SO WHAT'S THE TRUTH ON 1MDB, NAJIB: ARE APANDI & ARUL KANDA HONEST & WSJ LYING?

THE prime minister's message last week must have been music to the ears of media practitioners. He seems to have set the parameters for journalists to do their jobs without looking over the shoulder.

There's no such thing as "total freedom", he said and urged all media practitioners to report responsibly, truthfully and fast. The message was: The government has no qualms if the media writes the truth.

"The government wants nothing but to bring the nation forward and prosperity to the people and to achieve this objective, the media is the government's strategic partner," the prime minister said.

I had previously called for "freedom from editors" who sometimes want to present the articles in a certain way. In the course of such "editing", news gets distorted. The result is that complaints arise giving the impression that "freedom" is sometimes dictated by partisan editors.

In a multi-ethnic, multiracial and multi-religious society, many of us take pains to ensure that no written word will cause any disharmony. That's always at the back of my mind.

No one will have qualms about paying heed to the request that journalists report responsibly, truthfully and fast. But to report truthfully, journalists must first have access to the truth.

I am sure the prime minister is aware that many Cabinet ministers and civil servants have not been generous with the truth. On the contrary, we see a pervasive culture of wanting to prevent truthful information to be circulated.

Take the 1Malaysia Development Berhad as an example. So many versions of the "truth" have been presented. The company, its chief executive said, may be a victim of fraud.

Then came the shock: Parliament was told that it was too early to conclude if fraud had occurred in dealings between its troubled state company and an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund.

"1MDB is still reviewing and taking steps to prove that IPIC and Aabar Investments PJS are responsible for the funds that had been paid by 1MDB to Aabar BVI totalling US$3.5 billion," the Finance Ministry said in a written reply in Parliament. So, which is the truth?

Looking at Auditor-General's Report, dozens of departments and ministries were fingered for improper procedures, procurement methods and even over-payment. How many have responded to news reports of their departments or ministries?

The Town Hall meeting on the report lasted an hour and there was so much to be asked. Shouldn't there be an immediate response to issues raised in the media?

I am sure the prime minister is aware of the issues raised in this column. The ministers and civil servants tasked to address the issues keep silent. Why can't we have a culture of immediate response?

Last week, once again Malaysians were left searching for the truth. The families of the four Sarawakian sailors released by a militant group following their abduction on April 1 claimed that they had handed all the money to the police.

They did not have even one sen of the money, said Datuk Lau Cheng Kiong, an uncle of one of the kidnap victims. He said the money was handed over to the Special Branch in Sandakan, Sabah, on May 24.

"We handed over 12 Hong Leong Bank cheques in a bag to the Special Branch between 4pm and 6pm on May 24," he said.

Then came the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi who said the RM12 million was paid to Filipino welfare groups and not the militants who abducted the four sailors.

"The government had decided that no ransom would be paid, and the police adhered to that. The RM12 million given to the Special Branch was collected from the public as well as the (the family's) selling of assets, and I can confirm that the money was channelled not as ransom money, but to certain bodies in the Philippines," Zahid said.

Then came another version: Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar denied that the police had received the RM12 million.

Khalid claimed that the money was instead handed directly to an unknown "third party" that helped to negotiate the release of the hostages. "I am denying that the Special Branch had received the money. I don't know ... I do not want to know," he replied when asked if the police are aware as to who the recipients of the money were.

So, which is the truth? The media has reported all three versions and the public has to decide who is telling the truth. There is so much discussion on social media which questions the integrity of the police and the minister. Is this all necessary if we had been told the truth from day one?

Many years ago, I came across an article which reported that the late Lee Kuan Yew had decreed that all issues raised in the newspapers be responded and a copy of the response is on his table within 48 hours.

This decree may be alien and unacceptable to many of our civil servants who take a laid-back attitude, but how else can the PM expect the media to provide the rakyat with accurate and truthful information?

The PM should initiate an exercise to make it mandatory for replies to all issues raised in the media. He should make the civil service emulate the efforts of utility companies and telecos who monitor not only the print media but what appears in the social media.

Mr Prime Minister, it is certainly not asking too much of you to ask the chief secretary to the government to issue a directive to all civil servants compelling immediate responses.

By the way Mr Prime Minister, so much has been said, debated and argued on the "hudud" private member's bill from Hadi Awang. Could you tell us if you are for or against the bill?

Please provide us with the truth so that we can live up to your expectations and report "responsibly, truthfully and fast". We ask for nothing more to carry out our duties diligently and professionally. - Sundaily