NAIN-ANUAR_OwnershipControlMediaMalaysia

8/3/2019 NAIN-ANUAR_OwnershipControlMediaMalaysia

1/14

Ownership and control of the Malaysianmedia

Zaharom Nain & Mustafa K. Anuar

The history of the mainstream press and broadcasting in Malaysia has been one of stringentpolitical, legal and, more recently, economic controls. From the emergence of the first newspaper,The Prince of Wales Gazette, in 1806, the introduction of state-run television, RTM, in 1963, theemergence of commercial television, TV3, in 1984, and the launching of Malaysia's first broadcastsatellite, Measat 1, in 1996, the state's role in the overall scheme of things has been central. Thefollowing article discusses the implications for contemporary Malasian society.

It has been aptly noted that 'If the interests of the information and culture producers and thepowers that be are intertwined, a society's capacity for democratic government is seriouslyundermined' (Hamelink, 1994: 92). The mainstream press in Malaysia can be characterised ashaving gone through a major period of evolution, beginning in the early 1980s, coinciding with theperiod in which Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister. This is apparently a trend that hasextended into the 1990s.

The early 1980s saw the emergence of new titles, signifying to many a liberalisation of mediapolicies, a relaxation of control. According to one source (Information Malaysia, 1980-81 and1985), between 1981 and 1985 alone, the number of titles of local newspapers, magazines andjournals in circulation increased from 56 to 102 - a remarkable increase of about 80%, made evenmore remarkable given the introduction of the Printing Presses and Publications Act in 1984 andthe amendments made to it in 1987.

Indeed, going by crude quantitative indicators, it would appear that in the mid-1990s Malaysianswere spoilt for choice, being well-served by the media. As indicated in Table 1, in 1993 there were39 dailies circulating in Malaysia, certainly more than those serving Singapore (8), Thailand (8)and the Philippines (25) (see Goonasekera and Holaday, 1993).

Table 1

Malaysian Newspapers (1993)

Dailies

National LanguageEnglishChineseTamilOthersTotal

Peninsular Malaysia4.006*6.003.001.0020.00

Sabah1**1.007.000.000.009.00

Sarawak0.003.007.000.000.0010.00

Total5.0010*20.003.001.0039.00

Source: Adapted from Information Malaysia (1992-93)

*Includes the Sun which does not publish on Saturday and Sunday. Excludes Leader which is afree paper with a limited circulation. The Leader has since stop production.

Ownership and control of the Malaysian media 1 of 14


2/14

**Includes the Daily Express which is a bilingual (Malay/English) daily.

In the same period, as the figures in Table 2 indicate, Peninsular Malaysians also appeared to bewell-served by weekly news publications, particularly by those in the national language.

Table 2

Malaysian Newspapers (1993)

Weeklies and Bi-weeklies

National LanguageEnglishChineseTamilOthersTotal

Peninsular Malaysia13*4.003**1.001.0022.00

Sabah0.000.000.000.000.000.00

Sarawak0.000.001.000.000.001.00

Total13*4.004**1.001.0023.00

Source: Adapted from Information Malaysia (1992-93)

*Includes Watan which is a bi-weekly.

**Includes New Life Post which is a bi-weekly.

Unfortunately, crude quantitative indicators, while seemingly impressive, have a nasty habit ofcloaking hard, cold facts; in this case, facts regarding concentration of ownership, elements oflegal, political and economic control, and their implications for newspaper content and genuinevariety of choices.

Indeed, for quite some time now, all four national language dailies in Peninsular Malaysia, BeritaHarian, Harian Metro, Utusan Malaysia, and Utusan Melayu have been published by just two localmedia giants, the New Straits Times Press (NSTP), which publishes Berita Harian and HarianMetro, and Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad, which publishes Utusan Malaysia and UtusanMelayu. The concentration becomes more evident when we consider the national languageweeklies, since the two leading weeklies (in terms of circulation and readership), Berita Mingguand Mingguan Malaysia, are also published by the same two companies (see Table 3).

