Oleh/By		:	DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD 
Tempat/Venue 	: 	KUALA LUMPUR 
Tarikh/Date 	: 	18/09/85 
Tajuk/Title  	: 	THE WORLD PRESS CONVENTION 




Honourable Guests; Distinguished Participants; Ladies and Gentlemen; 

I had intended to start my Keynote Address by saying: "In the beginning,
there was Individual Man, living in splendid isolation, doing "his own
thing", behaving exactly as he pleased, unfettered by a single rule,
regulation, or code of behaviour of any sort." In actual fact, from the
beginning, there never was this Individual Man, born free, living
completely unfettered in isolated splendour. From the beginning of time
man lived in groups -- first, the family, then the village, then the
district, then the state because he was instinctively gregarious and
because he needed the security and the services and values that only
living in a group could provide.

2. But living in even the most rudimentary group raised a series of
problems. Obviously, the individual members could not do anything that
might cause suffering or discomfort to another individual member. Thus a
code had to be developed and imposed by common consent. Any code, any
rule, any law could not but restrict individual freedom within a group or
community. The more developed the society, the more formal and complex the
code. Thus customs, traditions, laws, rules and philosophies became
institutionalised within each human community.

3. But then, there arose the problem of enforcement. Even if there is a
general consensus over the code of behaviour, there will be the inevitable
breakers of the code. Obviously if the code breakers are numerous, the
stability and integrity of the community and the well-being of other
members would be threatened. The need arose for an enforcement
authority; in other words, for the conferment of authority on an
individual or individuals, on an institution or institutions, to deal with
those who break the code. Authority means power and power corrupts, as we
shall soon see.

4. The media, like the individual or groups of individuals, is an actor
within a human community. In the modern world, however, such is the power
of the media that it has often been called the Fourth Estate. In many
countries, it has become a powerful force in society, so powerful in fact
that kings and presidents bow and scrape before it. What is the proper
place of the powerful media within human society? How should it
operate? What should be its relationship to the rest of society and to the
governmental structure in society? I shall try to concentrate on these
basic questions in this Keynote Address.

5. What is considered legitimate, proper and moral varies from system to
system, country to country, and of course from time to time. Even the
media practitioners themselves cannot agree on these items at any given
time. It is also clear that in the last few hundred years there have been
four basic philosophies, models or traditions with regard to the concept
of Press role and freedom. The first might be called the authoritarian
model, the second the Communist model, the third the libertarian model and
the fourth the social responsibility model.

6. Each tradition has its particular set of assumptions and arguments
about man, the role of the state, the position of the individual and his
place within the community and the way the media should function within
society. None are completely without virtue, not even the Communist
model. On the other hand, none are without flaws of logic or relevance or
legitimacy, not even the libertarian model that so many in the Third
World, unable to break the shackles of psychological and intellectual
neo-colonialism, sometimes aspire to with such wide-eyed enthusiasm.

7. My view is a simple one. First, it is essentially up to each country to
choose for itself what is the proper system to adopt or the proper
tradition to follow. If Democracy or Communism cannot be successfully
transplanted unless the soil is right and the climate accommodating, nor
can any particular media model. The hectoring and the lecturing from the
pious and the powerful will not stop. But each society must have the
courage of its convictions.

8. Second, the proper, appropriate system must depend on the objective
condition of a society, its aspirations and stage of development. It will
vary with time and place. I have no negative assessments about the curbing
of Press freedom in Britain and the United States, through the
introduction of censorship, during the First and Second World Wars --
although I do believe that it is important to remind some of the more
fervent but blind preachers what they did when the necessary had to be
done. If man, however virtuous, is eventually and invariably reduced to
the level of his circumstance, so too is the mass media. It ought to be
plain to the inventors of the doctrine of quote 'clear and present danger'
unquote that there are many societies today that are under severe stress,
that function under a condition of 'clear and present danger', that have
no choice but to do what needs to be done. In many of these countries
there is no ignorance about what is the ideal in ideal circumstances. To
suggest otherwise is not only to be guilty of being unfair but worse, to
be guilty of arrogant ignorance.

