Should Nga Kor Ming apologise? Absolutely not — and here’s why

Introduction

At the pre-launch of the urban lighting campaign I Lite U Project, under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Housing Minister Nga Kor Ming faced a pointed question: Why was the campaign title in English rather than Bahasa Melayu? According to coverage, the minister replied by saying he would call the reporter’s chief editor, adding: “I hope you don’t make this an issue.” The Star+3TRP+3MalaysiaNow+3

Following the incident:

• Media and journalist bodies flagged it as a threat or intimidation of the press. TRP+2MalaysiaNow+2

• Nga held a breakfast meeting with major media unions and later issued an apology-style statement. The Star+1

• The narrative shifted from the campaign’s objectives (tourism, night-economy, branding) to language usage and minister-reporter behaviour.

In this post I will argue that:

1. Nga’s remarks, while rough around the edges, were not a genuine intimidation of the press but a reaction to what many public-servants perceive as repetitive symbolic questioning.

2. The journalist at that event might have placed undue emphasis on a language question instead of digging into the campaign’s substance.

3. More broadly, journalism should prioritise outcome-oriented public-policy scrutiny rather than chasing emotional flash-points around language and identity.

1. Was he really threatening? Or simply expressing frustration like many Malaysians who feel certain groups repeatedly play the language-and-race card when the country is trying to do something positive?

Let’s unpack the exchange. The reporter asked about why “I Lite U” (English) rather than Malay. Nga responded referencing tourism and global appeal: “Every tourist that visits Malaysia needs to feel a sense of belonging… you have to learn how to come out of your comfort zone.” TRP

The more controversial lines:

“I will remember, I will call your chief editor.” MalaysiaNow+1

Journalist associations such as the National Union of Journalists Malaysia (NUJ) described it as an attempt to intimidate media. TRP+1 The government later confirmed the minister met media reps and publicly withdrew the comment. The Star+1

However:

• The event is a public press conference of a major campaign; interaction between minister and media was expected.

• The reporter’s question was limited to language branding rather than core project metrics (budget, timelines, outcomes).

• Nga’s reaction, though brusque, appears triggered by a question that prioritised symbolism over substance—understandable in a high-stake campaign environment.

Thus, while the wording was ill-advised and tone could have been better, calling it a full-blown threat flattens nuance. Frustration doesn’t equate to systematic suppression. If anything, it reveals how routine symbol-politics questions can derail substantive discussions.

2. Should the journalist in that event prioritise promoting the campaign (by the ministry) or focus on language matters?

At its core the “I Lite U” campaign is aimed at boosting Malaysia’s nighttime tourism identity, international appeal and urban vitality. According to The Rakyat Post, the initiative targets transforming Bukit Bintang into a global-city style precinct, with an RM4 million allocation and a target visitor-impact of 47 million international arrivals. TRP

In that light, a journalist’s role at such an event might reasonably include questions such as:

• What is the budget and funding mechanism?

• What are the KPIs (visitor numbers, revenue, local business benefit)?

• Which partners are involved? What is the timeframe?

• How will night-time infrastructure, safety, transport be addressed?

Instead, the question that got spotlighted was: “Why is the title in English instead of Malay?” A valid cultural question, yes—but arguably peripheral to the campaign’s substance and impact. That shift in focus allows the minister’s response—and tone—to become the headline, not the campaign itself.

Journalists have a duty to hold public-policy actors to account. Part of that means highlighting outcomes, risks, transparency. When the focus skews toward language, branding and identity spats, actionable insight may get crowded out. The public deserves reporting on what the campaign will achieve, how it will deliver, who will benefit. Language is significant—but it should not dominate.

3. Should journalists focus on real news — or on language and click-rage matters?

In today’s media environment, there is intense competition for attention. Emotional triggers—language, identity, race, culture—often draw clicks. But good journalism, especially in public-policy contexts, demands depth, context and consequence.

Risk #1: Substance gets sidelined. When media fixates on “Is the title Malay or English?”, the greater questions vanish into the background: how much investment? what returns? which precincts? how will local communities benefit? The campaign’s success or failure becomes an afterthought.

Risk #2: Conflict becomes the story, not the outcome. The frame becomes “Minister threatened reporter” rather than “New night-economy campaign aims at millions of tourists and revenue”. Minister’s tone becomes villainous, reporter becomes culture-hero—but the policy mission is ignored.

This is not to argue that language/identity questions are irrelevant—they matter. In Malaysia, the national language (Bahasa Melayu) is a constitutional, cultural anchor. Symbolism matters. But when symbolism overtakes substance, the balance is lost.

Journalists should ask:

• Is my question advancing public understanding of the campaign’s goals?

• Is it providing insight into execution, impact, accountability?

• Or am I leveraging a flash-point because it provokes emotion, drives headlines, but offers little deeper insight?

4. Why this matters for Malaysia now

Malaysia is highlighting tourism and international presence. If campaigns such as “I Lite U” succeed, there is potential benefit: more visitors, higher revenues, enhanced global branding, local businesses engaged, night-economy revitalised.

In that mission the language used in a campaign title is a tactical design choice. It matters for brand positioning, readability to foreign visitors—but it is not the strategic mission. If the campaign fails to deliver, no amount of language defence will redeem it. Conversely, if the campaign succeeds, the title’s language becomes a footnote.

When the media pivots early to semantics and culture-flash-questions, the public dialogue shifts away from implementation and benefits. The minister then becomes embroiled in defence mode rather than forward-looking execution mode.

Thus, for both government and media, the priority should be: outcomes, transparency, delivery—not just optics.

Conclusion & Our Point of View: Should Nga Kor Ming apologise? No — at least not for the reason the media suggests

Based on the facts and context:

• The minister’s comments were ill-judged but not demonstrably part of a systematic attempt to suppress press freedom.

• The underlying question posed by the journalist was legitimate but overshadowed substance with symbolism.

• Journalists should be celebrated for their role—but equally encouraged to dig into what matters rather than only what triggers.

• Apologising under pressure over language symbolism would elevate the symbolic war (language vs culture) above the real battleground (policy outcomes, tourism growth, national benefit).

That said: ministerial conduct matters. Nga should have responded more calmly and constructively. A frank acknowledgement of tone and a commitment to better media engagement would serve trust and accountability. But an apology simply because the title was in English would reinforce the wrong priority—packaging over performance.

Discussion prompts

• Do you believe the language of branding (Malay vs English) really matters more than the substance and outcomes of a public campaign?

• When a journalist covers a major policy-event, should their priority be branding, language and identity—or implementation, metrics and impact?

• How do we ensure our media coverage holds leaders accountable for delivery and not just semantics?