Tools for Communication Rights in Malaysia

JK: Basically you grew up in a household that was quite 'alternative' in that sense, that was already quite politically aware?

SR: It wasn't ever something that i was overtly aware of. Don't forget that both these publications had much larger circulations at that time than now! But, yes, particularly my mother. We would discuss these things over dinner, for example. I was very aware of the political environment, by the time i was in my early teens.

JK: From there..?

SR: Well, I left shortly after to study in the UK [note: United Kingdom]. Politically, this was a strange experience - the assumptions underlying the system were similar but it was like Plato's cave, and realised that i'd only got to know the simulcra of the real thing.

JK: Plato's cave?

SR: That if you are chained into a cave, all you see are shadows and you mistake them for reality. We had a shadow of democracy, and no idea of the real thing. I wrote my first letters to newspapers when i was 15, around the time (i think) of the Pergau dam affair. I can't remember the issues i was talking about, but i was incensed at the misconceptions of Malaysian 'democracy' and wanted to explain to the UK public that seriously, this wasn't how things were. My English teacher definitely encouraged me in this, as did one of my friends to whom i used to complain when i read stories about Malaysia in the media there. So, once i felt able to exercise these (writes) rights, i did!

JK: How would you compare your experiences and actions with most of other Malaysian young women at the time? Or in fact, now? I feel that there is a general sense of wanting to do something by young people, but also a very strong sense of fatalism and apathy.

SR: I think in some ways I had a much easier journey to political awareness than most young people - male or female. Not that I've not caused my family some anxiety or that they understand why i do what i do. But i suspect that would be the case if i was a merchant banker as well!

JK: lol

SR: I don't remember 'becoming' aware. I have spoken to others who speak of a moment of revelation. But even at the age of about 8 my (conservative) father told me i should be a lawyer, NOT because i could make lots of money, but because that way i could help people. Money was never seen to be a legitimate motive for action in my family, at least for my generation. Important, yes, but not sufficient. So compared with a lot of young people, i have it easy

JK: What do you think is the major stumbling block towards freedom of expression in the country?

SR: Fear.

JK: Fear of..?

SR: Both our own fear (and ignorance) and the fear (and ignorance) of those in power. Fear of our own voices!

JK: How do you mean? Why should there be fear? I mean, it's quite a talkative nation :)

SR: Fear that if we start talking, we'll start killing. We talk, but we often don't say anything  a lot of what we say is in what is left unsaid. Fear that if we talk, we'll be locked up. Fear that if we talk, we'll end up like Rwanda... (as a country!) Oh, and of course, on the part of authorities, fear that if we talk, they'll be seen for the naked emperor's that they really are!

JK: What is the environment that generates this kind of fear? This is in a sense, more self censorship than anything else.

SR: Well, first, there is the legislation - which is routinely described as Draconian. But it's not just Draconian, it's also undefined. Under Malaysian law, almost everything is a crime. As you know - it can be used against anyone any time - for chalking symbols on the pavement, for saying things, for not saying things. And the ambiguity of what is inside or outside the law means that we have to GUESS what is or isn't legal - because the law says EVERYTHING is illegal. Which leads to uncertainty and self-censorship - this isn't necessarily a conscious process, but it's one that you see continuously. It's also built on a lack of knowledge. People don't KNOW what the law says - so the law could say anything (admittedly this might not change if they did know what it said, but i still think it's better to know than not!!)

JK: How is it possible for people to not actually know what the law is about? In what way has the law been painted as something so omnipotent and omnipresent? I am thinking mass media has a large part to play in this, and the control of..

SR: There was a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre around 2003. They had a question asking people if they agreed with repeal of the ISA [note: Internal Security Act that allows for indefinite detention without trial], and 80% said no. They had another question asking if detention without trial was unjust, and 80% said yes! So, this is a mix of mass media and lack of education.

JK: Do you think there is a difference in quality in terms of self censorshop when it comes to women and men?

SR: Not so much when it comes to what is conventionally defined as 'politics'. The particular female self-censorship operates in a different way - so the way in which freedoms of expression and information are traditionally conceptualised is, yes, very gendered. It is very much concerned with 'traditional' forms of communication. Which doesn't work for women as well as for men.

JK: Can you explain?