Table 3

New Straits Times Press (NSTP) (1995) and Utusan Melayu (1996) Involvement in the mediaindustry

Subsidiary CompaniesAssociated CompaniesNewspapers PublishedMagazines Published

NSTP

(1995)26

includes:



3/14

Berita Harian Sdn Bhd (100%)

Berita Book Centre (100 %)

Berita Publishing (100%)

Marican (92.5%)

American Malaysian Life Assurance (100%)

4

includes:

Asia Magazine Ltd (26.9%)

Kloffe Capital Sdn Bhd (22.2%)

Commerce-Asset Holdings Bhd (20.2 %)Dailies

a] New Straits Times (E)

b] Berita Harian (M)

c] Malay Mail (E)

d] Business Times (E)

e] Shin Min Daily News (C)

f] Harian Metro (M)

Weeklies

a] New Sunday Times (E)

b] Berita Minggu (M)

c] Sunday Mail (E)a] Malaysian Business

b] Investors Digest

c] Her World

d] Jelita

e] Information Malaysia

f] Periodica Islamica

g] New Straits Times Annual

h] Her World Annual

i] Her World Cookbook

j] Her World Home Scene Annual



4/14


5/14

Source: The KLSE Annual Handbook, 1995 and 1996 and Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) AnnualReport, 1995.

E = English language newspapers

M = Malay or national language newspapers

C = Chinese language newspapers

*In early 1994 the Utusan Group became part of a consortium of 4 companies which wasawarded the tender by the government to operate the new commercial television station,MetroVision.

**Publication of the Leader, a free newspaper for the Klang Valley region, has since ceased.

This, of course, is merely the tip of the iceberg since, as has been illustrated morecomprehensively elsewhere (see Sally Cheong, 1993, Gomez, 1990, 1993, 1994), thesecompanies, in turn, not only have interests in other media-related activities such as distribution

and broadcasting, but are also controlled by groups closely aligned to the political parties in theruling coalition. For example, in January 1993 the local media empire comprising Berita Harian,Berita Minggu, Harian Metro, the English dailies New Straits Times and Malay Mail, the Chinesedaily, Shin Min Daily News and TV3, Malaysia's first private television station, came under thecontrol of Realmild Sdn. Bhd., a private limited company which, in turn, was fully owned by apublicly listed company, Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd. (MRCB), effectively controlled byfour individuals widely recognised as close associates of Anwar Ibrahim, the then Deputy PrimeMinister (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

The MRCB Group structure as it relates to NSTP and TV3 (August 31 1993)

The intricacies of this deal - described as 'the biggest management buyout (MBO) in the localcorporate sector' (Corporate World, February 1993) - are too extensive to go into in any greatdetail here. And it is, indeed, not our intention to replicate but rather to merely illustrate the factthat the major local press organisations, while seemingly increasing in number, nonetheless, arecontrolled by the same few actors (institutions and individuals) invariably aligned to politicalparties and leaders. By looking at the majority share ownership of the two media giants, NSTPand Utusan Melayu, as examples (see Figure 2 and Figure 3), we can see this pattern ofconcentration more clearly.

Figure 2

The 5 largest Shareholders of NSTP (1995)

Figure 3

The 5 largest Shareholders of Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad (1996)

Television

Like the press, television too has seen apparently remarkable changes over the past decade.Television was first introduced in Malaysia in December 1963 with the help of technicalconsultants from Canada. The initial set-up comprised a single channel national network, underthe control of the Department of Broadcasting (RTM) which, in turn, was one of three departmentsunder the control of the Ministry of Information. In October 1969, a second channel was launched,also under the direct control of the Ministry of Information, and guided by the same directives asthose which governed the operations of the first channel. (Karthigesu, 1991). These directives -



6/14

which have remained virtually unchanged and which have informed broadcasting policy, at leastfor what are now called TV1 and TV2 - are:

?to explain in depth and with the widest possible coverage the policies and the programmes ofthe government in order to ensure maximum understanding by the public;

?to stimulate public interest and opinion in order to achieve changes in line with the requirementof the government;

?to assist in promoting civic consciousness and fostering the development of Malaysian arts andculture;

?to provide suitable elements of popular education, general information and entertainment.

?to aid national integration efforts in a multi-ethnic society through the use of the nationallanguage.