9. Let me not be misunderstood. I am no apologist for unnecessary
repression, for the iron fist, for authoritarianism and for the abuse of
governmental power. I am a firm believer in the greatest freedom consonant
with the vital interests of society. But there is no moral virtue in the
comfortable afflicting the afflicted, in taking a holier than thou
attitude.

10. Having said all this, and fully aware of its own deficiencies and
dangers, let me state thirdly that for most countries most of the time the
morally proper choice is the social responsibility model. Just as
Democracy is not a perfect system for the governance of man, simply the
best of all forms so far invented by man for his governance, the doctrine
of social responsibility with all its imperfections is the best of all
forms invented for the guidance of the practice of Press Freedom. The
others are simply much worse.

11. Let me start off with the easiest models to demolish: the
authoritarian and the Communist models. The authoritarian model is
historically the oldest. For centuries in the history of man, it was
regarded as fully legitimate, moral and proper. Its basic tenet is that
the media is the servant of the government. Full stop.

12. Plato had no reservations. In the 'Republic' he euphemistically
recommended that all artists, philosophers and poets who offended against
the rigid rules set down by those in authority should be ' sent to another
city'. Socrates insisted on his individual right to deviate but recognised
the necessity for obedience to authorities to enforce these rules. His
solution was to accept the penalty. That penalty was death.

13. Under the authoritarian model, the media should support the policies
of the government in place so that the government can achieve its
objectives. In the history of the West, much of the media was allowed to
remain in the hands of the private sector. But the media had to be
controlled: through the granting of licenses or patents, through direct
governmental censorship, through prosecution before the courts, through
control of raw materials, special taxes on media profit. In the course of
time, other methods have been added: state participation in media
ownership, state selection of editors and even journalists, the licensing
of media practitioners and of course the carefully edited official press
releases. Journalists are put on a secret payroll. Editors are alternately
threatened with prosecution or seduced by favours. Unlike under the
Communist model, the media was often not required to conform completely to
the principles and policies of the ruling government. Absence of criticism
was often enough. Elizabeth I permitted and sometimes even encouraged a
wide latitude of discussion, as long as her right to make the final
decision was fully recognised.

14. There are many similarities between the Communist model and the
authoritarian model, the first the most widespread today from the point of
view of sheer population reach and the second the most pervasive system
from the point of view of the number of countries practising it. Both the
authoritarian and the communist model believe that the mass media is a
servant of the state. Both assert a monopoly of wisdom by those in
authority.

15. However, the Communist model requires the mass media to be more
active, positive tools for the use of government or the Party for the
achievement of societal goals. Communist systems demand more than just
non-obstruction and non-criticism and a little help now and then from
media practitioners. The media must be constantly active propagandists,
agitators, and organisers of public opinion -- every day of the year and
in ever y column inch. Secondly, the Communist model requires state
monopoly of all the means of mass communication.

16. Under the Communist model, because there can only be one truth, the
truth as defined by the Communist Party, the media must work assidously to
mould opinion to ensure a oneness of perception and thought. The existence
of one view, 'the correct view' is the ideal. A diversity of content may
be interesting and entertaining but it is not the job of the media to be
interesting or entertaining. A variety of views is not only unnecessary
but immoral. Secondly, it is the task of the mass media to be an
instrument of revelation rather than information per se.

17. News is not the latest events under the Communist model. It is only a
means of interpreting contemporary social processes. Since the editor is a
propagandist, agitator and organiser of public thought, he must select the
current events to be published guided only by the need to illustrate and
re-inforce the social process he is trying to teach his readers. Mass
communications is a deadly serious business with no place for 'human
interest' stories unless they are essential to the teaching of a
particular lesson.