SR: Take a newspaper, or radio, or tv. They require vast amounts of investment, at least for national dailies. This in turn limits the number of people who can own them. This in turn limits who can speak in them - this is a huge simplification. But basically, it means that there are very few gatekeepers, and these gatekeepers are invested with a lot of power. So it works against women's voices in a number of ways. First, how stories are defined. They are often defined by easily identifiable newsmakers. Politicians and pundits - that in the early 2000s George Bush got as much media coverage as ALL the women in the USA (George bush was given 9% of 'news' air time, and  all the women in america that were interviewed for whatever reason in the same period also got 9% of the news air time. Men, in total, got 92%). These people decide news - along with the editors, the educators etc. and women's stories, women's voices are often not included unless, as we see in the intermittent conflict between PAS and UMNO, it suits a 'larger' political agenda [note: PAS, Parti Islam Malaysia is one of the country’s main oppositional party; UMNO, United Malays National Organisation, is part of the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, or BN].

JK: Can you explain how women's voices are mobilised to suit a larger political agenda?

SR: Take PAS and UMNO. Women's votes have been crucial in keeping umno in power. So for the 2004 general election, women needed to be SHOWN that life was/ is better for them under BN. We got Shahrizat [note: the Women, Community & Family Development Minister], we got, um, very little else - but we were also warned about the insensitive PAS agenda. Women were given space to speak, women's rightsⁱ were given space. But after the election, we have the Islamic Family Law, moorthy, couples caught kissing, the VAW chalking debacle etc etc etc [note: all these are examples of prominent cases where race and gender based stereotyping and discrimination were played out on mainstream press]

SR: Shall i continue with the second point?

Jac: Yes please.

SR: Ok... so, first point is that women's news just isn't news. Second, that women often find it difficult to access corridors of power. So, when there are not many corridors leading to seats of power, it makes it harder to find women in either the corridors OR the seats (possibly taking the analogy too far!)

JK: lol. But i get what you mean.

SR: But the number of women working as journalists is high - probably more women than men in the newsroom.But they just aren't in the boardrooms. There are women working as Senior Journalists – we even have a feminist in Jacqueline Ann Surin in a position as assistant (i think) editor at The Sun. But she has a hard time pushing the feminist agenda - take for example the story she wrote explaining her problems with a sexist advertisement shown on the sun's front page. There was a car competition thing on the front page, with two girls draped over it. The Sun gave it the caption 'which would you take home', then the story said, the car of course blah blah. Jacque brought it up in editorial meetings and was told she was over-reacting - why do women have to be so emotional. BUT the paper did publish her column slamming this - and pointing out that if sex sells to men, it shows that they're the irrational, emotional ones. he he

JK: interesting..So how do you, as something of an alternative media gatekeeper, who is aware of gender relations, strategically respond to such issues?

SR: I think that would be a start... but we need to multiply the number of gatekeepers, start an exponential movement so that the power that they have is likewise exponentially decreased. I don't think you can do away with them altogether. Take the radiq project [note: www.radiqradio.org]. We're committed to the idea of having as little in the way of gatekeeping as possible. But the project has been set up and is owned by CIJ, which means that there are people deciding who gets airtime when. We also have made some decisions to try and ensure that discussion takes place and doesn't act as an impediment to free speech - eg not allowing hate speech. But this is an incubator project - we hope that it will be replicated 1,000 fold in community radio stations across malaysia (with legislative change!) In which case, those who are gatekeepers will be decided largely by interest, rather than geography, money (because radio is cheap) and possibly - though the one hardest for women to breach - time (because a radio show can be made in half an hour!).

JK: Do you think digital communications and informations technology such as the internet has transformed the landscape in anyway for these freedoms to happen? Take the radiq project as an example.

SR: Kinda. Initially, the Internet was a male dominated area - and to some extent it still is. Penis enlargement spamⁱ outnumbers breast enlargement spam at *least* 1,000 to one! Problem number one for women. Second is that there is a high skill set necessary for the internet. Women are disadvantaged by not having the time to learn the necessary skills. Third, money - high cost of online communication cf radio (eg) and high cost of infrastructure. Fourth, inbuilt biases - the language of the internet is deeply English - down to the code on which it is built. The technology is largely owned by the West, so there is a net outflow of money to the U.S. from developing countries investing in ICTs etc. Fifth, incompatibility with traditional forms of communication - eg storytelling, though this is to some extent being overcome by newer technologies. BUT, the internet is proving useful first in circumventing existing repressive legislation - such as with the Radiq project (combining old and new technologies, rendering broadcast laws outdated!). Generally, though, i think that the obsession with ICTs is problematic, because it is taking resources away from other forms of communication. Because ICTs is the ideal tool for marketing and advertising NOT for community-based communication.

