Seven Relevant Demands


Home Aliran Monthly Statements Human Rights NGOs Links Join Us About Us

Seven Relevant Demands

Towards Greater Media Freedom

by KAMI

An Appeal for Press Freedom to SUHAKAM, 2000

• Aware of the importance of the media as the cornerstone of a democracy and also crucial for the strengthening of professional journalism in the wake of increasing curbs against writing and publication.
• Aware of the existence of autocratic laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, and the ISA as well as a number of other equally repressive laws and restrictive conditions, and
• Aware of the double standards practised by the Home Affairs Ministry over the issuance and revocation of publishing permits, we the undersigned appeal to Suhakam to investigate, assess and make recommendations for the following matters:

To review, amend, or repeal any law, particularly the Printing Presses and Publications Act, that violates a human right (freedom of expression and of access to information) and is undemocratic.

To make it compulsory for the Home Affairs Minister or his subordinates, or any ministers and government officers to put in writing any complaints or decisions relating to any journalist, publisher, editor or writer.

To abandon the practice of issuing publishing permits. It is adequate for all publishers, writers, journalists, and editors to notify the government ministries or agencies concerned about their activities.

To create an independent body that would act as an ‘arbitrator’ in the event a written work or published material becomes the subject of conflict between a publisher, an editor, a journalist or a writer on the one hand and the Minister concerned or any government officer on the other.

To urge that no publication be banned prior to it being brought to a court of law and before going through due process, i.e. providing enough space and time for the publisher to state his defence. Only the court should be entitled to decide whether the publisher can or cannot continue its activities. (This process is suggested as an alternative should a process of arbitration [such as in Appeal 4] prove to be ineffective.)

To strongly appeal that owners of printing presses and printing companies be not made liable for any errors made by publishers, editors, journalists and writers. Just protection should be accorded to the owner and printing company to avoid their incurring losses as a result of action taken against publishers, editors, journalists and writers.

To call for the enactment of a law to prohibit mandatory jail sentences or detention without trial against publishers, editors, journalists and writers who have committed errors in journalism.
(This appeal was signed by 14 journalists, cartoonists, writers, editors and a publisher of an independent Malay publication before it was sent to Suhakam last year.)

Last October, a group of independent journalists had a meeting with Suhakam to discuss media freedom. One of the major themes touched upon was the seven demands of the Independent Media Activists Group (Kumpulan Aktivis Media Independen or KAMI), a loose band of a number of publishers, writers and journalists from the non-mainstream media.

The seven demands were made in response to the Home Ministry’s action to ban newspaper Eksklusif and magazines Al-Wasilah and Detik.

Although brief, the seven demands are vital in the struggle to free the country’s media from restrictions. Besides suggesting that laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 be amended, KAMI also posed a number of important and relevant issues. Among others, KAMI has suggested that:

the Home Ministry or its officers officially file their complaints with the media concerned;

the practice of issuing publishing permits be ended and instead the ministry should merely be informed of the types of publications planned;

an independent body be instituted as an ‘arbitrator’ so that writings that are considered controversial can be reviewed;

should the above process fail, a publication must not be banned without due process of law;

owners of printing presses must not be blamed for offences committed by publishers; and

a law be enacted to prohibit mandatory jail sentences or detention without trial from being applied to publishers, editors, journalists and writers and printers who make genuine journalistic errors.

The last demand (f) may be considered as being “too progressive” by certain journalists for the government to entertain it. I feel that the government would find it not only difficult to fulfill demand (f), but also demand (a).

detik These demands made by KAMI are not new. In fact, more than 1,000 mainstream media journalists had already made similar demands in 1999 and last year. So far, the Home Ministry has not shown any sign of interest. Instead, its minister chose to close down Al-Wasilah last September despite “promising” to look into the banning of Detik last March.

In addition, the stubborn attitude of the Information Department (under the Information Ministry) not to grant press accreditation cards to online newspaper Malaysiakini.com is indeed puzzling. According to a member of the Federal Cabinet, the publications law is obsolete and the Information Ministry is still caught in its own inflexibility.

Why does KAMI present these seven demands? These demands really are a “package” meant to seek a middle path and to provide justice for all parties in the event of a conflict between the government (KDN) on the one hand, and publishers and the general public on the other.

The suggestion that all complaints made by KDN be filed in writing (demand [a]) is aimed at achieving openness and accountability. At present, officers of the Home Ministry can act in the most arbitrary manner, using the phone to harass the publisher and editor concerned. When their pressure was criticised as irrelevant or undemocratic, KDN officials would argue defensively that they were only “advising” the editor concerned not to repeat such coverage. What advice?

This means that KDN, with its immense powers, can act arbitrarily. In the meantime, the publisher or editor does not have solid evidence to show that the ministry has violated media freedom because the “advice” was given orally. That is why a third party, for instance, Suhakam, the court, the police, or a reader, would find it difficult to locate the source of conflict between KDN and the media. A responsible government would be brave enough to clearly state its complaints in writing so that all parties concerned can assess them.

If publishers, editors and journalists are required to be open and responsible, why can’t the KDN adopt the same attitude?

KAMI’s second demand is that the requirement for an annual publishing permit be abolished because it has been misused as a convenient threat to revoke the permit without any justification.

The issuance of permit is really redundant. There is no longer a need for permit as all media are distributed in an open manner to the public, and the name and address of the publishing company concerned are clearly mentioned. These publishing companies are also registered with the Registrar of Business (ROB) or Registrar of Companies (ROC). If an association publishes its own bulletin, its address, the identity of its leaders and members, and minutes of its annual general assembly are all lodged with the Registrar of Societies (ROS).