?(Ministry of Information, 1983)

What is apparent is that television - and, more generally, broadcasting - in Malaysia was from itsinception closely aligned to the government. Both the RTM channels were established notthrough an Act of Parliament or by a Royal Charter, but via decisions made by the then Alliancecoalition government which, in turn, formulated the policies that would determine the roletelevision would play. The latter practice continues, certainly with the RTM channels, to thepresent day.

After almost two decades of virtual state monopoly of the television airwaves, a commercialtelevision station, TV3, was allowed by the government to begin operating in 1984. It was initiallyhailed as a station that would 'provide newer, better quality and better choice of programmes'(Malaysian Business, 1 June 1984), although current developments, like the drastic increase inbroadcast time beginning from 1 March 1994 and the emergence of MetroTV, indicate that the

hunger for something that is ever new has remained unsatiated. These developments, of course,are related to the government's policy of 'privatisation', particularly the privatisation of what wereonce regarded as 'public services', broadcasting being one of them. And it is a development thatis certainly not peculiar to Malaysia. Indeed, as far as television is concerned, many publicbroadcast systems, especially in Western Europe (see Blumler, 1993 and Venturelli, 1993) havefor some time now been designing and implementing policies for transforming themselves intocommercial entities. The option is often simplistically assumed to be between state-controlledmedia and the market, the latter seen as being more preferable based on the naive notion thatthe logic of the market inevitably will lead to plurality of choice, freedom and independence. This,as we have argued elsewhere (see Loh and Mustafa, 1996; Zaharom, 1994 and 1996)unfortunately, has turned out to be untrue.

In quantitative terms, television in Malaysia currently appears to be undergoing profound

changes. As indicated in Table 1 and Table 2, the latter part of this decade sees Malaysiantelevision expanding quite rapidly, with more channels being offered.

Table 4

The increase of television in Malaysia

(1990s)

1993 1994 1995 1996 *



7/14

No. of broadcast channels3.003.004.004.00

No. of cable channels--4.005.00

No. of satellite channels---15.00

(* estimated)

Source: Malaysian Business, 1 January 1995: 99.

Table 5

Malaysian television stations (August 1997)

StationOwnershipYear EstablishedReachLanguage*FrequencyHours (daily)

TV1Government1963 NationwideMalay/EnglishDaily19.25

TV2Government1969 NationwideMalay/EnglishDaily11**

TV3Private1984 NationwideMalay/EnglishDaily24.00

MetroVisionPrivate1995 Klang ValleyMalay/EnglishDaily16.50

*Language here refers to the main medium of presentation. The national language (Malay) andEnglish are the main languages used. However, programmes - including daily news programmes -

in other languages, such as Tamil, Hindi and the main Chinese dialects, are common features,especially on TV2.

**From Monday through to Thursday, TV2 broadcasts 11.5 hours daily from approximately 3 p.m.to 2.30 a.m. On the remaining three days over the weekend, the broadcast hours are extended to20 hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next day.

Despite this increase in channel offerings and broadcast hours, however, the credibility ofMalaysian television as a source of information and its role as a 'purported tool for nation building'(Karthigesu, 1991) are still very much open to question and debate. Many a time, in fact, thecriticisms and suggestions put across to those controlling television to democratise the industry inthis fast developing economy, allowing greater representation in terms of ownership,unfortunately have fallen on deaf ears.

Indeed, more recent developments illustrate further the continuing concentration of mediaownership. In early 1994, another local media giant closely aligned to UMNO, the Utusan Group,became part of a consortium of four companies that was awarded a tender by the government tooperate Malaysia's second commercial television station, MetroVision (see Zaharom, 1994). Yetanother company in the consortium is Melewar Corporation, controlled by Tunku Abdullah of theNegeri Sembilan royal house and a longtime close associate of Prime Minister Mahathir.

