The responsible press
By Datuk C.C. Liew, MySinchew
Sin Chew Media Corporation managing director cum group editorial director Datuk CC Liew today received the highest honour in Malaysian journalism, the National Eminent Journalist (Tokoh Wartawan Negara) award. Due to its very stringent selection criteria, this award has previously been given to only seven journalists since its inception 22 years ago, all from English and Malay media. Liew is the eight, and the first from a Chinese language newspaper, to receive this coveted award. This is the full text of Datuk C.C. Liew’s speech after receiving the 2010 Tokoh Wartawan Negara award on Wednesday 6 October 2010.
Ladies And Gentlemen,
I am humbled by the great honour you and fellow journalists are bestowing on me today.
I have several close and dear friends here today. But many of you may not know me personally, although I am sure most of you know the Sin Chew Daily where I have spent all my 48 years of journalism.
I see the Tokoh Wartawan Negara award not as recognition of my own personal efforts, but as a due recognition of the role of the Sin Chew Daily iMalaysian journalism and nation-building.
Let me take this opportunity to say a few things about the Sin Chew Daily, not its history, but about the current situation, the perception and the facts about Sin Chew Daily today.
As a newspaper, our primary function is to serve our readers.
If we serve them well, we develop with them a relationship of mutual respect that is enduring and rewarding. If we don’t serve them well, they have plenty of alternatives – other newspapers, other media.
This simple fact is often forgotten by some people, politicians, and persons with undeclared political agenda. They expect us to support their policies and actions unreservedly. But, we have to fulfill our professional obligations.
When the objective is noble and the action plan is clear, we do offer support – regardless of the creed or the political inclinations. When the motive is questionable, and the actions violate basic rights, we don’t support.
For Chinese newspapers, the problem is compounded by the fact that many politicians and civil servants do not read what we publish. Their opinions are molded by translators whose best intentions are sometimes thwarted by honest mistakes.
Admittedly, there are constant complaints against the Sin Chew Daily.
We have complaints from those who buyand read our paper. And this is only to be expected when we are serving more than a million readers each day.
We also have complaints from those who don’t even read the paper.
For example, these non-readers often accuse us of racial chauvinism.
Indeed, we do raise Malaysian Chinese grievances, and champion many issues. That is our job. But we do it always in the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural Malaysia, never in the context of one community against another.
Corollary to this is the accusation that we do not promote multi-racialism.
How ironic. The simple truth is that we report more on the other races than the other papers report on the Chinese community. We are in fact and indeed doing more to promote inter-racial understanding and multi-racialism than some of our colleagues in the print media.
Our opponents also accuse us of always dwelling on “sensitive” issues.
What is “sensitive”?
Are we as a nation still so immature that there are so many issues we cannot discuss rationally and objectively?
As a wise jurist once said, one of the measures of the maturity of a nation is the extent of open discussion of critical issues.
And as our Prime Minister Datuk Sri Najib Razak said recently, “the root cause of apprehension, conflict and misunderstanding among people of different ethnicities and religions is ignorance and lack of knowledge.”
No better way to say it. How to go about it? “Tak kenal maka tak cinta”. Talk with each other sincerely and honestly.
Prejudiced utterances and remarks only pander to basic instincts. They hurt. And hurting each other is absolutely what we can do without.
We believe that after 53 years of independence and decades of progress, we as a people can discuss our national problems in a rational and civilized way, without resorting to intemperate or emotive language.
We cannot just sweep things under the carpet and let them fester, or sit back and hope that our future generations will have more sense than us and be able to resolve problems that we created.
Personally, I believe in the basic goodness of people. If we genuinely do good unto others, they will always reciprocate in kind.
It is politics that brings out the worst in us. And we should fight against politics permeating all levels of our society and every aspect of our life.
In all my years of journalism, I have always sought to reach this basic nature of our readers. I have always believed that with goodwill and sincerity, no problem is beyond solution.
Having said that, I assure you that we as a newspaper organization are fully cognizant of the sensitivities of certain matters, especially those not enshrined in the Federal Constitution. We know how far we can go in a rational discourse.
Apart from sensitive issues, some people also complain that we are anti-Barisan Nasional, hence anti-governmen, and pro-opposition.
As a Malaysian newspaper serving Malaysians, we work towards building a nation united as one people, of diverse races, religions and cultures.
So, when the policies or actions of anyone, be it those in power or otherwise, are contrary to this goal of ours, we deem it our duty to speak up.
The media landscape has changed. The people are now better educated, more intelligent, more aware of their rights, more capable of discerning right from wrong.
With the Internet, they are also more informed, for better or for worse. Sometimes, the information is wrong and harmful, because there are virtually no restriction on anyone dispensing lies and venom on the Internet. Laws are seldom enforced, and the culprits – usually anonymous – are free to repeat their acts of ignorance or harm.
On the other hand, established media organizations and professional journalists can maintain certain standards and discipline to ensure that informed debate does not result in harm to our society.
Although the modes of communication are changing, certain journalistic principles remain immutable: principle such as truth, accuracy, fairness, balance.
So we must be allowed to do our job in this vast marketplace of ideas and information
If we falter, we are prepared to face the consequences.
As a newspaper, we are being scrutinized all the time.
In judging us – indeed, in judging all published material, whether in print or in the Internet or other mass media – the following questions should be asked:
1. Is there any error in the facts
If there is, legal and lawful remedies are the better options. Factual errors and opinions or views based on them are actionable.
2. Is there any fabrication of facts?
Fabrication is mischievous and dishonest, and unpardonable when perpetrated by practitioners such as journalists and those with large audiences like bloggers, Facebook or Twitter users. Throw the book at them.
3. Is any law breached
Even if there is no factual error or fabrication, is any law violated? If it is, act accordingly. Civil action or prosecution is the recourse.
Determining culpability and the appropriate punishment must be in accordance with the law. There must be no arbitrariness or unfettered discretion. That is the meaning of rule of law.
But what if there is no falsehood or wrongdoing and thus no breach of the law, but public disorder is caused nonetheless? Should the writer or publisher be punished?
My view is, yes. If writers or publishers are careless about the possible consequences of what they write or publish, they must face the music. I believe in freedom of the press, but with such freedom comes responsibility.
But again, the punishment must be in accordance with the law, not by administrative fiat. And the law must be fair and just, not oppressive.