If the police, the government or the general public wishes to register its dissatisfaction (for instance, by filing a defamation suit) or if they wish to investigate or to get relevant information, they can do so by eliciting information from the ROB, the ROC, or the ROS.

KAMI does not condone irresponsible pamphlets whose publishers, writers or distributors are not known. The media must be accountable to the people and the government. That is why all independent media have names (and photos) of publishers, editors and journalists so that they are known to the general public.

A journalist or writer (who does not work with a publishing firm) has to disclose his full name and address as this information is needed for the purposes of making payments. If a publisher doesn’t have information regarding a journalist or writer, the publisher will be made liable for any errors committed in the writing. The publisher is required to record the particulars of all contributors.This practice encourages writers or journalists to make their contributions more responsibly.

Based on the rationale above, KAMI objects to the issuance of permits as practised by KDN. KAMI, however, feels that there is a need for all writers, publishers and journalists to furnish government agencies with all required information.

Demand (b) is just and relevant to the needs of the present. KDN would argue that this demand is justified unless the Ministry has a secret agenda.

Demand c) is raised as a way of overcoming problems involved in writing or expressing views. The media cannot escape from making mistakes, and will have to be ready to face risks or other consequences should there be anyone from the general public who challenges any view expressed in the writings concerned. Any aggrieved reader can take a number of actions, for instance, he or she can:

request that the publisher issue its own clarification or publish a clarification from the aggrieved party;
urge the publisher to make a public apology and retract all or parts of the writing;
take legal action.

If a publisher, writer or journalist concedes that he/she is in the wrong, and is agreeable to the suggestions made by the reader, then he/she can do whatever that pleases the reader. But if publisher/writer wants to defend himself/herself, who will be the third party to investigate and deliberate on this conflict?

A third party is suggested in demand (c) above. For example, in labour law, there is the industrial court to help resolve any dispute between employer and employee. The function of this third party is to hear, investigate, judge and decide on the compensation (if any) for the party that disputes a report or writing in the media concerned.

In advanced countries, this “middleman” is called a press council that is formed by press representatives, government and the public. It is free and operates independently of the government. A press council is not a court of law nor a government agency, but a third party that entertains complaints from the public over media reporting. It also acts as a middleman in cases of legal suits — for ridiculous amounts in damages – against any publisher, writer and journalist so that an out-of-court settlement can be reached.

Anyone can take legal action against any publisher, writer and journalist. The council’s function is really to satisfy those who feel that they have been the victims of unfair reporting or coverage by the media concerned. Media that have gone overboard must face the consequences. As far as laws go, KAMI does not object to the practice of legal action against writers and journalists even though KAMI is quite concerned about the colossal amounts claimed that often reach billions of ringgit.

Malaysian journalists are very much opposed to the Printing Presses and Publications Act, but do not object to parties taking legal action against publishers, editors and writers. In countries where press freedom is mature, legal action is seldom initiated– and this is what KAMI hopes Malaysia will aspire to.

Demand (d), that is if the above attempt (middleman) fails, the court must be the platform where people can seek justice. The problem now is that the government as well as the general public can take legal action against the media. But the media cannot take legal action against the government, ministers, KDN officials, or other government agencies. In this context, the government has absolute power or privileges as it is protected by such laws as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (amended 1987).

Sections 2, 6 and 13 of this obnoxious Act stipulate that the minister (meaning Home Affairs Minister) has absolute discretion to grant or revoke publishing permits anytime and without giving any reason. The minister’s decision is considered “final” and cannot be challenged in any court of law for any reason! Isn’t this law a source of injustice against the media?

Demands (d) and (b) have a close relationship: a government minister has absolute power to oppress the media, in particular the editor or journalist who writes freely and is often critical of the government. Even if the criticism is fair, the government via the KDN can easily revoke a publishing permit if it is unhappy with a particular writing. This was what happened to the Eksklusif newspaper and to the Detik and Al-Wasilah magazines. KAMI strongly protests this oppressive and unfair action of the KDN that tries to cover itself via the Act.

If this Act is to be amended, KDN and Suhakam must accept demands (b) and (d) as pointed out above.

If the media can take the government (or KDN) to court, then the court can decide whether it is the media or the government that is at fault.

The media are run by human beings and so is the government (or KDN) – both are liable to make mistakes and promote respective interests. Why can’t the decision of a minister be challenged in court when the government and the public can bring the media to court? Is this justice?

Demand (e) refers to two levels in the publishing process – one at the journalistic level and the other at the printing stage. Another level is distribution (which will not be discussed here). All forms of writing have to undergo editing and revision and the responsibility for this falls in the hands of journalists and eventually the publisher. But the printing companies and owners of printing presses must not be made liable. Printing firms only print the material that is published by legitimate individuals or groups. Whether there is any error of fact in the printed material should not be the concern of the printers.

The law that is being applied by the KDN now, however, does not distinguish between these two levels. As a result, printing companies or owners of printing presses are brought to court every time a writing is disputed. KAMI protests against this Act and maintains that printers should not be held liable for any errors contained in publications. It is enough that writers, editors, and publishers are brought to court as they are all responsible for whatever they write and publish.

Suhakam, the KDN and mainstream media journalists should consider seriously KAMI’s seven demands, which we feel are very relevant, as the first step towards the creation of free and independent media.

Besides, if we look at the world, including the West, the freedom that media have is not really absolute. The media can still be brought to and judged in court. But governments in the West are not in the habit of closing down publications.

The reality is that a permit is a harsh weapon of repression against writers, publishers and journalists. KAMI will continue its struggle!

This commentary was prepared by Fathi Aris Omar, founding member of KAMI and news editor of Malaysiakini. He was also editor of the Malay political magazine Detik, now banned.