Malaysia's first pay-TV or subscription service, Mega TV, which began operating in the thirdquarter of 1995, is also run by a consortium using the company name Cableview Services Sdn.Bhd. The largest shareholder in the consortium, with a 40% stake, is Sistem Television MalaysiaBerhad or TV3. The Malaysian Ministry of Finance has a 30% stake, while Sri Utara Sdn. Bhd., awholly-owned subsidiary of Maika Holdings Bhd. (the investment arm of the Malaysian Indian



8/14

Congress [MIC], another component of the BN coalition) has a 5% stake. (See Figure 4). Thiscable company has been quite active in extending its reach to the numerous 'well off' areas orstates in the peninsular. Having started off by providing cable facilities in the lucrative KlangValley, Mega TV has since expanded to the southern states of Malacca and Negri Sembilan andfurther north in Penang.

Figure 4

Ownership of Mega TV (1997)

As for satellite broadcasting, on 13 January 1996, the Malaysia East Asia satellite, Measat-1, waslaunched from Kourou, French Guiana. Described by one newspaper as 'marking the country'shistoric entry into space technology', (The New Straits Times, 14/1/1996), Measat-1 is owned byBinariang Sdn. Bhd. which, in turn, is owned by trusts associated with three Malaysians, mostprominent of whom is manufacturing and horse racing tycoon, T. Ananda Krishnan. Ananda hasbeen politely referred to by one Malaysian daily as 'a businessman who enjoys the confidence ofPrime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad.' (The Star, 9/1/1996). And the chairman ofBinariang's board of directors is the former Inspector-General of the Malaysian police force, Hanif

Mohamad Omar. Hence, as far as television - including satellite television - is concerned, what wehave is a situation where the selective privatisation exercise continues to extend the tentacles ofthe ruling coalition and its allies even wider across the Malaysian economy, adding economic andcultural domination to what is already virtual political domination.

Some have naively entertained the notion that with the introduction of satellite broadcasting, thegovernment was going to adopt an 'open sky' policy. However, the announcement by the Ministerof Information in 1996 must have put paid to such a notion. Amendments to the 1988Broadcasting Act to enable Measat to start its operations was tabled in Parliament on 14 October1996. However, the amendments in no way have led to an open-sky policy. Instead, they havepaved the way for tighter government control on signals reception, since under the amendmentsonly 0.6 metre parabolic dishes can be used by consumers to receive signals from only theMeasat satellite. Indeed, under the amendments to the Act, it is an offence for anyone to use

bigger parabolic dishes. And the penalty for such an offence is a pretty hefty one - a fine ofRM100,000 and a three-month jail sentence. This, according to the minister - who is not reallyrenowned for being deliberately ironic or for his intellect - is where Malaysia has 'a semi-open skypolicy' (The Star, 12 September 1996).

To understand the situation of the mainstream media in contemporary Malaysia, we need initiallyto locate their development within the wider contextual canvas of Malaysian development,particularly focusing on contemporary realities.

Social, political and legal factors

Three events mark recent Malaysian history. In 1948 a state of Emergency was declared,ostensibly to allow the colonial authorities to clamp down on the violent terrorist activities of the

Malaysian Communist Party. It lasted until 1960 in which year, three years after Malaya hadgained independence from the British, the Internal Security Act (ISA) came into existence. Nineyears later, the General Elections saw the ruling Alliance coalition government almost ose itsmajority. Announcement of the results led to the bloody rthnic riots of 13 May 1969 and anotherstate of emergency which lasted until 1971. It was during this period that a National OperactionsCouncil (NOC) was formed to administer the country.

In 1971 a New Economic Policy (NEP) was instituted. This came about because the NOC felt thatone of the reasons for the surge of ethnic suspicion and enmity in 1969 was socio-economicimbalances between ethnic groups, in particular the gap between Malays and non-Malays. Inother words, the NEP was to address the socio-economic problems faced by the ethnic groups inthe country so that national development and harmony could eventually be achieved - and ethnicviolence thwarted.



9/14


10/14

(popularly known as the 'KDN') and to revoke or suspend a permit. The Minister's decision is finaland cannot be challenged in a court of law. As stated under Section 13, sub-section (1) of the Act(emphasis added):

Without prejudice to the powers of the Minister to revoke or suspend a licence or permit under

any other provisions of this Act, if the Minister is satisfied that any printing press in respect ofwhich the licence has been issued is used for printing of any publication which is prejudicial topublic order or national security or that any newspaper in respect of which a permit has beenissued contains anything which is prejudicial to public order or national security, he may revokesuch licence or permit.

