Update: I just read about YB Josephine. How very provocative. I hope to have more thoughts on this soon.
I have a feeling this post will be evaluated to be some sort of cop-out, but…
To start, I agree that Utusan maliciously misrepresented the facts when reporting on incidences involving Teresa Kok and the Azan in Kota Damansara.
The same goes for the misreporting regarding Karpal Singh.
I concur that Umno, in tandem with and through Utusan, has attempted to pander to the humanity’s worst elements by twisting facts to paint an inaccurate picture designed to incite hate.
All these are perfectly consistent with both Umno and Utusan (whose conciseness and effectiveness I find impressive, if abhorable), and aren’t anything new.
On the whole I disagree with Rocky’s view that Utusan should be spared from legal action because of principles of free speech.
At the small event I spoke at last week, I argued that legal action should be applicable to entities that publish facts clearly proven to be wrong.
When the validity of facts are still in question (say in the issue surrounding Dollah, TDM, Japan, breakfast and ties), that leads to rather murkier water.
All this said, I’m not fully, 100% convinced that YB’s Teresa (and especially) Karpal’s filing of multi-million dollar lawsuits against Utusan was perhaps the best of actions.
In Teresa Kok’s case, this is probably more understandable - ie, she does after all have a point to prove, and it would be nice for a court to acknowledge that what Utusan printed was untrue (see Tulang Besi for something recent on this).
I can understand some anxiety over the 30 million figure though. That’s a lot of money, and in defamation, I understand that that sum represents the ‘damage’ done to one’s reputation?
In Karpal Singh’s case, the paper had already published an apology, making the decision to sue, from a political and public relations standpoint, a little harder to justify.
The key issue in my mind here, is the issue of escalation. When we decide to escalate a conflict, it is hoped that the decision is taken with a view of the likelihood that escalation will help to resolve that conflict and (in this case), that it is for the betterment of the country as a whole. Is this the case here?
When such action is taken against one’s opponents, it gives them plenty of fodder to rally their troops (this Tabung Azan thing is clearly misleading and done in bad faith, but that will probably have little net effect on its effectiveness).
I won’t hazard a clearcut view on these actions, but I think the situation here may not be as obvious or simple.
Sorry if the post is rather non-commital :P Still thinking about it I guess.
Tags: Responsible Free Speech by Nathaniel Tan
20 Comments »
