Whether one calls him Minister of Misinformation and Disinformation, the fact is Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin conceives himself chief public relation minister for the BN government and in that role his main function is to use media, whether local or international, to package and present the most favourable image for the government in relation to the country.

He has made no bones about it that in a conflict between truth and good image of the government, the latter prevails. This is shown by his briefing of editors on 10th October in which he specifically instructed editors that he was acting under PM’s instructions to convey to the media that the Prime Minister’s repeated pledges to “listen to the truth” did not mean that the media have the green light to “practice unrestrained reporting” of the truth….

Where he made a mistake in re-broadcasting Al Jazeera in RTM the morning after Bersih March was that he assumed that Al Jazeera being a muslim media opposed to Western style values of demonstrations would not, unlike CNN, report the unvarnished truth but would instead collaborate like RTM to bolster the Islamic government’s image. Where he had made “made a fool of himself” is in the sense of his misjudging Al Jazeera and scolding it for siding Opposition, when evidently there was no agenda for the international media to be partisan especially when it is presently embarked on the trail to enhance its international credibility.

On the other question whether he is really a fool, one has to judge by the content of what he was trying to say in the interview than how he said it – though how he said it admittedly might embarrass many of us – which was hampered to a large extent by his lack of proficiency in spoken English, which in part was due to him being educated in Malay medium at Maktab Mahmud Alor Star (I think?) up to Form 6.

So I’ve tried to understand and re-paraphrase what exactly he was trying to say in the interview, discounting the language weakness that might otherwise convey the wrong impression.

When Al Jazeera asked why were protesters sprayed with chemical laced water, Zam made two points: that street demonstrations were not Malaysian tradition; that chemical laced water was reasonable to break up gathering not tantamount to unreasonable force as would the case of tear gas if it were extensively used.

Al Jazeera then said its correspondents came back with chemicals in the eyes (suggesting what’s the difference?) and Zam, not answering that, said that it was not right to compare what happened with that which happened in Burma and Pakistan.

Al Jazeera then responded unfortunately we appeared like Burma & Pakistan when we refused to allow people to protest to which Zam did not respond but kept insisting we’re a democratic country without explaining how in relation to Al Jazeera’s statement.

Then Al Jazeera took another track and said if Zam claimed we’re a democratic country why did the government not allow demonstration & protest to which Zam replied that we allowed demonstration – what he meant was that the gatherings were allowed here and there up to a point or time permissible from public order point of view but when the police demanded that the time was up and that they should disperse,then they should comply or suffer the consequences (water cannons and chemical spray). Zam added that in any case the Bersih’s representatives were allowed and did achieve their purpose in presenting the memorandum to the King.

Then Al Jazeera asked why didn’t authorities break up the gatherings more peacefully, Zam said it was illegal assembly (implying how otherwise peacefully could authorities break such an illegal assembly up) – the police had handled the situation as best they could, given the situation.

Finally, Al Jazeera asked why was the assembly illegal. Zam said there was no reason to protest since unlike Burma we’re a democracy having elections without fail. As parting shot Zam accused Al Jazeera’s portrayal as helping the opposition who were impatient and not democratic in belief.

So how is his rating as a spin master and how does he compare with (say) the famous or infamous Iraqi Information Minister of Saddam Hussein Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? :)

“…//…I understand that the name calling truly does fit to Zam. But it should be used by anyone else other than you. You also have a reputation as a professional politician to protect…// – bra888’s posting of November 14th, 2007 at 00: 21.24 above

Generally it is true that civilized and rational debate eschews name-calling, very clear examples of which are calling the other side “bodoh”, “gila” “moron” (lose wires in the head), “pondan” etc. Such name-calling is meant to hurt. It’s ad hominem and contributes no logical value to the debate; it explains nothing about why the other side is wrong.

When Kit called him ‘Minister of Disinformation’ it is, to an extent, a kind of name calling but the difference is that it is not meant to hurt personally.

It is more a pun, a play on words, adding a “dis” to “information” that viola ends in a diametrically opposite meaning. But it is not really personal : it’s backed up by facts that the Minister of Information, paid by public funds, instead of giving accurate information to the public had given a spin instead therefore making the description Minister of Information as in giving accurate information something of a misnomer!

Yes of course there is an element of ridicule but such is acceptable if not desired in political exchanges esp. in parliament intended to elicit a laugh at opponent’s expense for his untenable behaviour or position rather than character assassination of one’s opponent per se.

Kit is too much an old hand in the game and has more intelligence than to fall for the latter game.

Parliament is supposed to a place where public and rakyat interest is served in adversarial debate, a very much part of which is also verbal warfare using language to demystify the opposite side’s position. There is always a place for witty, imaginative and clever insult based on valid grounds which is very different from just crass name callings like “bodoh”, “gila” “moron” (lose wires in the head), “pondan” without basis.

Our quality of parliamentarians is poorer not because they often insult one another in debate but because they cannot insult enough in a tasteful, refined, witty and intelligent maner based on facts and logic.

The best they could do is “bochor” or some reference to “tunnel” in relation to AirAsia’s stewardesses’ uniform which sexual innuendoes are more a reflection of their repressed sexuality than witty intelligence!