On top of this, Section 7 of the amended Act empowers the Minister to prohibit the printing, sale,import, distribution or possession of a publication. The Minister may do this if he believes that thecontents of a publication threaten morality, public order, security, public or national interests,conflict with the law or contain provocative matters. Thus, one has this situation where thedecisions of one Minister are binding and, strictly speaking, the Minister is under no obligation toexplain these decisions.

Broadcasting ands film

The Broadcasting Act, 1988 continues to play a crucial role in the underdevelopment of Malaysianbroadcasting. The Act as it stands is both stringent and inflexible, and bestows enormous powerson the government to determine the type of television made available to the Malaysian public.The introduction of the Act in 1988 was clearly in anticipation of the further commercialisation ofbroadcasting, especially television. Indeed, in the midst of the supposed 'deregulation' ofbroadcasting, the Broadcasting Act now gives the Minister of Information virtually total powers todetermine who will and who will not broadcast and the nature of the broadcast material. Under theAct, any potential broadcaster would need to apply for a licence from the minister beforehand. Onpaper, this translates into the fact that one individual has the power to decide. Further, Part III,Section 10, Subsection (1) of the Act (emphasis added), states that 'It shall be the duty of thelicensee to ensure that the broadcasting matter by him complies with the direction given, from

time to time, by the Minister.'

The October 1996 amendments made to this already-stringent piece of legislation were aimed attaking into account the introduction of new services, such as cable and satellite television,satellite radio, pay TV and video-on demand.

The National Film Development Corporation Act (FINAS) (1981) was amended in 1984 inresponse to technological changes that had taken place in the film industry. The amended Act,among other things, widens the definition of film to incorporate video tapes, video discs, laserdiscs, and video compact discs. By so doing, officials of FINAS can exercise control over and acton people who are found contravening certain provisions of the Act. Under the Act, anyone whopossesses three or more copies of the same film is deemed involved in film distribution, andtherefore is required to apply for a distribution permit.

Commercial interests and mainstream media

Trends in the Malaysian media indicate two clear developments, which may seem contradictory atfirst glance but, upon closer scrutiny, are not exactly at odds with each other, given the nature ofpolitics and control in Malaysia. Firstly, there is little doubt that the government's privatisationpolicy has resulted in greater commercialisation of the media which, in turn, has resulted in morebeing offered. This has happened not by accident, but as part of the government's strategy. AsMahathir (1983: 277) himself announced in the early days of his administration, 'the governmentmay be able to obtain substantial revenue from telecommunications, ports, radio and television,railways, etc... In view of this possibility, there is a need to transfer several public services andgovernment owned business to the private sector.'



11/14

Secondly, this supposed liberalisation has not really resulted in a loosening of government controlover the media, contrary to the initial beliefs of many. The reverse in fact has happened. As wehave tried to indicate, over the past decade, the main forms of control over the media - legal,political and economic - have certainly been tightened.

Hence, what we presently have with the media is a situation of 'regulated deregulation'. Withinthis type of environment, it is not surprising that although we appear to be getting more from themedia, what we really are getting is more of the same. In this environment, invariably also wherethe ownership and control of the media are in the hands of a few who are closely aligned to thegovernment and who also wish to profit from the situation, there has been increasing emphasison the production and importation of 'safe', often trivial, artefacts. From the endless quiz showson television to the crossword competitions in the press, the emphasis continues to be onmaterial that is non-contentious and easily marketable - those that will not question, examine orchallenge the official discourse (see Zaharom, 1996). As Golding and Murdock (1991: 20)succinctly put it, when writing about commercial broadcasting:

The economics of commercial broadcasting revolves around the exchange of audiences foradvertising revenue. The price that corporations pay for advertising spots on particular

programmes is determined by the size and social composition of the audience it attracts. And inprime-time, the premium prices are commanded by shows that can attract and hold the greatestnumber of viewers and provide a symbolic environment in tune with consumption. These needsinevitably tilt programming towards familiar and well-tested formulae and formats and away fromrisk and innovation, and anchor it in common-sense rather than alternative viewpoints.

