Malaysiakini: Jawapan Penulis The Economist

Economist writer defends controversial reports

Yap Mun Ching
7:57pm Mon Apr 28th, 2003

The Economist writer whose survey o­n Malaysia has been criticised by several Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders, has defended the content of his articles published in the April 5 edition.

Christopher Lockwood said the articles were "balanced" because he had also complimented the government o­n some of its achievements.

The nine articles, under the heading ‘The Changing of the Guard - A Survey of Malaysia’, analysed the prospective change in premiership, Malaysia’s economic achievements under Mahathir’s leadership and political challenges facing the Umno leadership in retaining Malay support.

Two weeks after the magazine was circulated, several Malaysian leaders, starting with Umno vice-president Najib Abdul Razak, took the magazine to task for an article critically assessing the achievements of the prime minister.

Following a press conference by Najib last Thursday during which he panned the magazine’s survey series, Abdullah also issued a statement claiming that the writer harboured "ill-will" against the government.

Whither real criticism?

Contacted today in his London office, Lockwood said that, although he had criticised Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad (photo) o­n some counts, he had also praised the premier for the way with which he handled challenges facing the country.

"The survey was balanced. I pointed out the successes of the prime minister. I noted that there was a problem with (Islamisation under PAS) but I said the government was dealing with it quite well. I cannot write (the survey) without writing about this," he said.

However, Lockwood was not surprised when told of criticism against him and the articles.

"If you criticise the prime minister, then you would expect his supporters to attack you. It is a little sad that the mindset is still o­ne that says if you don’t agree with us o­n everything, then you are against us," he noted.

Lockwood dismissed claims by BN leaders that he had merely depended o­n opposition feedback to produce the survey, saying that he had interviewed as many persons from both sides during the month-long visit he made to Malaysia.

"I stand by all the things that I said. I feel that it is unfair to me as (the critics) made it seem as though everything in the article was negative," he said.

"I met with both (Acting Prime Minister) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (left) and had a nice chat with him. Personally, I feel a little hurt now. I also met with (Umno vice-president) Najib Tun Razak (right) and requested an interview with Mahathir but he refused."

In addition, Lockwood said although several leaders had censured the survey articles, none had pointed out any particular part which they felt was problematic.

"Nobody properly criticised the article. However, I noticed that both (Abdullah and Najib) denounced me. It was as though they were competing to see who could be more loyal (to Mahathir)."

Asked if he was concerned that action may be taken against him or the Economist, Lockwood said, "No, of course not. It is impossible to write a survey without offending some people to some degree.... We also expect what we write to be criticised."

He said editors at the magazine are not perturbed by the controversy in Malaysia. The magazine has a circulation of 5,000 copies in Malaysia.

‘Balanced’ reports

Several people who have read the Economist articles expressed surprise at the government’s strong attack o­n the writer.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia communications lecturer Prof Dr Mohd Safar Hasim said he felt the nine articles were "critical but balanced" and "overall, quite flattering for Malaysia".

"The Economist is not a public relations magazine. For it to put out nine articles in o­ne issue is very flattering. We don’t have to pay a single cent o­n it. If my reading is right, there has o­nly been discussion over o­ne article o­n the prime minister titled ‘A Qualified Success’," he said.

Mohd Safar said he was puzzled as to why this article was criticised because Mahathir himself had admitted publicly that he had not achieved all that he set out to do during his premiership.

"The prime minister himself said he had failed o­n some aspects. He has said that he did not achieve 100 percent success. So what is wrong with the Economist playing o­n these words?" he asked.

The lecturer also questioned if all the critics of the Economist had read the full series of the articles, rather than focusing their anger o­n a single article.

"Some people may have commented without reading the full series. They may have just been taking advantage (of the chance at publicity) by playing to the gallery."

Instead of making a fuss over the survey, Mohd Safar said Malaysian leaders should accept the articles in the spirit that they were written - discerningly.

"We should have realistic expectations. Some of the things said were good, and some were bad. If you want everything good to be written about Malaysia, then buy an advertorial. The people who read the Economist are also not naive. They will look at the articles critically," he said.

Asked if the home ministry was right in allowing the publication of the survey, Mohd Safar said the ministry had acted in a "level-headed" manner by not banning the magazine.

"The ministry was right in releasing the magazine (for circulation). They know what is acceptable and what is not. People should not read too much into the politics. If we ban the Economist, it will really make Malaysia a pariah state," he warned.

Proxy war?

Suhakam commissioner Prof Mohd Hamdan Adnan said Malaysians should not get unduly annoyed over the articles as they should be aware that Mahathir’s contributions to the country far outweighed his faults.

"Of course most Malaysians are proud of Mahathir’s achievements.... However, I feel (the government) has handled the issue badly. We should forget it. It is like the book by Salman Rushdie (Quranic Verses). By making a fuss, we are giving them even more publicity."

Mohd Hamdan said if the government felt that it had been wronged, it should consider taking legal action.

"If you honestly feel that there has been an element of libel, then sue in the courts. You will then have to prove your case. But if there is no case to go o­n, then (it ends)," he said.

Veteran journalist MGG Pillai saw a darker message in the strong words of BN leaders, explaining that there could be two reasons for the stringent attack - neither of which was clearly stated by the government leaders.

According to him, the offensive article was not the o­ne evaluating Mahathir’s achievements but the o­ne o­n the case of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

"The articles were generally fair. They are not happy with o­ne article - the o­ne o­n Anwar. It says that this man (Anwar) still exerts a powerful role in the country...that he is still a force to be reckoned with," he said.

Pillai said the actions of two leaders - Abdullah and Najib - probably masked a split within the Malay community.

"It could be because of infighting within Umno. It took two weeks before they criticised the article. (Some leaders) could not attack Abdullah outright so they did it through the magazine. By that, they forced him to act o­n the issue," he added.