Reforming Malaysia’s state media

WE at the Centre for the Study of Communications and Culture (CSCC) would like to express our concern over the recent “revelations” by Gobind Singh Deo in his capacity as Minister of Communications and Multimedia.

We have no objection to his wanting to get rid of the odious Anti-Fake News Act (2018), a law that has no place in a democracy. Equally, we would welcome any serious attempts on his part to critically study, amend and even repeal other laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act (1984/87) and the Communications and Multimedia Act.

But we wish to assert that legalistic measures alone are not sufficient to reform institutions that have long existed without a coherent vision for the rakyat (and, as we shall argue, by the rakyat) despite being funded primarily by Malaysian taxpayers.

While liberating legal frameworks are important, we all need to understand that media – in this case public media – produce unique products. These are economic products, like canned sardines, to be sold to the public. Yet, media products – news, current affairs programmes, fictional TV such as soap operas, films and documentaries – are also cultural products. They contain meanings, ideas and ideologies, and are pivotal in defining social consciousness in this digital world.

Just look at the tugging-at-the-heartstrings photographs and videos of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad during the GE14 campaign period right up to his Facebook appeal to the nation before polling day. Then compare them with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s propaganda, which culminated in his last speech virtually telling Malaysians that he could easily buy our votes and that “cash is king”, and we can see the significance of media in providing us with cues, imagery and meanings.

In a closed society where we derive our meanings and ideas from a restricted number of sources, the media – old, new, mainstream, alternative or social – play a key role. Malaysia has long been a closed society in this way.

Opening the media and making them answerable to the people requires a view beyond a legalistic framework. We need to understand this cultural nature of the media and get a firm grasp of what “public service” entails.

Public service is NOT government service. Since its inception in 1963, RTM has been nothing more than a government propaganda arm. This has to stop. But it does not – and cannot – stop by becoming a corporate entity, as Gobind has strongly suggested.

It stops – and takes on the role of public service media – by educating itself and its personnel about what being a public service entails. Indeed, in this regard, Gobind should avail himself of the many studies and policy papers available outlining successful public service undertakings. He must not act like a populist politician, giving the (undifferentiated) masses what he thinks they want – like live telecasts of the World Cup.

Yes, in the short term, this will make him and RTM popular but competing in the pop- ularity stakes with commercial TV and Astro is not the way to go. Malaysians deserve more than just media that is essentially commercial pap. We need genuine variety, not more pale copies of Korean soap operas or whatever the latest entertainment craze is.

And coming up with that variety, that originality, is the role of public service broadcasting, a role RTM can and must play if it is largely going to be funded by taxpayers’ money. Developing a public service ethos or culture within RTM should thus be top on the list of the minister’s concern.

Reform of RTM needs to go beyond the attractiveness of the programming/content. The institution receives state funding but has always served government interest rather than public interest.

There is a significant difference between state and public service media; state media has no place in a democratic society. Hence, a thorough review of RTM’s structure, governance and funding sources must be undertaken.

Public service broadcasting requires independence and autonomy from the state and other bodies. It requires public funding with no strings attached. Hence, governance should be in the hands of, say, a board of governors made up of upstanding citizens and professionals NOT representing any political party.

What it should not be is a board of pensioners from the civil service – like the fossilised Film Censorship Board – who would not recognise art and creativity if they tripped over them.

What is important for public service media is to ensure that the governing bodies are professionally selected, possibly by parliamentary committees or, even better, by the industry players and civil society.

Next, RTM’s brief would be to come up with original, creative and challenging material that may even question the norm.

To begin with, a revived or reconstituted RTM should start to think of developing documentaries that address our society’s concerns and even current affairs programmes guided by, say, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which cover everything from the environment to human rights.

A reconstituted, public service RTM must also understand and appreciate the multicultural and multireligious nature of Malaysian society and celebrate that, rather than privileging some against others. Minority groups must be recognised and not marginalised.

It will take time, certainly, and, of course, it will require political will. But the changes need to start now, guided by principles of serving the people and not simply making money.

The old adage of “cash is king” must be replaced by “the people are sovereign”. ROM NAIN and GAYATHRY VENKITESWARAN Centre for the Study of Communications and Culture University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus