“

..

Excerpts from:

https://twitter.com/esshimself/status/1254616615808692224?s=20

‘Our correspondent’

In an age of misinformation and half-truths, judging the authenticity of an online news publication has never been easy.

Pic: Andre Carrilho

News publication Asia Sentinel (AS) on Thursday (April 23) ran a contentious article on Health Ministry director-general (DG) Noor Hisham Abdullah under the headline “Malaysia’s Health Czar Under Fire” with a standfirst that read: “Critics charge mismanagement, authoritarian behaviour.”

The TLDR of that story is in the lede:

A widening chorus of critics charges that Malaysia’s Director-General for Health, Noor Hisham Abdullah, has badly mishandled the country’s approach to the Covid-19 virus while fostering a cult of personality around him and aggrandizing his importance, almost rendering him out of control.

That post drew a lot of flak, with the highlight being the story’s byline, “Our Correspondent.”

How could a respectable outlet like AS perform a hatchet job, and a badly executed one to boot? Or that was the impression I got from my readings of reactions on social media. 

Noor Hisham, as the AS article rightly points out, has been receiving almost rock star-like admiration for being perceived as among the few voices of reason in dealing with the Covid-19 crisis, given the gaffes of his boss Health Minister Adham Baba, who had courted infamy for spreading misinformation. 

Under that context, it is easy to understand why the Malaysian public would rush to Noor Hisham’s defence in the face of such an article. 

But in a different day and time, as well as subject matter, AS would have been hailed a hero. The publication, according to its website, brands itself as “independent of all governments and major media enterprises.” It also claims to have won the prestigious Society of Publishers in Asia (or Sopa) awards for investigative and interpretive reporting. 

Its founders, John Berthelsen and Philip Bowring, are no less than celebrities in the regional news industry. Berthelsen was, among others, chief editor at the Asian Wall Street Journal while Bowring was former chief editor of now-defunct Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER).
–

So how do we begin treating outlets like AS? There are a few things we as model news consumers need to accept primarily due information being disseminated online.
–

The most basic step is to just slow down and think about information, whether they are true, false or somewhere in between. 

Then, determine whether the article has first-hand sources. In the case of AS’ critical take on Noor Hisham, there are no sighted leaked documents, legal filings, interviews or direct quotes (where even AS’ unnamed sources are not even directly quoted), or press releases. 

Move on to AS’ use of links. For example, the article claims this:

Last year, Noor was associated with allegations reported by Asia Sentinel of a cover-up of systemic corruption in MMC disciplinary hearings which allowed doctors accused of gross professional misconduct to go free of sanctions.

But checks with its hyperlinked documents do not point to how Noor Hisham was “associated” with such allegations. Its own so-called scoop on MMC even lacked any mention of Noor Hisham. 

There is the spin. What makes this AS story difficult to gauge is its reference to other acceptable news sites and articles. While it gives the impression that research had been done and the article is factual, AS is actually going all the way in trying to fit these references into a certain framework or narrative.
–

And there is weighing the evidence. This part here is subjective and I have not read AS widely enough to determine how consistently accurate the publication has been over the years.

But, in any case, weighing the evidence here means looking at how the story works to see which parts are complicated and subjective, which parts are quite or probably accurate, and how much of it should change your opinions or behaviour. 

For example these paragraphs:

However, in early April, that started to come apart. A private-sector physician accused him of “living in an ivory tower” and his ministry of failing to protect medical front-liners following reports that lack of personal protective clothing had left 30 healthcare workers testing positive.

Public attacks exploded against his detractor, calling for him to be sacked from his job. On April 14, however, Noor was forced to acknowledge that there was only personal protective equipment to last for 14 days. He offered no apology, with critics complaining that cyberbullies were protecting him. One social media critic adopted the moniker “Anonymous — for fear of persecution.”

But we know that it was a bunch of so-called Umno veterans who called for the sacking of said physician, in this case, Dr Musa Nordin, and not exactly the public at large. And as for social media critics complaining of cyberbullying, that is a subjective but expected experience in online discourse. 

So, at least in my book, this AS article fails to cut the mustard, even for a hit piece. Why did AS do such a terrible job? Your guess is as good as mine. But, in my opinion, the least that AS could have done is to put an individual byline to its article if it really believed that criticism of Noor Hisham deserves attention and merit.

https://themalaysianist.substack.com/p/the-other-correspondent

..

Excerpts from:

https://twitter.com/KittySn52889207/status/1253541585335156737?s=19

Malaysia’s Health Czar Under Fire

Critics charge mismanagement, authoritarian behavior

Our Correspondent

Apr 23

A widening chorus of critics charges that Malaysia’s Director-General for Health, Noor Hisham Abdullah, has badly mishandled the country’s approach to the Covid-19 virus while fostering a cult of personality around him and aggrandizing his importance, almost rendering him out of control.

