Can PAC direct a halt to legal redress?

 

From Walter Sandosam

Journalists and reporters are constantly reminded that what is shared is expected to be factually correct and, more importantly, balanced – a true and fair view.

Journalistic freedom to express findings as opinion pieces, or otherwise, is a tenet of a matured democracy. To compromise on this is not healthy as it leads to censorship.

Inevitably, some viewpoints may be found to be offensive or defamatory and to seek redress, there are legal avenues available. This ensures that there is a rein on irresponsible journalism based on hearsay or unsubstantiated facts resulting in bias.

In this context, the 

instruction

 by the Public Accounts Committee and a minister to the Human Resource Development Corporation (HRD Corp) to withdraw the letters of demand issued against certain publications appears at first glance to be an altruistic move to 

protect

 the freedom of the press.

Is there more behind the curtain here, so to speak?

Two concerns emerge. First, does the PAC have the authority to issue such a directive to a company, limited by guarantee, with its own board of directors, or is it an overstepping of authority?

Second, is it right to deprive an entity of its right to legal redress if it opines that it has been negatively impacted by an opinion piece?

Let’s not go overboard here – if one entity has a right to report what it truly believes is fair comment and the said affected party views it otherwise, then freedom is being curtailed if the 

aggrieved

 party cannot be allowed to take the necessary action, be it by legal suit, or otherwise, to 

repair

 its image in the eyes of the public.

Fair play needs to be practised for both sides of the divide, or else it’s the law of the jungle – the strongest survives – be it with political patronage or economic clout. This cannot be!

On HRD Corp, specifically, a rather convoluted scenario emerges. The articles carried by certain publications are based on facts and figures presented in the auditor-general’s report. Some included interviews with ex-staff. These articles are, by and large, not figments of an over-active imagination.

Pressing on, if the publication(s) is sued, it will revert to the base document. This will bring unwanted focus on the veracity and robustness of this source document which was penned by a government agency.

In a related development, the serving CEO at HRD Corp has 

volunteered

 to go on garden leave while investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and others are ongoing.

Hence, not a word from the CEO but a publication, perceived by certain quarters, to practise 

true and fair view

 reporting, has published exclusive interviews given by an ex-COO who was allegedly dismissed by the company.

Shouldn’t this be the exclusive domain of the investigators as any fool would know that, most often than not, ex-employees will have an axe to grind and thus 

confessions

 though juicy reading, may not necessarily be all factually correct.

In this context, is this a trial by the media? If so, it is most irresponsible. Responsible journalism should be all about fair play. Let the investigators conclude.

As an ex-banker and auditor, who has dealt with quantitative figures, I find the above difficult to come to terms with.

The company can’t sue but, all and sundry, including the tea lady, are given their 

five minutes of fame

 by the media.

Who are we 

protecting

 here – journalistic freedom or the A-G’s report, which will now come under ever greater scrutiny? Call a spade, a spade, and be done with it.

Some will recall recently when the PAC had to 

justify

 itself, on its legal domain, by commenting that a senior civil servant was not able to present himself to the PAC when summoned because he had initiated a legal suit against a journalist.

Hence, appearing and giving evidence before the PAC would be sub judice.

Did the PAC then not think of journalistic freedom and instruct the senior civil servant to drop the suit so that he can appear before the PAC? Some had viewed the initiation of the suit, rightly or wrongly, as a form of 

intimidation

 to keep the media fraternity at bay.

Why the double standards?

One can imagine the impact on the 

periuk nasi

 of the said journalist who, during a period of close to two years, had to engage legal counsel. Ironically the suit was dropped just prior to the full hearing date. What happened in this search for the 

truth

?

It appears the mood has changed. This is not healthy and reflects poor governance, which is on everybody’s lips these days. Sadly, many do not appreciate what this entails or only call on it in furtherance of their agenda, however altruistic it may be.

Strangely in this drama, the key players, the A-G and Bank Negara Malaysia have chosen a dignified silence when they should be the stars of the show on good governance.

The PAC should take all parties to task and not be selective in focus. - FMT

Walter Sandosam is a former president of the Institute Of Internal Auditors Malaysia.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMKtT.