Race to free the media
- From: pluto <pluto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:19:19 +0800
Race to free the media
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21850
comment by Wong Chin Huat
IF there is one single law that should bear the responsibility for
Barisan Nasional's (BN) electoral setback on March 8, it is the
Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA).
Why was BN's well-oiled machine not aware of and unable to respond
effectively to the heightened public discontent over various issues
from the economy and crime to ethnic relations?
Media monopoly. Media censorship. Because entry to and existence in
the market are conditioned on BN-friendliness, the mainstream media
led the coalition's top leadership to believe in their own propaganda
but alienated most of their readers and audience. In the print media,
the key weapon of such media control was none other than the PPPA.
The act provides three tools to control the information and opinion
flows: (1) the licence to use any printing press that can print over
1,000 impressions per hour (Part II); (2) the annually renewable
permit to publish any periodical (Part III); (3) the power to ban any
undesirable publications (which is normally applied to books after
their publication or upon importation) (Part IV).
A Race in DeMahathirisation
The use of PPPA to control media was characteristic of Mahathir's era.
The strongman prime minister closed down three newspapers ? The Star,
Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan ? during the Operasi Lalang in 1987 when he
was embattled both within and outside his party.
The rejection of Makkal Osai's application for its 2008 publication
permit was therefore bizarre when PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
just embarked on a key de-Mahathirisation measure ? redeeming the
damage of the 1988 Judiciary Crisis which followed Operasi Lalang.
(Makkal Osai's permit was renewed last Thursday and it resumed
publication on April 26). As human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz asked
aptly: Reform? What Reform?
Perhaps due to the public outcry on Makkal Osai, in a round-about-turn
fashion, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar now talks about the
need to review PPPA.
Talk is cheap
If the Prime Minister and the Home Minister are sincerely interested
in media law reform, they should heed the demand of civil society on
the World Press Freedom Day (May 3) in 2006: set up a Parliamentary
Select Committee to comprehensively study media law reforms.
In other words, not only does the purpose and function of PPPA need to
be thoroughly investigated, so do those of the Sedition Act (seditious
publications), Internal Security Act (subversive documents) and
Official Secrets Act.
A select committee ? with members from both sides of the divide ? may
organise public hearings to maximise citizen participation, unlike the
conventional way of law-making where rules are made in the chamber of
the Attorney General under the order of the ministry and cabinet.
Talk is cheap ? now not only for the Barisan Nasional, but also for
Pakatan Rakyat, which controls 37% of parliamentary seats and five
states (where 46% of the nation's electorate reside).
BN and PR must outdo each other in democratising Malaysia
And media laws reform must be made one of the top priorities in the
renewed deMahathirisation drive alongside the reforms of the
judiciary, electoral system and process, ACA, police and other
institutions.
BN had kicked the ball into its own goal by initially rejecting Makkal
Osai's appeal to renew its permit, although it subsequently granted
the licence. It should now set up a Parliamentary Select Committee to
redeem its record.
The formation of a caucus for freedom of expression and freedom of
information by eight PR parliamentarians, which can be the push factor
for the Select Committee to be established, is a brilliant strike on
the opposition's side.
The Achilles' Heels of PPPA
But the PR can and must do more than just that. The five state
governments hold the key to effectively dismantle the core of PPPA by
exploiting the loopholes.
They could have easily come to rescue Makkal Osai the very next day
when it was told its permit would not be renewed by offering to
publish the newspaper free from any permit requirement.
One of PPPA's Achilles' heels lies in its Section 25(1) which states:
"Nothing in this Act shall extend to the publication or making of any
documents or periodical by or for the Federal or any State Government
or any statutory body."
Clearly, the provision was not drafted for the possibility of state
governments that would love free press more than the federal
government does.
While the subsection covers only production and is silent on
circulation, Sections 5 and 6 which deal with the permit do not
specify a permit exclusively for circulation independent from
publication.
Haris Ibrahim, the lawyer-activist who runs the People's Parliament
blog, splendidly points out an even greater loophole, newspapers as
defined by Section 2 of PPPA "does not include any publication
published by or for the Federal or any State Government or the
Government of Singapore".
In other words, anything published by or for a state government may
look like a newspaper, sound like a newspaper but is not a newspaper
legally speaking.
Since the entire Part III (Sections 5 and 6) of PPPA does not apply, a
newspaper published "for" a state can be sold nationwide.
Therefore if any PR state government had offered Makkal Osai to
publish "for" the state, whether or not the Tamil daily accepted the
offer, the threat of revoking or denying a newspaper or magazine its
publication permit is as good as dead.
Would this cost Makkai Osai or any authorised publication its
independence and reduce it to the mirror image of BN-controlled press?
No, not if the state government formulates a non-discretionary policy
that offers such an opportunity to publish for the state to any
entities fulfilling some minimum requirements and promises
zero-intervention in editorial matters.
In brief, a state government exercising its full power under Sections
2 and 25 of the PPPA can effectively render the act largely toothless.
Such "state activism" may be the exact catalyst needed to force the BN
Federal Government to establish a Select Committee on media law
reforms.
In the past, the opposition may get by with merely condemning the
ruling party through press releases.
Claiming to be the government-in-waiting, PR must now show its ability
and willingness to offer a better deal than BN.
The race to free the media is on. And talk is cheap.
