Don't Fuck With Us :- We were professional

SC ticked off for questioning four journalists

The (SC) has been ticked off for using a legislative sledgehammer to question four journalists about their reports on recent trading in Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd shares.

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) said in a statement today that powers given to the investigating officer and SC under Section 134 of the Securities Commission Act 1993 (SCA) “are very wide and could be open to abuse”.

CIJ executive officer Masjaliza Hamzah questioned if the information sought by the SC could not have been sourced through other means that do not infringe media freedom and responsibility.

She also asked if the journalists had been informed that they are allowed to have legal counsel present while responding to the SC.

The Malay Mail reported yesterday that the SC had called BK Sidhu of Star and Azlan Abu Bakar of Business Times up for questioning.

In a blog post, Rocky's Bru claimed that two other journalists, Dalila Abu Bakar and Ishun P Ahmad of The Malaysian Reserve, have also been questioned.

Masjaliza highlighted the impact of Section 134:

• Under Section 134(2), those brought in for questioning by the SC are legally bound to answer all questions. They cannot refuse to answer any question even on the grounds that it tends to incriminate them.

• Under Section 134(3), if the person brought in for questioning does not agree with the written statement, the investigating officer can record the refusal and the reason for the refusal. While this is not problematic, under Section 134(4), any statement made and recorded under this section is admissible as evidence in any proceeding in any court. This appears to render the refusal irrelevant.

• Under Section 134(5), if a person refuses to answer any questions, he or she can be punished upon conviction with a fine of up to RM1 million or up to five years' jail, or both.

Confidentiality crucial

Masjaliza also said the SCA should differentiate a journalist from an ordinary informant, explaining:

1) Journalists gather information from their sources to report on matters of public interest. Some of the information may be background information which is not published. Some information may have been given in confidence owing to concern for the safety of the source.

A journalist cannot be forced to reveal any information that may betray the source. Only for the most compelling of reasons related to immediate and demonstrable direct threat to public safety, can a journalist be compelled to provide information or reveal her sources, i.e when the benefit of such disclosure is greater than the harm to media freedom.

2) If journalists cannot protect their sources, it will be difficult to find people willing to speak to them. The protection of sources is a cardinal rule of journalism with good reason. If this trust is violated by the journalists, they would find it difficult to pursue stories of public interest.

3) Journalists will also think twice about taking on cases of public interest that may result in them being involved in lengthy and costly court battles, or being hauled in for questioning over their sources. Overall, there will be less information available to the public on important matters of public interest.

Masjaliza  criticised the SC for not recognising the main duty of journalists - to provide information to the public on matters of public interest and to honour their confidentiality agreement with sources.

“It is in the SC's interests to ensure that journalists can continue to write and highlight matters on corporate governance and responsibility. This incident shows yet another legal impediment on media freedom, underscoring the need for journalist protection under the law,” she added.

SC: We were professional

In a statement reported in Star today, the SC claimed that it was professional in handling the investigation of the four reporters.

“These are the rules and procedures prescribed by the law, which we abide by strictly. The statements from witnesses are taken by experienced officers and we have full faith that they have acted professionally throughout,” a spokesperson was quoted as saying.

“Our effective enforcement of the securities laws depends to a large extent on the assistance and cooperation given by witnesses. Given the nature of the cases we handle, we have had to call in people from all walks of life, including members of the media.

“We conduct interviews only during office hours, unless witnesses request to have their statement recorded after office hours or are willing to extend the statement recording session.”

This was an apparent response to the complaint that the journalists had been subjected to questioning for up to eight hours.

Malaysiakini