18. The weaknesses of the authoritarian and Communist tradition are too
evident to require a lengthy exercise in criticism. The fact is that the
state and its government, society and its leaders are two separate
things. Being of service to society and the state may require the media
not to be of service to the powers that be. Because it is in the
authoritarian and Communist state that abuses of authority and power are
likely to be greatest, ironically it is essentially in the authoritarian
and the Communist state that morality demands that the media be a check,
that the media be in a confrontationist mode. The watchdog role of the
media is needed most in Communist and authoritarian systems -- where, of
course, it is tolerated least.

19. All wisdom does not spring from a single source, truth from a single
mind, even a collective mind made up of a large number of intellectual
giants. If nothing is to be published, broadcast or televised unless it
has been approved by those in authority, power must always be the
determinant of truth. Society cannot but suffer from a singleness of
thought and a uniformity of content, and not only from boredom. If a
community -- whether it be a family, a village, a nation-state or a group
of states -- is to be dynamic rather than to decay, to develop rather than
to stagnate, there must be a minimum level of informational diversity and
debate.

20. If the authoritarian and Communist models or traditions are ethically
improper and counter productive of the needs and development of society,
is the libertarian model the one that is morally and productively the
best, in theory as well as in practice? 

21. The libertarian model assumes that man is a rational animal. The
individual is king. Societ y is his subordinate. The rights and fulfilment
of the individual is the ultimate goal of man, society and
state. Libertarian theory states that man is a supremely rational animal
with an insatiable desire for truth; the only method by which truth can be
grasped is by the free competition of opinion in the open marketplace of
ideas.

22. To be fair, the libertarian theorists concede that in a free for all,
much information reaching the people would be false and some deliberately
so. People would be telling and spreading lies as well as truths. However,
it was up to the people, not the state, to decide what is true and what is
false. The people because they are inherently rational, must be able to
digest and discard, in the final analysis ending at the destination called
truth.

23. John Stuart Mill made a strong case of the freest expression of
opinion. First, he argued, if an opinion is silenced, we will never know
if we are in fact silencing the truth. Second, a wrong opinion can contain
part of a truth necessary for discovering the whole truth. Third, even if
the commonly held view is already the whole truth, the public tends to
hold it not on rational grounds but on the basis of prejudice -- unless it
is forced to defend it against the attack of untruths. Fourth, unless the
convent ional wisdom is attacked from time to time, it loses its vitality
and its effect on conduct and character.

24. A most fundamental requirement of the libertarian model is that the
media must be completely free from government controls or
interference. Another is the idea that it is the duty of the press to
prevent government from over stepping its bounds. In the words of
Jefferson, it must provide a check on government which no other
institution can provide. It must thus be a political institution and a
political actor in its own right--but one which must regard government as
an adversary, essentially an evil force, which will do evil unless there
is a watchdog acting on behalf of the people. Unfortunately or otherwise,
the libertarians do not say who is to watch the watchdog, beyond saying
that it must not be the government.

25. The advocacy of the media as an extra-legal check on the government,
the call for an adversarial relationship with regard to authority, is
understandable on the part of libertarians in an age of
authoritarianism. For centuries liberalism had to struggle against
authoritarianism. The established government was its greatest enemy. Is it
always so today? 

26. There are many things wrong with the libertarian model. First, it must
be quite clear that man is as much an irrational animal as a rational
one. It may sound patronising but it is true: the discerning of truth from
untruth is a most difficult task for the ordinary man. Even the wisest of
men have often consistently been led up the garden path. The idea that man
spends most of his time, much of his time or even some of his time in the
relentless search for truth is absolute and silly nonsense. Just ask
yourself how many truth-seeking members of the very educated British
public buy the News of the World or the People every Sunday in comparison
to those who buy the relatively small circulation Sunday Times or
Observer. How many truth-hungry Britishers daily buy the Sun and how many
buy the Guardian? 

27. Second, is it right that truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, must always be told, at all times? Every society known to man in
every era of man has distinguished between the lie and the white
lie. History is littered with examples where it was justified not to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

28. Third, the libertarian model in its unremitting advocacy of the
adversarial role may be justified in the case of an authoritarian or
Communist or evil government. Is it as essential in the case of a
democratic government, a libertarian government, a good government? The
basic assumption that government must always be corrupt and evil is also
absolute and silly nonsense.

