Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Contributed by Human Rights Committee

More freedom: Journalists and bloggers gathering at Dataran Merdeka to press for more press freedom during the “Walk for Press Freedom” event.

The Committee refers to Malaysiakini.com’s report on 1 June 2008 entitled “Walk proceeds, Zaid booed by journos”, an excerpt which reads as follows:

At the NPC, in a rather unpopular move, Zaid told the crowd of media freedom activists and journalists to look at itself first before telling the government what to do.

Zaid said that it was unfair to leave the responsibility of establishing media freedom to the government alone.

And despite the jeers coming from the 150-strong crowd, Zaid went on to explain that he was indeed all for media freedom.

However, he stressed the importance of responsible journalism and the need for media regulation.

"We cannot have total freedom for the media. There is no such thing. If there is, there would be anarchy. If you want the government to deregulate media freedom, you must offer us some alternatives," argued Zaid.

...

To this Zaid reiterated that the press was unwilling to listen to other perspectives, adding that proposals for reforms were a part of the press's responsibility as well, and not just up to the government.

"You can't put all the shortcomings to the law," he said.

Whilst we acknowledge the need for the Government and media operatives to work in unison to achieve greater media freedom, an important principle which we must not lose sight of and which has to be accepted by all concerned is the “natural” human position of freedom, as opposed to one of restriction or limitation. In other words, any discussion on media freedom has to be premised on the “original” state that the media must be free. Limitations to this state may only be imposed after genuine consultation with all stakeholders; and if the proposed measures are proportional and necessary to meet certain narrowly-defined objectives.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 provides as follows:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

 

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Well-taken critique has already been levelled time and again against draconian laws such as the Sedition Act 1948, Official Secrets Act 1972, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. These laws were originally enacted by the Government in an attempt to control and curtail our basic human freedoms. In today’s world, the feeble justifications advanced for their existence do not hold water and are therefore unacceptable to society.

The State now bears the primary burden of removing legislative curbs which have artificially impinged the natural position of freedom, restraints which were introduced by the State itself. Any sincere attempt to “de-regulate” the media and society must therefore start with an overt offer by the Government to review or repeal the said laws. It must also be accepted that the existing criminal and penal legislations in force are sufficient to regulate the media as with other actors in society.

Only upon the occurrence of this will there then be an equal and fair bargaining position between the State and media operatives for the return of the media to its proper place in society. A situation where the State holds stakeholders at ransom by dangling the “carrot” of the said laws to entice further regulatory measures on the media is quite objectionable.

The law is not the problem but a considerable problem, and the State cannot be heard to shift the lumber of restraints it created onto the media, without meeting the legitimate demands of civil society.

In this respect, the Committee endorses the “Memorandum on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information” by the Center for Independant Journalism (CIJ) and Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), and welcomes the proposal to include the relevant stakeholders in drafting the Terms of Reference for the Parliamentary Select Committee on Media Law Reform. As always, the Human Rights Committee will offer our expertise and assistance if required to do so.

Dated this 3rd day of June 2008
Human Rights Committee
Bar Council

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed