) perspective. Readers are welcome to disagree with our ratings and add their own in the comments section.
NST: Call me “irresponsible”
NST described the protesters as “irresponsible”, quoting apparently irate motorists who were stuck in traffic jams on the day. There was no mention of the fact that some of those traffic jams were caused by police road blocks meant to prevent protesters from participating in the demonstration. The report only appeared on page 14, after at least seven pages of pictures and news about the Barisan Nasional (BN) convention. There did not seem to be any attempt to depict protesters’ side of the story.
FoE Rating: F
Utusan Malaysia: One-sided quotes
Utusan’s page 3 report also chose to focus on the traffic jams “caused” by the demonstration. Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Zulkifli Abdullah was quoted several times, including expressing his “regret” at protesters failure to follow instructions to disperse. He also said accused protesters of being aggressive and throwing stones at the police.
“The law prohibits assemblies and marches of this kind. Other than affecting public order, it also damages public property, causes inconvenience to the public and has no benefit to one’s self,” quoted Utusan. There did not seem to be any attempt to obtain the protesters’ side of the story in the report.
FoE Rating: F
Sinar: Front page news
The protest actually made it to Sinar’s front page, but only to highlight the fact that a Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state assemblyperson had been arrested. Stories on the protest at page 7 however were accompanied by a photograph showing tear gas being fired at protesters. Sinar also quoted Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, who had presented a memorandum with over 200,000 signatures to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s representative on the water issue.
FoE Rating: C-
Star: “Chaos”
Star’s page 4 report contained quotes from both the police and protesters, with both sides alleging that the other party was aggressive or violent. There was also some attempt to describe the background of the water dispute between the federal and state governments. There were no photos of police use of tear gas or water cannons, although this was mentioned in the report. The report however described demonstrators as “chanting loudly, creating chaos at the vicinity of the (national) mosque.” There was no explanation why “loud chants” equated to “chaos”.
FoE rating: D+
theSun: “Tear gas”
theSun was the only newspaper out of the five reviewed that mentioned “tear gas” in its headline, with a matching photograph. The relatively balanced page 5 report also outlined the contents of the memorandum submitted by Khalid to the palace. There were however only live quotes from Kuala Lumpur police chief Zulkifli and none from protesters on their version of events.
FoE rating: B
Talk about irresponsible
It is perhaps wishful thinking to expect the mostly BN-controlled press to report in a perfectly balanced manner on what was essentially a PR-inspired event. It is however irresponsible of the traditional mainstream press to depict peaceful protesters as troublemakers, especially when they are exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression. Citizens in a democracy need spaces to express themselves, for it is one of the means by which governments are held to account. By capitulating to pressure to portray the water protest in a negative light, the traditional press is supporting the continued suppression of freedom of expression and diminishing the already limited spaces in which Malaysians can speak out.