Page 41 - Conflict, Terrorism, and the Media In Asia

30 Benjamin Cole
Similar messages can also be found throughout the independent and opposition
media, where they are frequently given an anti-government spin. Among the main-
stream media Harakah Daily is the most outspoken. Taking one example from 2004,
in reporting the killing of Muslim separatists in Southern Thailand, it argued that:

The Malaysian Government equally stand condemned for turning a blind eye,
indeed for endorsing the licence for the Thai Government to conduct the mas-
sacre against the Muslims in southern Thailand. Such a stand from a brother
Muslim nation is nothing short of blasphemy. The problems surrounding the
Muslim populations in southern Thailand suffering from ill treatment,
mistreatment and neglect by the Thai Government is a longstanding one.
(Harakah Daily 2004c)

Since 11 September 2001, M.G.G. Pillai has produced a string of articles about
the ‘war on terror’ which challenge both the war itself and Malaysia’s role within
it. Some of the core themes in his articles are that the war is a Christian crusade,
that it is a war against Islam, and that thousands of Muslims are being killed as a
result of it (Harakah Daily 2001, 2002, Pillai 2001a,b, 2002a,c,d, 2003). Pillai
questions even the most fundamental elements of the war by denying that it was
Muslims who were responsible for 9/11 (Pillai 2002b). In a similar vein, he sug-
gests a number of alternative culprits for the Bali bombing, including the CIA,
Indonesian nationalists, the Indonesian armed forces or the combatants engaged
in religious conflicts inside Indonesia (Pillai 2002b). These arguments tie into
Pillai’s central allegation that Islam is the target of the ‘war on terror’, having
replaced communism as the target of the day (Pillai 2002c).
In some respects the nature and tone of some of this reporting resonates with the
rhetoric of al Qaeda and JI. The risk is that it will contribute to a radicalization of
Malaysian society, by highlighting the links between the actions of al Qaeda and
these causes. But despite reporting the linkages between the KMM, JI and al Qaeda,
the Malaysian media does not explicitly link JI and the KMM, or events in Malaysia,
to the ‘war on terror’. In fact, the media displays a certain sensitivity about Malaysia
being linked to the ‘war’. When links were uncovered between Malaysian citizens,
the 9/11 hijackers and the letters containing anthrax which were posted in the US fol-
lowing 9/11, one headline in the News Straits Times proclaimed, ‘Is Malaysia Being
Blamed for the Sept 11 Attack?’, even though it patently was not.
The implicit message in the media is that militancy within Malaysia is a
national and regional problem, not a global one. As a result, US messages in the
‘war on terror’ are not considered to be relevant to defeating militancy within
Malaysia. Consequently, US messages justifying and explaining the policies of
the ‘war on terror’ are not reported. There is some reporting of statements made
by President Bush, but they are generally qualified. Following the Bali bombing
in 2002, comments made by Bush in Indonesia that ‘Islamic terrorists’ defiled
one of the world’s great faiths were reported, but their impact was immediately
undermined by additional reporting of how Bush had alienated leading moderate
Indonesian clerics (Malay Mail 2003g). As a result, the US has failed to win the