IN my almost 30 years as a newsman, I have had the good fortune of being visited by our brothers and sisters in blue.
The police had at times called on the news offices of the organisations I had been attached to, to query about a story I had written. At times I would be summoned to the police station to give a statement and be subject to questioning.
My editors who had always had my back would sit in on those meetings and at times we would be accompanied by lawyers – generously and thoughtfully provided by the media platform owners.
These visits are always spurred by a report lodged over a published article. The police report would be made by those mentioned or alluded to in the article, or some proxy.
In my experience, they were articles about governance, corruption and scandals.
The usual questions would be: “kenapa tulis?” (why write?), “siapa suruh tulis?” (who told you to write?), “siapa sumber?” (who’s the source), and sometimes, “apa tujuan menulis?” (what is the purpose of writing?).
In all these cases, the police were very polite and professional. They emphasised that they were just doing their jobs and that since a report was lodged, they had to pursue the matter.
We even cracked jokes and went off on our merry ways, never to cross paths again.
Perhaps they decided it was an NFA (no further action), or the report-makers came to their senses that pursuing this would be more detrimental as more would be revealed in the ongoing investigations.
I have never been compelled to reveal a source.
In fact, testifying in my first defamation case for The Malay Mail, even the judge chimed in during cross-examination to tell opposing counsel that as a journalist I cannot be forced to reveal my source.
Protecting one’s sources is a fundamental responsibility of a journalist. We risk jail time and losing court cases and even our jobs. But the moment one compromises a source, that is the end of one’s career and also reputation as someone trustworthy.
In the case of Malaysiakini which is being investigated for a report on major movements of Bukit Aman personnel, they find themselves in the unenviable position of being the subject of an investigation by the very institution they were reporting on.
Inspector General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Razarudin Husain had denied a report that his deputy Datuk Seri Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay and criminal investigations director Datuk Seri Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain would be transferred to head the Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) and the National Anti-Drug Agency respectively.
Now the police want to know who the source is.
As it does not involve national security or someone’s life, Malaysiakini, I believe, will keep mum.
Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil had advised the news portal to cooperate but stopped short of saying this includes revealing the source.
One can understand Fahmi’s dilemma as the custodian of the Malaysian media. One of the eight pillars of the Malaysian Code of Ethics for Journalists which Fahmi launched on February 20 is the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of sources.
One acknowledges that Bukit Aman had yet to issue an official statement on any movements of senior personnel.
However, Malaysiakini is not a fly-by-night portal run by college kids. No journalist worth his or her salt would run an article like that without verification by way of a senior source or documentary evidence.
While it would not be the first time that idle workplace gossip got the better of enthusiastic reporters, the specifics of the report make one wonder if it is indeed fake news.
The excited response from the police certainly gives the impression that there is more to this denial.
Bukit Aman had, in fact, issued a statement and that should have sufficed.
In the good old days, we would get a call from the IGP himself admonishing us for misreporting and he’d be done with it.
The situation is different this time.
Surely Bukit Aman cannot be implying that it would rather use its limited taxpayer-paid resources in harassing journalists for the identity of their sources, rather than look for the 254 missing children it features on the PDRM websites.
That it is doggedly pursuing the source, and threatening to charge the reporters under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 reeks of heavy-handedness.
One may ask, what was the purpose of the source revealing this information?
As a juicy story on Bukit Aman politics? The seeming side-lining of Ayob Khan whom many expect to take over as IGP? Or to clip the wings of the high-flying Shuhaily?
Perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike to deter these movements in the first place.
The Bukit Aman top brass may have been planning it, but as long as no black or white has been issued, these movements would remain a mere idea or thought in the IGP’s head.
In any case, the reassignment of top police personnel is a matter of public interest which should be the only reason Malaysiakini published it.
Cops and reporters are a stubborn bunch. It’s a Mexican stand-off of egos. Many journalists will even risk jail to protect their sources and stories.
The Madani government, which champions reforms, would not want to have a reporter jailed under its watch.
One does not envy the communications minister who needs to play the role of mediator to ensure the peaceful co-existence of media freedoms and authoritative institutions such as the police.
Perhaps he can start by seeking an amendment to vaguely worded legislation such as Section 233. – August 9, 2024
Terence Fernandez is group editor in chief of Big Boom Media which publishes Scoop