No smoke without fire

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some accuse Malaysia Today of dabbling in rumours and speculation. Some even question the credibility of Malaysia Today and have boldly declared that I know nothing about journalism.

Well, I have news for you. I am not a journalist and have never had any training as one. So what’s new?


Malaysia Today is not an events-driven website like a ‘normal’ news portal. It is an issue-driven website. This means we generate issues, not news per se. And these pieces are meant to provoke thought and discussion. After all, how can the issue of Umno’s Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) be news? It is an issue older than Merdeka (independence). Or how can the interpretation (or in this case, misinterpretation) of Islam be news? Islam is more than 1,400 years old. But these are the issues Malaysia Today churns out.

If you want Malaysia Today to report, as you say, ‘credible’ stories — events that have already happened and incidences or happenings based on eyewitness accounts and statements — then we will be just another Bernama, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, etc. We just phone up various personalities and record their statements and report what they say: quote, unquote. But then we would be just a reporter, reporting what people say and nothing more. We need not even analyse what they say or talk about the behind the scenes goings-on, which would always go unreported since they are behind the scenes anyway.

There is an ‘international’ saying: there is no smoke without fire. There is another ‘local’ saying: most rumours in Malaysia, in the end, all end up as fact.

Malaysia Today focuses on the so-called rumours (the smoke) which will never get reported for obvious reasons but which we know from reliable sources to be fact. And the sources can never be revealed for equally obvious reasons, so their information would have to remain what many would call ‘mere speculation’.

Let me take you back to 11 May 1969. There were rumours then that the Malays were upset with the ‘victory parade’ organised by the Labour Party supporters in Bangsar and Brickfields. Umno was planning to organise a ‘return match’ on 13 May 1969.

The rumours then were that this Malay rally would end in bloodshed. But there were no Internet, cellphones or SMS then, so there was no way this ‘news’ could be circulated and certainly the mainstream media would not dare disseminate this ‘rumour’ or ‘speculation’.

My father, for the first time in his working life, came home at 3.00pm that 13 May 1969. He had never done this before. He told all of us to stay home and not venture outside the house as there was going to be trouble later that day.

There was no Malaysia Today then. There was no Internet either. There was also no SMS. So this ‘rumour’ and ‘speculation’ remained in the family. There was plenty of time to warn the public but there was no way this could be done. If there was, then the whole town would have been in a state of panic. The police would have issued statements assuring everyone all was well and to not listen to rumours. And warnings would have been given that anyone who spreads this rumour would be arrested.

Permission for Umno to hold the rally would have been withdrawn and peace and tranquillity would have been maintained. The ‘rumour’ would have been proven wrong, there would have been no bloodshed and race riots, and some would probably have been detained for spreading this malicious lie of impending race riots. And my father would have wasted an afternoon at home when instead he could have been in the office working till late night like he did his entire life till the day he died.

Alas, the ‘rumour and speculation’ about May 13 were no rumour and speculation as we all know. And this is the kind of reporting Malaysia Today would have carried if there was an Internet back in 1969. And there would have been no race riot as Malaysia Today would have triggered an alarm. And I would have been arrested for ‘spreading lies’.

In 1997 and 1998, there was much rumour and speculation that Anwar Ibrahim had fallen out of favour with Dr Mahathir Mohamad. When Dr Mahathir went on leave and left the country in Anwar’s hands for two months, the rumour and speculation then was that this is a sign Anwar is finished. Dr Mahathir, according to the rumour and speculation, was giving Anwar the rope to hang himself.

The rumour and speculation was so strong that, in the end, Dr Mahathir was forced to make a public statement denying it. However, a couple of days later, Dr Mahathir made his move on Anwar and confirmed that he had known for some time about Anwar’s ‘misdeeds’ — which means it was not a sudden or impromptu thing but a planned event just like what the ‘rumour and speculation’ had been saying so for some time.

Then there was the ‘rumour and speculation’ Malaysia Today carried in the first few days it was launched in mid-August 2004 that Anwar would be freed on a 2-1 verdict. We even named which judge would rule against Anwar. All, Anwar’s lawyers included, lambasted Malaysia Today but we held our ground and stood behind our story. We refused to back down. We even mentioned what was going on behind the scenes, the manoeuvring to try to keep Anwar in jail, and the many personalities involved.

Today, what was ‘rumour and speculation’ in August 2004 is a statement of fact and 2 September 2004 will be documented in the history books for posterity. And though there were behind the scenes moves to keep Anwar in jail, there was no way it could be done because the plot had already been exposed in great detail with names, time and dates.

I know many will now argue: why only talk about the successes, the rumours and speculation that were proven in the end to be fact? What about all those that were proven wrong? Well, has it not occurred to you that maybe because Malaysia Today, and the Free Anwar Campaign website the years before this, did broadcast ‘rumours and speculation’ about an impending incident, those behind it decided to abort the plan since they had been exposed and their move pre-empted? This would be similar to if we had announced on 12 May 1969 that there was going to be an Umno rally the following day resulting in race riots. The whole thing would never have happened.

So, of course, we would, as you say, be ‘proven wrong’ since there was no May 13 incident after all. But were we really wrong or did our revelation just change the course of history giving the impression we were wrong? And my ‘unnamed reliable source’ in the May 13 example I have used above would have been my late father who, at that time, would have gone down in my revelation as a ‘reliable source’ whose prediction did not come true. But, alas, there was no Malaysia Today or Internet then so May 13 did happen.

Something to think about don’t you think so?