The pandemic has now affected at least 5,532 victims and caused 93 deaths although the critics charge that delays and miscues in testing and tracking, which are crucial to reining in the virus, have made the numbers meaningless. Tests now are being conducted on 3,515 subjects per million of population, compared to 16,203 per million in Singapore, for instance, with more than 1,000 cases per day currently being discovered in the city-state compared to only double figures in the whole of Malaysia.

Noor, who is also the chairman of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC), has become the frontman for the campaign, a budding public star who exhibits a thoughtful demeanor and a deadpan delivery as he describes the developments in the campaign against the virus. But the critics charge the ministry’s complacency borders on negligence.

Last year, Noor was associated with allegations reported by Asia Sentinel of a cover-up of systemic corruption in MMC disciplinary hearings which allowed doctors accused of gross professional misconduct to go free of sanctions.

Malaysia’s first cases were confirmed on January 25 in visitors from Guangdong and Wuhan (case number 4) in China, which most experts agree was the source of the original outbreak. Only two days before, on January 23, Wuhan had been placed into full lockdown affecting 11 million people following the Chinese government’s acknowledgment that a life-threatening epidemic was underway. Other local cases emerged slowly from unknown sources, suggesting that the virus had found other entry points and community transmission pathways. Nonetheless, critics say, despite having identified cases directly from the source city and with evidence of localized infection and transmission, Noor and his team at the health ministry made few if any emergency preparations.

This lack of prior preparation between the first outbreak and the national lockdown, formally known as the Movement Control Order, which wasn’t issued until March 18 – 53 days later – resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators, beds and above all testing and tracking equipment, which many claim may have cost the lives of dozens of people.  

Indeed, as late at April 17, Noor had only just sourced and ordered rapid test kits from Korea almost three months after the first cases and one month into the national lockdown. During this period of inactivity, on February 12, by which time the WHO was reporting 45,171 cases globally, the then-Health Minister, Dzulkifly Ahmad announced in direct contradiction to WHO advice issued the previous day that public gatherings in Malaysia would not be banned. Noor appears to have played a central role in delivering advice to go ahead with the event, a religious affair that focuses on persuading Muslims to return to practicing their religion.

That decision was to prove a disaster for the management and spread of Covid-19, leading to thousands more cases and at least 20 deaths.
–

All three appeared reluctant to discuss the director general’s role in these decisions or to cite Noor as the source of the advice that the mass gatherings could go ahead. Local media in turn have notably refrained from asking Noor for clarification on the issue of whether he advised that the event could proceed.

Cult of personality

Part of the reason for that appears to be Noor’s surprising public popularity, with local, seasoned journalists writing uncritical valentines to him. Reports have appeared of children sending him gifts. There was a public celebration of his 57th birthday. Even veteran politician Lim Kit Siang, leading figure of the opposition Democratic Action Party, called for him to be named Health Minister. He has been given the same accolades as Anthony Fauci, the central figure in the US campaign against the virus.

However, in early April, that started to come apart. A private-sector physician accused him of “living in an ivory tower” and his ministry of failing to protect medical front-liners following reports that lack of personal protective clothing had left 30 healthcare workers testing positive.

Public attacks exploded against his detractor, calling for him to be sacked from his job. On April 14, however, Noor was forced to acknowledge that there was only personal protective equipment to last for 14 days. He offered no apology, with critics complaining that cyberbullies were protecting him. One social media critic adopted the moniker “Anonymous – for fear of persecution.”

Power grab and humiliation

Noor was given unprecedented control over managing the lockdown. On March 16, he was criticized for advising the lockdown in the first place. On April 9, he rejected a call by 14 former presidents of the Malaysian Medical Association for a staged wind-down of the first phase of the MCO. Instead, it was extended with even greater powers granted to him without referral to political leaders.
–

Even Muhyiddin has seen government policy rescinded or effectively sabotaged by Noor’s rulings. After the premier had announced on national television that the Movement Control Order (MCO) would be eased, Noor publicly contradicted him, disagreeing with the decision. Later, he effectively sabotaged a Health Ministry order requiring prior testing of all employees for firms opening up under the prime minister’s new regulations, delaying the reopening for two weeks pending the testing process. Former ministers have also not escaped humiliation as the spat around his former boss Dzulkifly has shown.

Noor now appears to be untouchable, a growing chorus of critics say. Former ministers fumble for excuses to cover up his failure to advise them to ban the Tabligh, which caused thousands of infections and dozens of deaths. Almost every day he identifies new, previously ignored at-risk groups which are used to justify the lockdown for weeks or months to come.

https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/malaysias-health-czar-under-fire

..