JK: You don’t think so? What about community forums like the USJ one which is very popular? [USJ forum is an online community of residents who live in a particular suburb in Selangor] In terms of discussing local governanceⁱ issues as well as advocating for very community based actions?

SR: Nope, not really. I attended a forum with Jeff Ooi [note: “celebrity” Malaysian cyber-dissident blogger] and another, unsuccessful, pioneer of online forums in January, and the conclusion that they came to was that Jeff was successful partly because of the interaction on online and offline activities... that the online forum works BECAUSE it facilitates offline activities. But beyond that, USJ - you're looking at an area where there is a mix of affluence and squatters and estate workers. Who does USJ online serve? You're not seeing those second groups being represented there!

JK: Good point. So in a sense, ICTs is able to provide more amplification of voices to those who can access them in the first place, and this is true even when ICTs have this multiplying factor, where members of more traditional mass media access ICTs for information to produce their content. How does CIJ as an organisation that works with alternative media, combining both digital and 'traditional' forms of media, strategically work with this environment to ensure a diversity of voices?

SR: First on amplifying. Partly yes - was just discussing this! In somewhere like malaysia, it is also allowing some people to speak than would otherwise not - because of the ability to speak anonymously. BUT this is still restricted in many ways - to those with the time, money, skills etc.

JK: and language.

SR: exactly

SR: Second, how we (try to) deal with this in CIJ. First - we specifically target groups ignored or marginalised by the mass media - indigenous people, especially women, for example. And we help them acquire the skill sets for RADIO - not the internet. This is much simpler than teaching internet skills.Then they can make radio shows - we are powerful gatekeepers in the sense that the shows have only us as an outlet. BUT we also try to discuss with them alternative ways of getting the programmes out (using ideas such as narrow casting which is basically the distribution of CDs or cassettes). These give them more control over the process and the option of cutting us out if they want!

JK: I see this as a great strategy to get women, esp marginalised women, to become acquainted and familiar with technology in the first place.

SR: i like to hope so!

JK: But with the emphasis on ICTs and development, i also see digital technologies, for example the internet, as something that cannot be avoided in the future. I think this is one of the challenges that I see, in that a lot of decision making processes are starting to happen online as well as offline, with e-governance, and information that is available on the internet for the exercise of civil liberties.

SR: This is like globalisation - an assumption of inevitability! I AGREE that decisions are happening online, and this is one of hte problems with the digital divideⁱ.

JK: It seems that very proactive measures also need to be taken to get women engaged and get over the fear of technology.

SR: Those already marginalised are being further marginalised.

JK: Yes... agreed. Which is why i feel that one of the biggest strategic need is to change the landscape of communications and information  in a way that enables greatest amount of participation by most people.

SR: Yes - but i think that concurrent with this needs to be discussions and advocacyⁱ to ensure that we aren't caught up in something where the large corporations and governments have defined the playing field and the games, and we're limiting our arguments to which are the best moves within their rules.

JK: Indeed!

SR: So how to move forward....

JK: Yes, how to move forward?

SR: I think that projects such as the Akshaya project in India seem to be powerful examples of overcoming the digital divide - comprehensive training built in with the expansion of a broadband network, essentials on local government etc. Free, but you pay for business and entertainment news. But that attention needs to be paid to ensuring that women can communicate in the arenas where their power is at its lowest ebb in some ways - within the family, within the community.

JK: Without at the same time, limiting their decisions or roles to that arena only.

SR: Agreed entirely! And it would be a disaster if we concentrated on the 'bigger' ICT voices, forgetting eg community radio, and also projects to ensure that women's voices are heard in their own homes...

JK: Yes indeed! Some of the most exciting and innovative use of ICTs is really in the combination of old and new technologies. Like community radio, or radio in a suitcase.

SR: A girl after my own heart! Exactly!

JK: Especially considering sometimes the limited mobility of women, with multiple roles and demands and also social norms.

SR: Also, don't forget that once a woman (or anyone) finds the voice in their own home, they are more likely to speak up outside of that arena.

JK: Would it be fair to say that policies related to governance, communication rights and so on, should not only be focussing primarily on 'new' ICTs, but also on how to better ensure that ALL available platforms and channels of information and expression become in a sense, more accessible, and loser, esp for marginalised communities like women?

SR: They should be needs- not technology-driven, so no, not focussing primarily on ICTs. I think that the second part of the question - if I could answer that i'd be out of a job, happily so! Honestly - it's what we're working on. It starts, but doesn't end, with legislative reform! And that starts imho with public mobilisation. So, it's a process of protecting spaces for community media, policies for ensuring equality of access and education to ensure that people take advantage of these things.