A Deliberate One-Sided Story?

Malaysia is still right now in the post-crises mode following the two major events that shook the nation, one which is the Auditor-General's report on mismanagement of funds by government agencies and the latter, the Batu Buruk incident which four people are injured by four gunshots fired by an undercover constable.

However, the one thing about the Batu-Buruk incident which ticks me off is that the mainstream media is only reporting a one-sided story of the incident. Let's examine this portion of the article from the mainstream media which was briefly reported at NST:

KUCHING: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the rioting in Kuala Terengganu on Saturday could be the opposition’s desperate attempt to gain political mileage in the once Pas-ruled state.

"Maybe they are under pressure because the Barisan Nasional government has developed this once laidback state. Nothing really happened during their time. "Now they see that the state has developed in a short period and they are trying to do nasty things to tarnish the government and the police. This is their brand of politics," Abdullah said. The prime minister said he was saddened that Malaysians could be instigated to burn the Jalur Gemilang, which is a national symbol held in high esteem by the rakyat. "Why burn the national flag, what did the Jalur Gemilang do to them? These things would not have happened if the organisers had respected the police and the laws of the country.

"But their intentions were different, they were well prepared to create a ruckus. That is why they came prepared with Molotov cocktails and other dangerous objects to attack the police. The riot was premeditated," he said. Abdullah, who is also Internal Security Minister, said police had not issued a permit for the gathering due to the venue’s proximity with the state palace and also after considering complaints from nearby residents. He said the opposition was bent on tarnishing the country’s image and spoiling the rakyat’s Merdeka celebrations by portraying a negative picture of the government. "Now they will go around claiming police brutality. This is a known campaign tactic that has been carried out many times before. They would provoke the police until stern action is taken and then they would cry foul."

In the incident on Saturday, a riot broke out around 10.15pm after police attempted to disperse a crowd of 600 who turned up for a ceramah by Parti Keadilan Rakyat treasurer Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and other opposition politicians in Jalan Sultan Mahmud, Batu Buruk. Seven people, including four policemen, were injured in the ensuing clashes, including two who sustained gunshot wounds after a policeman opened fire in self-defence. In Kuala Terengganu, the state Umno Youth wing said it would collaborate with non-governmental organisations to drum up a public petition protesting the burning of the Jalur Gemilang during the riot. "It is unfortunate that there were those who turned traitors by burning the flag," its information chief Razali Idris said.

Yesterday, Razali, representing the state Umno Youth wing, lodged a police report on the flag burning. Relatives of the two rioters wounded by gunshots made separate reports at the Kuala Terengganu police station on Sunday. In Kuala Lumpur, Pas deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa said the party would submit a memorandum to Bukit Aman and lodge a police report on the use of firearms in the incident.

Source article is here.

The problem is, has AAB examined the entire scenario of the riots there? Or he just listens to one side of it only?

News are made when the media reports something that will become a sensation to the public and influence the perception. But then as I read some things in the mainstream media, I noticed that some of the facts are withheld or not included into the papers. The reason? Editors are under pressure to toe the line set in the Printing Publications ethic. Any statement that goes contradicting against the government policies would mean that they are liable. In other words, they have to be nice at the present government.

Hey, this is a commentary that's all. The problem is that certain powerful people are not well receptive into receiving criticism when whatever they do is not right. Sometimes, there are dirty games in stall just to keep things quiet on the front. Another example as one-side story? The constable who fired the four shots was said to be defending women and kids. Does it seem to be a convincing answer?

Does anyone know what type of organization BERSIH stands for? BERSIH is an NGO - Non Government Organization - that is a neutral-state organization. And yet they are accused as being an opposition party entity.

Again, not all is shown. But there are signs that the thing is pre-meditated and the thing was deliberately setup as to point fingers that the opposition is responsible - to shift the attention.

