FINAL update for the night ... Malaysiakini spoke to bloggers and internet media editors about the "complaint" made to Fu Ak Kiow by some idiots in the mainstream media.
Noon updates .. Screenshots, the early-rising blogger, confirms the piece on the Blogging, Printing and Presses Act. Read it here.
And, no, Kalimullah Hassan DID NOT APOLOGISE for the untruth he wrote in his June 11 article.
Original post .. The government is studying the possibility of placing online media, including those damn bloggers, under the Printing and Presses Act?
If you have the Star's SMS alert, you would have gotten a newsflash on a statement made to this effect by a deputy minister at the two-day Media Conference at IOI Mariott, Putrajaya, that ended yesterday.
I'll wait for my copy of The Star for this piece of bad news.
And, of course, for a copy of the NST for the apology. Today's D-Day for Kalimullah Hassan to say sorry to Dr M and to you and I for the passages of untruth he wrote in his June 11 article that offended Malaysians and Malaysian journalism, and which contributed to the rift between the PM and the former PM.
By the way, it was Pak Lah who set the crooked article straight.
rockybru said...
ReplyDeleteQuote: "NST for the apology. Today's D-Day for Kalimullah Hassan to say sorry to Dr M and to you and I for the passages of untruth he wrote in his June 11 article that offended Malaysians and Malaysian journalism, and which contributed to the rift between the PM and the former PM..."unquote.
================================
Dear bro rocky bru
Did Kali apologise In the NST today?
I no longer read the NST, neither the paper or NST online.
Jay.
"Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 is a piece of legislation that requires all print media in Malaysia to obtain an licence and abide by its strict regulations. The license or permit must be renew annually in order to publish in Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteThis piece of legislation is enforced by the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs. The powers are vested in the Home Affairs Minister who can grant or deny any permit. The minister can also restrict or ban outright publications that is likely to endanger national security interest or create social unrest.
The Constitution of Malaysia do allow freedom of speech and for the press as well. However, there is a very crucial limitation. The Constitution provides that freedom of speech may be restricted by legislation "in the interest of security (or) public order. [1]
Hence this means the government can enact legislation to determine the way information is disseminated by the mass media industry if the government feels that the national interest has been threatened."
This is bad news.
The internet should remain wild and free.
If it's not, then we'll all probably have to go anonymous.
Guerilla writing.
And what kind of scathing attacks would that bring?
Anyway, I don't really think they can do anything serious to EVERYONE as it's not practical. Just the select few.
As an example and also to forward political agenda.
[han_my_hani has asked me to re-post this under the "BPP Act".- rocky]
ReplyDeletehani_my_hani has left a new comment on your post "CONTAINER OF WORMS":
Brader
If what you say is true, the future looks bleak indeed.
We cant depend on the mainstream media because they are not telling the whole truth & neither are they addressing the country’s problems or the rakyat's concerns.
And, now we may be deprived of our alternative source of information from reliable blogs if indeed the government plans to place online media & bloggers under the Printing & Press Act.
It is depressing!
I would not subscribe to the widespread notion that this government says one thing and does another.
ReplyDeleteI was there when PM made his speech. He advocated freedom with responsibility. He promised that his government would not rush to act against the Press.
So, I consider the statement by the Deputy Minister as an aberration. Let’s say that he just wanted to do a one up on his boss.
Speaking as a devil’s advocate, when discussing the subject “Penguatkuasaan Undang-undang Dalam Mengawal Selia Akhbar (Law Enforcement in the Supervision of the Newspapers) at the Conference, I made the following points:
1. Apa kata kalau saya katakan bahawa kawal selia media bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan yang menjamin kebebasan bersuara;
2. Apa kata kalau saya katakan bahawa kawal selia media sudah ketinggalan zaman kerana ada komponen media yang tidak dapat dikawal lagi kerana teknologi yang digunakannya tidak mudah dikawal seperti akhbar Internet dan blogger;
3. Apa kata kalau saya katakan bahawa kawal selia media tidak menyeluruh dan tidak sama rata, justeru itu tidak adil;
4. Apa kata kalau saya katakan bahawa hak dan kemampuan kerajaan mengawal selia media tidak sentiasa berkesan kerana ada kuasa di luar kerajaan yang lebih berpengaruh;
5. Apa kata kalau saya katakan bahawa kawal selia media tidak berkesan, tidak adil dan menyusahkan kerana ada orang atau pihak yang diamanahkan tugas itu tidak arif dalam hal media massa; dan
6. Apa kata kalau saya katakan bahawa kawal selia media tidak secocok dengan mantera semasa mengenai ketelusan, kebertanggungjawaban dan keterbukaan.
Understandably, my presentation didn’t see daylight in the Malay and English newspapers but was reported by the Chinese Press.
The government cannot talk about transparency, accountability and openness while insisting on controlling more and more aspects of our everyday activities.
Bru, let me put it this way. The Internet newspapers and blogs do not belong to one group only.
