Charter 2000 Media Statement
Proposed Media Council: Repeal Repressive Laws and Ensure Independence
Charter 2000 welcomes any effort to help the media industry to regulate itself with the twin objective of not only improving professional standards but also promoting and defending press freedom and freedom of expression. The setting up of a credible, independent media council is one of the ways that the media and journalists can achieve self-regulation. Another way would be through the appointment of an independent media ombudsman.
Self-regulation, however, would only be meaningful and effective if laws that impinge upon press freedom are repealed. The existence of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act are in conflict with the very notion of self-regulation. Unless these laws are repealed, working journalists deemed to have committed professional misdemeanours may have to face two sets of regulatory mechanisms: the media council's rules and regulations, and the existing repressive laws. To maintain such laws on the statute books is tantamount to doubting the effectiveness and ability of the proposed media council to achieve self-regulation. Such double regulation will make editors and journalists even more fearful and prone to self-censorship.
The proposed Malaysian Media Council is reportedly modelled after the Press Council of India (PCI), which is set up by statute with the aim of preserving press freedom and promoting self-regulation. That may be fine in India (although the PCI has come under heavy criticism), where the press is a lot freer and more independent. But what press freedom is there to preserve in Malaysia when repressive laws are still in place?
To enhance its credibility among the public, the council must also be independent. An aggrieved citizen would only lodge a complaint with the council if he or she believes that the council can act without fear or favour to redress breaches of journalistic ethics. For the council to achieve genuine independence, the composition of its members is crucial. Given the ownership patterns of the Malaysian media, it is highly likely that the majority of the council members would come from media organisations that are closely linked to the powers-that-be. When it comes to decision-making, the voices of this majority are likely to suffocate those of the minority (presumably those from the alternative or independent media). Such domination or dictatorship on the council would not augur well for freedom of expression and social justice: many would then feel that it would be pointless to lodge complaints with the council given the political stance of its members.
Most credible contemporary press councils include a tripartite structure - representatives of owners, journalists and the public - and they rely on public censure to function effectively. Public censure will ensure that the council will probe not only complaints about media reports but also the effects of the increasing concentration of media ownership and attempts by the authorities to undermine press freedom.
For public censure to work, there has to be greater representation from the public or civil society. For instance, Australia has 11 public members, including an independent chair, and 10 members representing print news media organisations. The Press Council in New Zealand has six public members, including the independent chair, three news media representatives and two representing the journalists' union. By contrast, the proposed Malaysian Media Council has only eight non-media representatives, making up just about a third of its 25-members (including the chairperson). Given the poor state of media freedom in Malaysia, it is important for at least half the council members to come from civil society.
Who appoints the council members is also crucial. The proposed bill says that the council members will be appointed by the King. But if it is the Prime Minister who makes the recommendations, then we all know what kind of council it will be. One solution is for an independent committee - say an all-party parliamentary committee with fair represention from both sides of the divide - to make the recommendations after calling for nominations from media organisations, journalists and civil society.
To sum up, we want to see two things: the repeal of all repressive laws and much broader representation on the council from independent media and civil society.
Dr Mustafa Anuar and Anil Netto
| |||||||||||||||