Recent events

On 2 September 1998, Mahathir sacked his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, from all his governmentpositions. Early on 4 September Anwar was expelled from UMNO. On 20 September, theMalaysian media went to town publishing and broadcasting the 'confessions' of Anwar's adoptedbrother and his speech writer that they had been sodomised by Anwar. Prior to their confessionsthe two had been detained by the police, one under the ISA, and had no access to counsels or

family. The same afternoon, Anwar addressed a gathering, conservatively estimated to be 50,000strong, at the National Mosque, professing his innocence and reiterating that there was a highlevel conspiracy in government to discredit and remove him. Later that Sunday night, the policestormed Anwar's house and arrested him under the ISA. A group of his supporters were alsodetained shortly after. Since then, the public has been kept in the dark as to Anwar's whereaboutsand his well-being.

As regards the media, a couple of months prior to Anwar's sacking, expulsion and detention, theeditors of the two largest national language newspapers in Malaysia, Utusan Malaysia and BeritaHarian, were forced to resign, presumably by Mahathir. Their resignations were followed by thatof the director of operations of TV3. Anwar himself has been reported as stating that the threewere allied to him.

Whatever the merits of Mahathir's actions and accusations (which were widely and uncriticallyreported in the mainstream media) and those of Anwar's rejoinders (which hardly saw the light ofday in the mainstream media but were widely disseminated through the Internet, home-madevideo and audio tapes and through the speeches he made at large gatherings around the countryprior to his arrest), this most recent event in Malaysian history has clearly brought to the fore thestark realities of the Malaysian mainstream media and the low level it has reached. Many of theserealities have been pointed out in this article and we summarise them in conclusion.

First, by and large and for a long, long time now, the Malaysian mainstream media have neveraspired to be the guardians of freedom of speech. Very few would argue with the observationthat, thus far, the mainstream Malaysian media have been nothing more than governmentmouthpieces. The ongoing trial by media of the sacked Anwar is indicative of this.



12/14

Second, and in relation to the first point, despite all the talk about 'democracy ala Malaysia','freedom with responsibility', ad nauseam, we need to remind ourselves that all of the majorMalaysian media organisations - including RTM, TV3, MegaTV, MetroVision, NTV7, Astro, BeritaHarian, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, and Star - are owned and controlled by BN partiesor those closely associated with these parties. To a large extent, this allocative control helps to

explain why these media organisations rarely - if ever - break ranks.

Third, to reinforce such economic controls further, Barisan has a slew of laws at its disposal - thePrinting Presses and Publications Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Control of Imported PublicationsAct, the Internal Security Act, the Sedition Act, and the Official Secrets Act, to name a few - tocontrol the media.

Fourth, we have profoundly conservative education and religious value systems which preachconformity and compliance. More specifically, this is rather obvious with formal media educationin our local universitites. Here the emphasis is very much on form rather than substance, wherethe focus is on teaching - often badly - students how to twiddle with knobs and how to write introsrather than why they are writing what they write.

Fifth, while there may be journalists who have thus far escaped the web of socialisation andcontinue to try to come up with critical reports, the multi-layered nature of controls at the day-to-day, operational level of news production invariably prevents such reports from seeing the light ofday. Hence, the vicious cycle continues.

Taking all these into consideration, we begin to understand why the mainstream Malaysian mediahas for so long been - and still is - so sycophantic. In short, it is a question of structures andsocialisation.

However, while it is perhaps still too early to tell, but to end on a positive note, we would arguethat the recent events surrounding the Anwar Ibrahim sacking and detention and, moreimportantly, the way these events have been covered by the Malaysian mainstream media hasfirstly, jolted many Malaysians - some of whom were previously ignorant of the fact and some

who, while aware, were nonetheless apathetic - into realising how extremely centralised control ofthe media is. Secondly, such a realisation has indeed led to a rapid, ongoing and increasingerosion of the credibility of the media. No one can predict the outcome of this new, heightenedawareness on the part of the Malaysian public. But, we would insist that, for the first time in along, long while, cracks are beginning to show in the hegemony of the governing elites. For thefirst time, too, the potential for change - for the emergence of greater transparency, accountabilityand democracy - is there.