ReplyDeleteMany groups and individuals set up blogs. There as as many pro-government, pro-Pak Lah and pro-Khairy blogs as there are pro-Mahathir's blogs.
In any case, why talk about controlling news websites and blogs when PM himself said mainstream media is more powerful and influential?
I think Pak Lah should take his deputy minister to task for contracdicting him.
Happy blogging Bru.
Article 7 of the MSC Bill of Guarantees, states: "Ensure no censorship of the Internet".
ReplyDeleteCould this, by extension also mean that the Internet, blogs, online media and all, is not to be regulated?
This trend of regression in our country is very alarming. In a world where borders are being broken down and globalisation knocks bringing competition at our doors, we need to wake up and smell the roses.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the mainstream media editors/journalists want to stifle their fellow journalists in the Internet media screaming double standards? Is this not ridiculous? At least the Internet media are reporting with some integrity and not influenced (controlled) by politicians with their personal agenda. I refuse to believe these `mainstream journalists` are asking this. What is the purpose? How is the Internet media affecting them? Is it affecting their sales? I don't think the Internet penetration in our country is sufficient to replace or even dent their sales. Why the sour grapes? Are the politicians behind this?
Joe
rockybru said...
ReplyDeleteQuote: And, no, Kalimullah Hassan DID NOT APOLOGISE for the untruth he wrote in his June 11 article.Unquote.
=================================
I've said this before. He's an arrogant bastard.
And I'll say it again. Kali, u r an arrogant bastard. 1000x!!!
Jay
If there is one thing the mainstream media prints will not be able to emulate what's available within blogs, it is the uniqueness of bloggers being able to cross-reference their articles with each other.
ReplyDeleteEach blogger may have their own agenda or flavour in dispensing a news item but the sum total that readers are able to gather, discern, analyse and form their own conclusion(s) is priceless to say the least.
Anyway, who wants to subscribe to six, seven newsprints per day. That's a lot of paper to throw away by day's end, ain't it.
Minstream media. The NST is UMNO's daily NEWSLETTER (as in company newsletter) and Star is MCA's. For the moment Sun seems to be the peoples paper.
ReplyDelete*satria asia, you're assuming deputy minister fu ah kiow and MPs read the multi-media acts.
ReplyDelete*anonymous....arrogant b-----d or ignorant b-----d? I think it takes a fair bit intellect to be arrogant.
*zorro, how long can The Sun remain an independent newspaper?
Bru, this is Sufi Yusoff's letter to the NST that the paper has so far not published. Sufi gave them them till today, Thursday to publish. I picked this up from comments in A Kadir Jasin's blog.
ReplyDeleteYbhg Datuk Hishamuddin Aun
Group Editor-in-Chief
New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad
Balai Berita
31, Jalan Riong
59100 Kuala Lumpur
July 24, 2006
Dear Sir,
RE: Set the record straight
I refer to the Sunday Column: And who, really, is demonising whom? (New Sunday Times June 11, 2006).
In that column your columnist (Datuk) Kalimullah Hassan gave his version of the meeting between Prime Minister YAB Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and former Prime Minister YABhg Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad on May 26, 2006, as follows, and I quote;
“The Prime Minister was in Japan shortly after the Malaysiakini article appeared and was told that Dr Mahathir wanted to come and see him.
Abdullah, in the midst of breakfast with aides and officials, immediately put on his tie and told the ambassador that he would go and see his ex-boss rather than let Dr Mahathir come down and see him.
Yet, less than two weeks later, Dr Mahathir invited the foreign Press to his office and lambasted Abdullah and his administration.”
Following the publication of the said column, on behalf of Dr Mahathir I had written to the New Straits Times’ Letters to the Editor section on the same day to clarify several factual errors contained in the column, mainly;
• Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad did not seek an appointment with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi while both leaders were in Tokyo attending the Nikkei Conference.
• Dr Mahathir did not invite the foreign Press to, in the columnist’s words, "lambast Abdullah and his administration". The Press conference on June 7 was called to announce the Perdana Leadership Foundation’s Global Peace Forum to be held from June 20-22. The foreign Press was there for that purpose.
The following day the New Straits Times published Dr Mahathir’s version of the Tokyo meeting in the Letters to the Editor section, although it did not apologise to Dr Mahathir.
Instead, there was a footnote at the end of the letter which read:
(We have received many letters in support of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Because they express similar sentiments to the correspondence already published, we have decided to bring this subject to a close. — Editor)
On the New Straits Times’ part, it chose to remain silent although the article and the factual errors contained within were clearly pointed out in my letter dated July 11, 2006.
In this case the New Straits Times was expected to offer an apology to Dr Mahathir.
On July 20, 2006 the NST and Berita Harian, two publications under the NSTP published these two news items, of which the excerpts I have taken off the website and reproduced here;
No ill-feeling towards Dr M, says Abdullah
20 Jul 2006
By Hamidah Atan and Deborah Loh
- “When he was in Tokyo recently, Abdullah said, he was the one who made the effort to meet Dr Mahathir in the latter’s room after knowing that the former prime minister was also staying in the same hotel.