29. Fourth, if it is assumed that power tends to corrupt and absolute
power tends to corrupt absolutely, by what magical formula is the media
itself, with all its awesome power, exempt from this inexorable
tendency? Is power the only cause of corruption? Freedom too can corrupt
and absolute freedom can corrupt absolutely.

30. Fifth, the libertarian assumption of a free marketplace of ideas where
there is a multiplicity of voices, where each individual has a chance to
have his say, can exist only in the realm of theory. In practice, say in
the West, since when has there been a multiplicity of views on the Arabs
for example? For decades, the multiplicity of voices have all said the
same thing about the Arabs. The picture of the one-way distortion of truth
is not a pretty one. At no time in history and in no country has the ideal
been actualised. Some men have a greater ability to express their views
than others. How many newspapers have given space to the views of the
idiot and the imbecile? How many Communists or exploitative capitalists
are today on the staff of the major newspapers of the world? By comparison
how many members of the public have access to the means of mass
communication? Indeed even Presidents and Prime Ministers are denied the
right to defend themselves from insinuations by mass circulation
publications.

31. The question has to be asked: is freedom of the Press often no more
than the right of one man, the editor, and several men, the sub-editors
and journalists, to express his or their views and prejudices? Since when
has the American editor of a mid-Western weekly magazine had a say equal
to the American editor of a national magazine? How many Ameri can cities
can today boast of more than one newspaper? The concentration of media
even in the United States, the haven of the libertarian model, have
concentrated power in the hands of a select few. It is quite clear that
the libertarian theorists have never faced squarely the problem of
financial wealth and economic support of the mass media and the fact of
the silent majority. For those whose voice will never be heard, freedom of
the Press does not exist. They are denied the same right of expression as
is denied by a government- controlled Press.

32. Sixth, the libertarian model is based on the childlike assumption that
the media will generally if not always adhere to ethical practices and
aspire to the public good. William Peter Hamilton, once publisher of the
powerful Wall Street Journal, is on record as saying: 'A newspaper is a
private enterprise owing nothing whatsoever to the public, which grants it
no franchise. It is therefore affected with no public interest. It is
emphatically the property of the owner, who is selling a manufactured
product at his own risk.' Not many respected publishers today will openly
say this or mean it. But there are hordes of media owners and
practitioners whose sense of responsibility to the public good is, to say
the least, somewhat limited. How else can we explain the libertarian film
industry of the West? How many socially contributing films are made in the
West today in comparison with the number feasting on pornography and
violence? 

33. How many truth-seeking newspapers and television stations will go into
print or on the air with scattered bits of information in the knowledge
that they are not in possession of the facts, still less all the facts,
simply to beat their competitors? And for what? For the good of the
individual, man and society? 

34. The Press is not an institution created in heaven, naturally bestowed
with virtue. It is not the unique kingdom of the virtuous. It is made up
of and run by men who are moved, like other men, not only by high ideals,
but also by base needs and feelings. The ability of the journalist to
influence the course of events is out of all proportion to his individual
right as a citizen of a democratic society. He is neither especially
chosen for his moral superiority nor elected to his post. A Free Press is
as prone to corruption as are the other institutions of Democracy. Is this
then to be the only institution of Democracy to be completely unfettered? 

35. One can go on and on. But let me rest by citing one last basic flaw of
the libertarian model: its assumption of societal stability. For a society
precariously balanced on the razor's edge, where one false or even true
word can lead to calamity, it is criminal irresponsibility to allow for
that one word to be uttered. It can be no surprise that it was in the
United States itself that the doctrine of 'clear and present danger' was
formulated.

36. Comparatively few countries in today's world are ultra-stable states
where full, free and utter licence can be allowed to run riot. Even in
these ultra-stable states such licence has not been allowed. There is and
has never been such a thing as absolute freedom. It is my view that
regardless of circumstance or time, the best model is the social
responsibility model.