Updated: 07:55AM Tue, 29 Apr 2008
---------------
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:17 AM
The media dilemma in the 2009 elections
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/04/29/the-media-dilemma-2009-elections.h\
tml
Sarah A.S. Pramono , Jakarta | Tue, 04/29/2008 12:39 PM | Opinion
A year before the 2009 election, the Indonesian media community faces
a stifling prospect. A clause in the 2008 law on legislative elections
states "print mass media (must) provide fair and balanced space and
time for election coverage, interviews and campaign ads for election
candidates".
The law further states that the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission
(KPI) or the Press Council (Dewan Pers) will be responsible for
monitoring election coverage, broadcasting and campaign ads conducted
by broadcasting and print media, as well as for levying sanctions
(with notification to the national and provincial election
commissions), in the event of violations, which at the far extreme
could take the form of recalling a broadcasting or printing license.
Unsurprisingly, the clauses sent a tremor throughout the media
community, with the deputy head of the Press Council, Leo Batubara,
proclaiming the regulation on election coverage and the threat of
license recall as threatening press freedom and defiantly calling for
mass media to essentially ignore the controversial clauses. Election
commission member Sri Nuryanti further stated that the election
commission would not regulate the mass media on election coverage and
campaign ads.
Both Vice President Jusuf Kalla (chairman of the Golkar Party) and
House of Representatives lawmaker Agus Purnomo (from the PKS faction)
reasoned that a "same opportunity" provision is needed in order to
ensure fairness in election coverage, while confusingly allowing that
the media has the right to determine newsworthiness.
A "loophole" in the law does state that further mechanisms on election
coverage, broadcasting, campaign ads and sanctions will be regulated
by the regulation on election commissions, in coordination with the
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission and the Press Council.
However, what is the consequence of this particular loophole? Both the
Press Council and the election commission refuse to acknowledge the
controversial clauses that hamper press freedom, while at the same
time some political elites, one-and-a-half months after the enactment
of the law, took three steps back and publicly reiterated the
independence of mass media on election coverage (Kompas, April 4,
2008).
Nonetheless, the provisions in the law established by the House and
the government can be understood from a different perspective. On one
side, mass media plays an important role. On the other side, mass
media is a business institution influenced by big investors. The
potential intimacy between politicians or groups with political clout
and owners of mass media can threaten the public interest. A
particular issue can be downplayed or blown out of proportion
depending on hidden agreements between untouchable powerful networks.
In developing countries, there is always the concern of the process of
establishing public policies being dominated by powerful investors. As
a result, there is often desire to separate news coverage with the
expression or political views of media owners. Clear separation
between news and editorials or opinions help build public trust.
Certainly, mass media holds a strategic position during the general
election period. Politicians need the media to effectively communicate
to a wider public audience their agendas, visions, missions,
platforms, qualifications, etc. The public needs the media to be
better informed citizens and thus make reasonable decisions on
election day.
Thus, in its role as the middle person, gatekeeper and watchdog, the
media can play a role in ensuring a smooth and fair election. In its
role in channeling politicians' messages, it can be trapped in a role
of only copy-pasting the agenda and platforms of candidates, with
little in-depth analysis. Such on-the-surface reporting is easiest
done and can effortlessly accommodate the "same opportunity" provision
in the 2008 law by providing equal and balanced space and time for all
candidates.
However, to enable voters to make informed choices, the media should
not stop at just being the purveyor of information, but to act as the
gatekeeper, presenting and analyzing the important points such as
comparison of platforms and their solutions to problems, while
ignoring the fluffy and irrelevant points.
To effectively perform its public function, the media must have the
independence to determine newsworthiness. As stated by David Bartless
of the Radio-Television News Directors, the "job of a journalist is
not to simply stand back and let the candidates say their piece. If
I'm the public, what I'm buying is the experience, the analysis, the
skepticism of a competent journalist.... That's what journalism is.
The rest is either publicity or reprinting."
Thus, what should be done by the media community in Indonesia? The
media community has the 1999 law on the press and the 2002 law
broadcasting, but now there is the 2008 law on legislative elections
with its "equal opportunity" provision.
This serves as a warning to the media community of impending future
problems when facing demands to be fair and balanced, which is
potentially subjective as each election candidate has his or her own
parameters. This also serves as a reminder for the media to be
professional and help establish fair elections. A smooth election
process, however, demands maturity not only from the media but from
all parties, including election candidates and voters. There is a
railway track to follow: mutual control toward mature political
behavior.
The writer is an MA graduate of California State University,
Sacramento, and currently working in media and democratization.
================================================
Berita Malaysia - Free Malaysian News & Discussion Group
Archives/manage subscription: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beritamalaysia
Subscribe : Blank e-mail to: beritamalaysia-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe: Blank e-mail to: beritamalaysia-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bmalaysia - Just The Malaysian News (Free of charge)
Archives/manage subscription: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bmalaysia
Subscribe : Blank e-mail to: bmalaysia-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe: Blank e-mail to: bmalaysia-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==============================================
caveat fair use notice:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
.
- Prev by Date: Sinchew: For Whom The Road Tolls
- Next by Date: Re: Quote from Sheik Hilali .. australia's top Muslim Cleric
- Previous by thread: Sinchew: For Whom The Road Tolls
- Next by thread: can UMNO survives without corruption money
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