Abdullah said he contacted an officer of Dr Mahathir to enquire whether the former prime minister had time for them to meet.
"I did not ask him to come and see me. I went to meet him. As a gesture of friendship, just to exchange greetings," he said. ”
Saya tak ada masalah dengan Dr M: Abdullah
Oleh Shamshul Azree Samshir dan Azrina Ahzan
- “Perdana Menteri yang ditanya mengenai hubungannya dengan Dr Mahathir sekarang, juga berkata, ketika menghadiri satu forum di Tokyo baru-baru ini, beliau mengambil inisiatif menemui bekas perdana menteri itu.
Abdullah berkata, beliau menghubungi pegawai Dr Mahathir bertanyakan sama ada bekas perdana menteri itu ada masa berjumpanya.
“Bukan saya suruh dia datang jumpa saya. Saya (pergi) jumpa dia, sebagai silaturahim, bertanya khabar,” katanya.”
Based on these two news items, quoting none other than Prime Minister Abdullah himself, it is clear that the columnist’s version of the events of the meeting in Tokyo on May 26, 2006, was inaccurate.
The unqualified and misleading three paragraphs in the Sunday Column can only be read as intending to cast aspersion on Dr Mahathir.
I am sure the New Straits Times would agree that given the clarification by Prime Minister Abdullah, the New Sunday Times version is inaccurate.
Given this latest development, an unreserved apology is due to Dr Mahathir and it is only right.
I understand that the columnist have now ceased writing the Sunday Column, in which case I would seek for the apology to be prominently displayed in the New Straits Times.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
………………………………..
SUFI YUSOFF
for Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
Note: This letter is also sent to the columnist who is also Deputy Chairman of the New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad seeking an apology from him.
ex-BT reporter,
ReplyDeleteThank U bro. I think I'll write a brief open letter to the NSTP's boss...
Bru, respectable editors of the mainstram media wanted Internet newspapers and blogs censored because they are under pressure.
ReplyDeleteWhat they didn't dare to publish or were told not to publish by a lowly errant boy like Kamal Khalid, whose exprience in propganda management is nil, was being published by the Internet newspapers and bloggers.
These editors hardly took notice of Internet newspapers and blogs until the latter started to publish Mahathir stories that they were prohibited from publishing.
To add insult to injury, some of the best known editors are today blogging, giving credibility to the blogs.
Even bravest of editor like Datuk Khalid Mohamed of Utusan and Datuk Azman Ujang of Bernama had been made to tow the Putrajaya line.
The cowardly act of the mainstream media editors in calling for the control of the Internet newspapers and blogs speaks volumes of their lack of professionalism, courage and sense of fairplay.
But I am sure that liberal-minded Abdullah and his western-trained advisers will not fall for this small-mindedness. They have promised the people transparency, accountability and openess.
They cannot now go back on their words.
As Fu Ah Kiow, I don't think he understood the subject he talked about.
Remember 1st or 3rd World mentality? What is your vote bro?
ReplyDeletereposted from http://www.jeffooi.com
ReplyDeleteStrong Ego vs. Big Ego
----------------------
Yesterday, I sat down with a veteran, retired media observer who taught me the difference between a Strong Ego and a Big Ego.
He used a Rocky's Bru posting to illustrate how ego works.
Rocky said: "Experienced and responsible editors readily admit an error and have no qualms about apologising if the mistake is grave. An apology may save a newspaper from being sued."
The media observer said that's a Strong Ego at work.
Rocky said: "But, mostly, editors say sorry and admit mistakes to uphold their own and their newspapers' integrity and credibility, lest they are accused of spreading lies."
That's a Stronger Ego at work, said the veteran I most respect.
And, it goes without saying that when a former prime minister's demand for a public apology over factual errors in The NST that had been pointed out by the victim, and re-confirmed by the incumbent prime minister, was flatly and expressly denied, the Big Ego apparently has reared its ugly head in the public space.
And there's no remorse.
--------------------------------
jay.
Dear all,
ReplyDeleteLet me ask a few simple questions. First, how is it possible that in light of the events in the middle east, the NSTP has seen it fit to publish on its front cover the headline about the Fatwa Council's decision on Botox? Isnt the Asean Summit and isn't Condie Rice in town at the moment? Whilst the Star had the common sense to put things in its proper perspective, the NST has decided to put the most inane piece of news on the front page. Or is this a systematic attempt to further discredit the image of Muslims again? The Prime Minister has received pats on the back for his trenchant comments on article 11, but to my mind, this has worked against the interests of the Muslims themselves. Surely, the idea of deconstructing the rather weak arguments contained in the said article is well within the grasp of Muslim intellectuals disagree with the thrust of article 11. By putting a wet blanket over the issue, the PM has again made us Muslims appear as over zealous and irrational; reacting to the said piece in anger as opposed to reason. Surely the question ought to be why there has been an almost systematic attempt by the press esp. the NST and the Sun to quell opposition to article 11? This is all too distressing to say the least.
Salams