What is slander journalism?
The writer Mariam Mokhtar underscores many of these concerns in a number of her pieces. For a start, one can infer that she has never read the Auditor General’s 2010 Report on the National Feedlot Centre to offer her arguments objectively, professionally and accurately.
Concerned Cornell Alumnus
Opinionist Mariam Mokhtar recently wrote in Malaysian Mirror, Shahrizat cleared but her credibility is ruined.
Were journalists responsible for much of the unwarranted slanders?
Slander is a surprisingly specific term, lawyers will confirm. The layman in us will assume that it is when someone lies in any form to your detriment. Slander is specific to something being viciously untruthful, or once it is said that it can’t be taken back. Slander must be something that is false and damages the reputation of an individual. Spoken, published or broadcast. Basically, slander = false harmful speech. Libel = written false harmful words.
It used to be that in order to prove a slander case, the victim must prove falsity, publication, broadcast (or at least one person heard it, even if you aren’t talking to them). Today, the tables are turned. New amendments to the Evidence Act state the onus to prove is no longer with the victim. The onus now lies with the writer to prove. Interestingly, this new amendment would be gazetted for implementation by 1 June 2012. Responsible journalism is revived. Falter, and there is every possibility that journalists would be sued for slander journalism. I can see lawyers having a field day at the courts.
So why is it that journalists continue to write without proof? Why the neglect on verified facts and figures? Why the absence of well-founded research? Why the lack of due diligence in best reporting practices to ensure accuracy? Why the often reckless caustic composition?
The writer Mariam Mokhtar underscores many of these concerns in a number of her pieces. For a start, one can infer that she has never read the Auditor General’s 2010 Report on the National Feedlot Centre to offer her arguments objectively, professionally and accurately.
In her 14 November 2011 article, “Cattlegate”: For BN, business as usual, Mariam reported, “The Auditor-General’s Report, released the previous week, criticised the NFC project being ‘in a mess’ and for failing in its objective.” On 8 December, she again wrote, “The whole mess surfaced when the Auditor General made his report in the recent National Audit.”
These misreportings together with those by others finally broke the camel’s back. Enough is enough. Auditor General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang in a media statement on 26 January 2012, clarified aloud that his 2010 annual report had never at all mentioned NFCorp being audited or the NFC project being in any such mess. If one researches well, one would have read the Auditor General’s foreword. He specifically states that he audits only the government machinery and not private entities.
Perhaps one of the mistakes is that journalists depend too much on statements provided by Rafizi Ramli without first reviewing the Auditor General’s report to understand what was being audited and reported. Most times in the haste to get the story out first, verfications for accuracy are ignored or neglected. Mariam Mokhtar had every opportunity to review the Auditor General’s report on the NFC project. But reading the 13 pages for a fair and accurate comprehension, it would appear she did not.
Further one reads of Rafizi obtaining cashbook accounts from a former NFC employee. He had also gotten hold of confidential bank documents from a bank employee. These documents were strong enough for many journalists to believe the integrity of the information provided by Rafizi. But sharp journalists would readily point out that cashbook accounts don’t state the reasons for expenditure, only payment vouchers, accompanying invoices and working papers do. Neither would bank documents that point to loans taken in 2005 have anything to do with NFCorp (which was established in 2006).
Why would Rafizi Ramli mislead the media is a given obvious. Politics have hit the gutters. Is today’s journalism heading that way too?
Mariam adds that journalists are not unduly bothered if Shahrizat had a hand in awarding her family the contract. They however demand to know why companies, like the one belonging to Shahrizat’s family, had been awarded the contract. The company had no technical experience of dealing with cattle or livestock rearing, she says. But again did anyone verify the facts? Did they speak with the National Implementation Task Force that awarded the project? Did anyone verify as to what had impressed the government in NFCorp’s “farm-to-fork” proposal? Did they ask Dr Salleh? Sadly, no journalist had taken the initiative on this.
So was NFCorp qualified or not?
For the unfamiliar, it is interesting to note that the NFCorp chairman Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail is a Phd graduate in food science from the prestigious Cornell University New York, USA. Try asking any Cornell graduate if it is easy to earn a qualification here. Some take years to clinch one. Some die from the frustration of trying to get one. Audiences might also not know this. Someone had once blogged that as a young lad, Dr Salleh had tendered to his family farm in Kelantan. It was here that he had his early exposure in nurturing chickens and cows, and subsequently doing business, selling them off to the local markets. Dr Salleh’s students at UPM will recall his lectures in food science. Dr Salleh was also consultant to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. His cumulative experience here puts to shame the armchair critics quick at concluding Salleh comes without a qualification or the experience to match the project.
The media has also never understood nor researched its understanding why NFCorp had had to undertake interim strategic investments in properties. Only a handful did hear that the government had in May 2009 put on hold the project pending a viability study that was commissioned by the government. They never went beyond here.
One key factor for the interim investments in properties was that money drawn down from the loan is irrevocable. Simply put you can’t return to the government unutilised funds. Very much like a housing loan. You can’t return all that is borrowed the next day without having to be penalised. The loan agreement sighted from MalaysiaKini given by Tony Pua attests to this. Interest for the full loan, it would appear, had clocked in the day the funds were deposited into a loan account. And the loan has to be repaid after a three-year start-up grace. The need to ensure that the idle fund was put to good use to secure NFCorp’s ability to repay, would seem vital. And if you really read the loan document thoroughly, you will find that Clause 12 provides for the borrower to pay for the purchase of landed properties.
OK, let’s work out some basic maths here. If one placed an idle sum of RM13 million in a fixed deposit, the annual rate of return at 2.8% would earn RM364,000. If on the other hand, one invested the idle sum in a prime property like One Menerung, the annual rate of return would be 13.95% and garner RM1,814,010. I am impressed at the value that short term interim investments bring, in moments when projects stall.
Certainly, the above provides some fodder for Mariam’s enquiring mind.
As Jonathan Stray puts it, “Journalism is many good things, but it’s going to be a different set of good things in each time, place, and circumstance.”
Hopefully, this opens up a good cause for responsible journalism and closes up for good, slander journalism.
I wish Shahrizat well.