Funding from the Sumitomo Foundation, Japan for research and preparation is gratefullyacknowledged.

References

Aliran (1988), ISA & Keselamatan Negara (ISA & National Security), Penang: Aliran.

Berita Publishing. Information malaysia, 1980-81, 1985, 1992-93. Kuala Lumpur.

Blumler, J.G. (1993). 'Meshing Money With Mission: Purity Versus Pragmatism In PublicBroadcasting'. European Journal of Communication. Vol. 8: 403-424.

CARPA (1988), Tangled Web: Dissent, Deterrence and the 27 October 1987 Crackdown inMalaysia, Sydney: Committee Against Repression in the Pacific and Asia.

Chandra, Muzaffar (1986), Freedom in Fetters, Penang: Aliran.

Cheong, Sally (1993). Bumiputera Companies in the KLSE. (2nd Edition). Petaling Jaya.



13/14

Corporate Research Services.

Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (1991). 'Culture, Communications And Political Economy'. In Curran,J. and M. Gurevitch (eds). Mass Media And Society. London: Edward Arnold. 15-32.

Gomez, E.T. (1990). Politics In Business: UMNO's Corporate Investments. Kuala Lumpur: Forum.

Gomez, E.T. (1994). Political Business: Corporate Involvement Of Malaysian Political Parties.Australia: James Cook University of North Queensland.

Goonasekera, A. and D. Holaday (eds)(1993). Asian Communication Handbook. Singapore:AMIC.

Government of Malaysia (1984). Printing Presses And Publications Act 1984. Kuala Lumpur.

Government of Malaysia (1988). Broadcasting Act 1988. Kuala Lumpur.

Hamelink, C.J. (1994). Trends In World Communication: On Disempowerment And Self-

Empowerment. Southbound: Penang.

Karthigesu, R. (1991). 'Two Decades Of Growth And Development Of Malaysian television AndAn Assessment Of ITs Role In Nation Building'. Unpublished Ph. D thesis, University of Leicester,England.

Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (1995). The KLSE Annual Companies handbook. Kuala Lumpur.

Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (1996). The KLSE Annual Companies handbook. Kuala Lumpur.

Lee, H.P. (1995), Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lent, John A. (ed) (1982), Newspapers in Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore & Kuala Lumpur:Heinemann Asia.

Loh, Kok Wah, Francis and Mustafa, K. Anuar (1996), 'The Press in Malaysia in the Early 1990s:Corporatisation, Technological Innovation and the Middle Class', in Muhammad Ikmal Said andZahid Emby (eds), Critical Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Syed Husin Ali, Petaling Jaya:Malaysian Social Science Association.

mahathir Mohamad (1983). 'New Government Policies'. In Jomo, K.S. (ed). The Sun Also Sets:Lessons In Looking East. Kuala Lumpur: Insan. 276-278.

Means, Gordon P. (1991), Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation, Singapore: OxfordUniversity Press.

Milne, R.S. and Mauzy, Diane K. (1980), Politics and Government in Malaysia, Singapore: TimesBooks International.

Ministry of Information (Malaysia) (1983). radio And Television Malaysia handbook. KualaLumpur.

Mohd Safar, Hasim (1996), Akhbar dan Kuasa (The Press and Power), Kuala Lumpur: UniversitiMalaya Press.

Singh K.S., Gurmit (1987), No to Secrecy: The Campaign Against 1986's Amendments to theOSA, Petaling Jaya: Aliran, SGS, EPSM, DAP, MAE & CRC.



14/14

Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Sendirian Berhad Annual report 1995.

Venturelli, S. (1993). 'The Imagined Transnational Public Sphere In The European Community'sBroadcast Policy: Implications For Democracy'. European Journal Of Communication. Vol. 8: 491-518.

Zaharom nain (1994). 'Commercialization And Control In A 'Caring Society': Malaysian Media'Towards 2020''. SOJOURN. Vol. 9, No. 2: 178-199.

Zaharom nain (1996). 'The Impact Of The International Marketplace On The Organisation OfMalaysian Television'. In D. French and M. Richards (eds). Contemporary Television: EasternPerspectives. New Delhi: Sage.


Documents

NAIN-ANUAR_OwnershipControlMediaMalaysia