37. Its basic assertions are simple. The individual has rights. So too
does society. Whereas the authoritarian and the Communist will boldly say
that the rights of society must take precedence over the rights of the
individual, and the libertarian will take the equally rigid view that the
rights of the individual must override that of society, I believe that it
is a question of qualitatively and quantitatively balancing the two
rights.

38. Who is to decide on the balancing of the two rights? In a democratic
state with a democratically elected government, it is the task of the
democratically elected government.

39. Under the social responsibility system, the media does have an
important role to play and must be allowed much lee way to play this role,
including to criticise authority. I am reminded of an article I wrote in
July 1981. Please allow me to quote. 'By and large, the role of the Press
in ensuring good democratic practices and hence sustaining de mocracy
itself is not only right but also truly indispensible. It is indeed a
means of communication between a democratic government and the people. T
hrough it not only will the people be kept informed of all that the
government and its leaders are doing, but the leaders too will learn of
the attitudes, needs and problems of the people. A responsible democratic
government must accordingly regard a free press as an asset which
facilitates good government'.

40. There are no two-ways about it. The media must be given freedom. But
this freedom must be exercised with responsibility. It must be given the
freedom to express opinion freely, even the right to be wrong; but it must
do so without prejudice and without malice. Just as in a democratic
society no person or institution has a right to de-stroy society or to
destroy democracy, the media too has no such right. An irresponsible Press
is a negation of the right of the people in a democratic society. If the
Press fails to understand this, then it should be made to do so by the
people through their elected representatives. To put it in another way, so
long as the Press is conscious of itself being a potential threat to
democracy and conscientiously limits the exercise of its rights, it should
be allowed to function without government interference. But when the Press
obviously abuses its rights, then democratic governments have a duty to
put it to right.

41. In representing the inevitably selected views of various groups of
people and in pressing its own views, in pursuit of its perceptions of the
public good, on those occasions when it is involved in the pursuit of the
public good, the media must act with the humility that it demands of those
in power. Just as it is right in saying that a government has no monopoly
on constructiveness and wisdom, the media must recognise that it too has
no monopoly on constructiveness and wisdom. Just as the public servant
must be prepared to accept criticism, so too must the media be prepared to
accept criticism. Just as Government is not above the law, the media too
is not above the law. It simply will not do if a public servant is subject
to the laws on state secrets but in the name of freedom others are
not. Just as the media is not to be made subservient to the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary, in the same way and to the same extent the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary are not to be made
subservient to the media. Just as the Government cannot be allowed to have
the freedom to do exactly as it pleases in society, so too the media
cannot be allowed to do exactly as it pleases in society.

42. The media must be allowed to compete in the economic marketplace and
curry the favour of its target customers, but it must do so within the
bounds of decency and responsibility. Contrary to what is thought in many
of even the best journalistic institutions, the deadline is not
sacred. The public good is sacred. In my view, and I state it without any
reservation or apology, the public good is always sacred.

43. Ladies and gentlemen, I started off by talking of the individual and
the creation of human communities. Let me end by returning to that
theme. Man joined his fellow men in a group for his own purpose, in answer
to his own needs. He gains safety in numbers but he loses to a certain
extent his individual freedom. He was willing to do this when, in the
primitive setting, he was threatened with all kinds of dangers. But the
modern man has no experience of the dangers of individual isolation. He,
therefore, tends to see the restraint on his individual freedom as irksome
and he rebels against it. He has forgotten that there is a price to pay in
order to get all those things that society provides him. It is the lack of
understanding and appreciation of the limits of individual independence in
society that has resulted in the instability of human societies in many
parts of the world. There is a need to be educated on the structure and
obligations of society, especially now, when the growth of human societies
is so rapid, and complex. The media needs to educate and itself to be
educated with the rest of society, especially since its reach is so vast
and its power so great.

44. Now let us see how this little speech of mine is treated by the media.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

45. I now have much pleasure in declaring open this World Press
Convention. Thank you.