Page 44 - Conflict, Terrorism, and the Media In Asia

Struggle for moderate Islam in Malaysia 33
2004 found that 85 per cent of respondents did not rely on the Internet for political
news and 87 per cent did not believe information obtained from the Internet (The
Straits Times Interactive 2004).
In the 2004 elections PAS was soundly defeated by the government, losing
20 of its 27 seats in parliament, as well as power in the state of Terengannu. The
reasons lay primarily in a shift of popular support in favour of the government’s
progressive approach to creating a Muslim state. Many women and young people
in particular, voted against PAS edicts banning rock concerts, encouraging mod-
est dress and separating the sexes in supermarkets and on beaches. The efforts of
the new Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi to distance the government from the
excesses of the Mahatir years also undercut the PAS claim to be the anti-corruption
party. But underlying the result were accusations of electoral malpractice and a
system that is biased against the opposition (The Economist 2004: 72).
The political debate on Islamism provides a democratic outlet for popular
discontent and potential radicalism. PAS, itself, has also been careful not to whip
up extremist sentiments in its criticisms of the government and the ‘war on
terror’. The danger, however, is that the inherent bias in the institutions of the state
could encourage the growth of militancy if it is believed that PAS is being
prevented from gaining power by democratic means. Such a development,
however, seems unlikely. The results of the 2004 elections indicate that the
population at large has not been increasingly radicalized. What is less clear,
however, is the extent to which PAS’ rump support has been radicalized or could
be in the future.

Defining militancy

An important feature of the government’s strategy for de-legitimizing militant
groups is its use of the media to label and define ‘terrorism’. The central tenet of
this definition is that killing of innocent civilians is an act of terror but in some
cases there are mitigating circumstances. Working together, the government and
the media publicize this definition to create stereotypes and images which frame
the public consciousness and debate.
Former Prime Minister Mahatir made a keynote speech on this subject in
Damascus in August 2003, which was reported in full by the New Straits Times.
He stated that:

We are angry and very frustrated now, people are oppressing us but we
cannot do anything against them. But to kill people who are innocent because
of our anger is not right. At least to me, I don’t think it is right. To kill people,
not even the person who hit us, is wrong. We must admit that it is wrong. And
we should avoid it if we can. If we have other means, we should resort to
other means.
(New Straits Times 2003f)

Yet Mahatir did not use the term ‘terrorist’ in absolutist terms. He argued that in
some instances, such as communities fighting for independence, there are