Rightly or wrongly, some Malaysians perceive the local media,  particularly the mainstream dailies, as docile and pro-government.

But when some foreign magazines base their reports on rumours and hearsay, these same readers would regard the content as gospel truth.

On the other hand, vernacular newspapers are regarded as bold but the accuracy of their reports are sometimes suspect and they often quote unnamed sources.

Last week, two major English dailies reported on their front pages that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad needed more time to choose a clean person to take over as the new Selangor Mentri Besar.

Two Bahasa Malaysia dailies and another English tabloid reported instead that the Sultan of Selangor did not consent to the choices made by the Prime Minister.

So which is which? The Sultan clarified in a statement that there was no disagreement between him and the Prime Minister while Dr Mahathir said he did not hand in a list of candidates to the Sultan, so the question of a consent did not arise.

Surely, reporters from different dailies cannot be hearing different things from the same person.

Checking what a person said on tape is one thing. An equally important factor to consider is how the questions were phrased and asked, and in what manner or tone were the questions answered.

Was it said in jest or was his reply quoted out of context by reporters?

Sometimes, public figures make vague statements, leaving reporters with the chore of having to interpret what was said.

Further confusion arose when, approached by reporters, several Umno leaders issued statements questioning the Sultan's purported refusal to give his consent.

Their immediate response to the press is commendable but the point is their information came from secondary sources the reporters they spoke to. The politicians were not at the palace to hear Dr Mahathir or the Sultan.

The result has been a suggestion of differences between the Sultan and Dr Mahathir and an impending constitutional crisis.

Misreporting is a serious matter and, as Dr Mahathir said just last week, it's an abuse of power and corruption by the press.

Reporters are only human. They make mistakes and sometimes interpret statements and actions incorrectly, but there is no excuse for being careless. Last week's events are nothing new. Such reporting has happened in  the past.

I recall interviewing a senior minister at the height of a party feud. Being not very fluent in English, the minister often paused and broke off his sentences with “you know what I mean-lah'' during the interview.

Those who had been covering his ministry knew exactly what he meant but one reporter, though experienced, became a victim of misinterpretation because she was unfamiliar with the lingo of the minister.

It was a disaster. Her report, published on the front page the next day, prompted the minister to retort that “she obviously didn't know what I mean.''

In another incident, a minister was asked by a reporter to comment on Malaysia's stand on an international issue. Hard-pressed for time, the minister told the reporter “tunggu-lah.''

The article that was published next day stated that the minister was taking a “wait-and-see attitude'' on the issue.

In a more recent case, all the Malaysian newspapers quoted ministers and sources as saying that the Cabinet wanted a freeze on dealings with Singapore following an unwelcome remark by Senior MinisterLee Kuan Yew  about Johor's security situation.

There was much confusion when a Cabinet minister later issued an official reply, saying that the press reports were “less than accurate.''

The Malaysian press, one may say, is hard-pressed at times but it certainly has no intention of being misleading.

Western reporters have been painting Hong Kong as a place of uncertainty with its imminent handover to China.

China is portrayed as the evil empire a nation burdened with corruption, soaring crime rate and a repressive regime bent on destroying Hong Kong's brand of free-market enterprise.

Almost every news despatch will talk about China's purported plans to curb civil liberties with Beijing's Tiananmen Square incident mentioned in one breath.

Suddenly, these gwai-lo reporters, who have been working and living in Hong Kong without a need for any visa passes, are talking about democracy and freedom of speech.

For years, they made no mention of Governor Chris Patten as  London-nominated but consider it fair game, in the name of press freedom, to label the territory's Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa as Beijing-picked.

They have also completely ignored the fact that for years the whites dominated the hierarchy of the civil service, especially the police force. Many locals, despite having the qualifications, were passed over in favour of expatriates because of the colour of their skin.

It is unfortunate that most newspapers, including those in Asia, will have to depend on lop-sided reports about the territory in the run-up to the handing over because of financial and manpower constraints.

In such circumstances, Asian newspapers will have to use their judgment on what is news and what is prejudice by these Western reporters. For example, the probable use of the Chinese language after July 1 has even become an issue.

One major news agency incorrectly reported Cantonese as a language instead of a dialect. But the issue of language should actually revolve around the lack of effort by the British to teach Hong Kong folk English.

The inability to speak English deprived many in Hong Kong of jobs and promotions.

At the same time, Martin Lee, the head of Hong Kong's opposition Democratic Party and a Beijing critic, gets the kind of attention given to only selected heads of government a meeting at the  White House with President Bill Clinton.

The United States now sees it fit to lecture China on how it should govern Hong Kong after July 1 when the Chinese have taken back what is rightfully theirs after 150 years.

The amount of misinformation on China is amazing but not surprising because Americans now consider China as its chief potential threat in economic and military terms.

Many of these concerns are rooted in ignorance and misunderstanding. Among the Republicans, liberal mass media and academics, China is a threat to the Americans on the world stage.

Efforts by Asian-Americans, mostly ethnic Chinese, to have some influence in the American political system faced a setback when donations by Asians became an issue.

An article in Newsweek on Feb 17 gave an early indication of what the US media would look for on July 1. Disruptions, protests and decrying of the abandonment of the Western values of freedom and democracy would be the diet of July 1.

It is difficult to impress upon Westerners that Hong Kong is no longer the world of Suzy Wong and that the People's Liberation Army is more involved in trading than military manoeuvres, with investments in over 20,000 companies worth billions of ringgit.

Asian watcher John Naisbitt correctly wrote in Megatrends Asia that the West should talk about how much the rest of China would end up looking like Hong Kong after July 1 and not the other way around.

There is no going back. When Macau returns to China in 1999, i  will be the end of Western dominance for the first time in 400 years, every inch of Asian soil will be controlled by Asians.

The year 2000 will be the Year of the Dragon, an auspicious beginning for Asians in the new millennium.