The state police chief later admitted that it was a constable not an FRU member who fired four shots - contradicting to the one bullet that hits two, a thing that Ronnie Liu compares that to the magic bullet theory of the Kennedy assassination.

Want to see?


Here, the actual people are turning the tables against the press. Notable accounts from the people providing the details:

Mustapha Ali:

The police and the ruling party has been accused of colluding to a “pre-planned” skirmish which resulted in two people being injured by “at least two rounds” of live ammunition after the authorities denied permission for an organised political event from being held at Batu Buruk in Terengganu, Saturday Sept 8.

Mustafa Ali named Internal Security Minister political secretary Senator Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh as among those allegedly responsible for the pre-planned skirmishes. In a press conference held at PAS headquarters here today by a coalition of political parties, trade unions and non-governmental organizations calling themselves BERSIH, Mustafa said witnesses are willing to come forward to testify that the skirmishes was pre-planned.

Interestingly though, Wan Farid Wan Salleh is a S.I.L crony, which means a sign that UMNO instigated it.

A police officer was informed in a meeting on the afternoon of Sept 8, of the identities of those attending the event and that plainclothed policemen were asked to wear a ribbon to identify themselves. Full investigation must be done by the police to get the whole picture on what has transpired. UMNO from the ruling coalition had taken the measure because "the people had shown they were more than willing to reject UMNO and the ruling coalition in the next election. That's why they have (to resort to these measures). An application submitted for a police permit Aug 30 for the event which was to be held in a private premise, and the police rejected it on the grounds that the area was heavily populated and that the event would be a nuisance.

Police officers came twice on Sept 7 and 8 to ask the owner of the premise to sign a letter not to allow the event from being held there. The police then dismantled a platform erected for the event at about 5pm on the day of the event - in the absence of owner - in a move described as "morally and legally wrong". The event by BERSIH was to highlight the growing call for free and fair elections which among others includes the demand for postal ballot to be abolished, the use of indelible ink during voting day, the cleaning up of the voters rolls deemed to be littered with “phantom voters” and equal access to the media.

Holding a public rally / talk requires a police permit that also has to receive the nod of the Internal Security Ministry for safety reasons. If the PM and Joe Baharom is not available at the time you want to apply the permit, where does the application go? Notice that the police were planted into the group meet with the red-ribbon tags? And in the aftermath of the ruckus:

Ronnie Liu:

Personal account from a Chinese reporter – He was barred from entering the scene. There is no chance of taking any photographs. We have reasons to believe all these photographs were supplied by the authorities.

You show people throwing up stone but never show the police beating up people. Just like sometimes we complain about CNN showing the Palestines throwing stones at the Israelis but you never show the Israeli’s solders beating up ther Palestine youths.

Withholding information to be shown to the public? The question is do you see that accounts reported into the mainstream media? Check the front lines for the last three days in NST or the Star.

Absolutely none, to which Nathaniel Tan is disgusted at. And Haris told us that one of the victims died due to the bullet shot.How the police act is again contradicting Section 27(5) of the Police Act whereby no live ammunition is allowed if they are to disperse an illegal assembly.

And to add more to show that people are shown only one side of the story, the stooge speaker Ramli Ngah Talib rejected the debate of the riots at Parliament.

Something questions me though. If you want to get people to listen to your speeches with no malicious intent, why do the police come in with guns? Trigger happy? Is it because that the moment someone hears the word 'opposition' that they are trying to find out what are they planning? Are they trying to destroy them for good? Are they trying to hide their secret?

If the mainstream media only shows one-side of the story, that implies that they are not showing the authoritative source as what ZAM assumes. It's controlled. People will eventually question something amiss. Now that's where blogs come in. Perhaps we should get things corrected. I fear that the people might be misled by withheld information.

That brings us back to earlier post and statement by LKY. If each mainstream media takes one side, which media takes a non-partisan side and reports all angles? Malaysiakini? The Sun? Blogs? Just draw the conclusions.