THE Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has acted with unusual speed in charging Malaysiakini senior journalist B. Nantha Kumar for allegedly receiving RM20,000 in corruption money from a foreign agent who is reportedly of Pakistani origin.
Editor’s Note: Nantha is set to be charged at the Shah Alam Sessions Court tomorrow (March 14) over allegations of receiving a RM20,000 bribe. Nantha who has denied the accusation was informed by the MACC that he would face charges yesterday (March 12).
The sum was supposedly intended to dissuade Nantha from reporting on a labour scandal involving foreign agents and certain enforcement personnel.
Before formal charges were brought against him, Malaysiakini suspended Nantha for suspected involvement and for allegedly violating the portal’s investigative journalism protocols.
Despite this, the news outlet is covering his legal fees and other related expenses.
While it is understandable that Malaysiakini wants to uphold ethical journalism, suspending a journalist before the court determines his guilt sets a troubling precedent. The principle of innocent until proven guilty must be upheld.
A suspension at this stage raises questions about whether Malaysiakini is bowing to external pressure.
MACC’s questionable priority
It is striking that the MACC which has often been criticised for being sluggish in tackling large-scale graft has acted so swiftly in Nantha’s case.
Within days of his remand, he was charged. This efficiency is perplexing, especially when multi-million-ringgit corruption cases involving high-profile figures often languish for years.
Moreover, there are puzzling aspects to the case itself. Why would an experienced investigative journalist accept an envelope containing money in full view of surveillance cameras in a public place?
Nantha maintains that he intended to hand over the money to an immigration officer as evidence of a foreign syndicate’s operations.
This claim should be tested in court – not pre-judged by enforcement agencies or the public.
What is more concerning is that this incident is unfolding under the so-called Madani government which came to power on promises of reform.
Instead of fostering greater media freedom, the government appears to be tightening restrictions on journalists and the press.
Why is the media facing greater scrutiny now than under previous administrations?
Promised reforms ‘evaporating’
Is Malaysia regressing from a semi-democracy to a more authoritarian state? The increased pressure on journalists suggests that the government’s commitment to reform is little more than empty rhetoric.
This is where the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) firmly believes that Nantha is entitled to due process.
He is not guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law. We call on all right-thinking Malaysians to stand in solidarity with him and to resist any attempts to suppress media freedom.
If the government is serious about transparency, it must ensure that enforcement agencies act without bias and that journalists are not unfairly targeted. The selective efficiency of the MACC raises important questions about the true priorities of the authorities.
This case is not just about Nantha. It is about the larger battle for press freedom, transparency and justice in Malaysia. If the government fails to protect journalists from undue persecution, it risks further eroding democracy and public trust.
Malaysians must decide whether they will stand by as media freedoms are curtailed – or whether they will demand real reform instead of willingly accepting empty promises.
Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.