Media council: Gov't strikes again

Top editors and media interest-groups have been invited to meet government officials tomorrow for a fresh round of discussions on the proposed - and much contested - National Media Council.

When contacted today, a senior Home Ministry official said the government is initiating talks with the main stakeholders in the print, electronic and Internet media, as well as non-governmental groups, to get their “perspectives and opinions” on forming the council.

“We roughly have a draft in mind but we want the input from the individuals concerned,” said the official who declined to be named.

“After we get the input from the editors then we have to see whether it is viable to set up the council… if they don’t agree with the model and they are against it, we cannot move forward.”

Invitations to the meeting, to be held at 10.30am at the Home Ministry in Putrajaya, have been sent to 33 representatives of newspapers and television stations, as well as Malaysiakini, the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI), National Union of Journalists and a bloggers’ group, among others.

According to the list circulated, the secretaries-general of three ministries - Home, Information, and Energy, Water and Communications - will also attend.

The official said the discussions may be widened to other stakeholders, but that this would depend on the outcome of the meeting tomorrow.

Asked if the proposed body would be supervised by the government since ministry has initiated the discussion, the official said “the council will be managed by editors themselves”.

There are long-held concerns that the government is attempting to force another layer of control through the council, as a previous proposal by the MPI - since defeated - had attempted to create an enabling law to bring in the body.

Another sticking point has been over the array of anti-press laws that strictly control the print and broadcast media, including the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA).

The official, when asked about possible repeal of the PPPA, replied that it is “too early to say” if this is likely.

“It depends on the implementation… if the outcome is good then maybe we can look into it (repealing the PPPA),” said the official.

This is unlikely to appease journalists group who, since 1999, have sought the repeal of the annual newspaper licensing provision in particular and have since insisted that this should be the starting point of any move to set up a media council.

Whether the proposed council will take the form of a statutory model or whether it will be an independent body will be among talking points for the meeting, he said.

The official added that the council is intended for the “advancement of journalism”, but declined to respond to further questions until after the scheduled discussion.

Situation to date

The last round of discussion on the media council was hosted by the Human Rights Commission, which had hosted a consultative dialogue on Jan 8, 2004.

General agreement had been registered among journalists, editors and civil society groups on the need for a council, although they did not reach consensus on the details.

At the time, journalists' groups jointly proposed that:

• The council's jurisdiction should apply only to the print media. (The electronic media are bound by other provisions and the Internet media is guaranteed free operations under the Bill of Guarantees of the Multimedia Super Corridor project.)

• The council must be a voluntary and independent mechanism created, funded and managed by the media industry, not by the executive or legislature.

• Its establishment must be preceded, at minimum, by repeal of the annual licensing provision of the PPPA.

• A time-frame must be set for reform of all laws that constrain the media.

A 10-member stakeholder committee was to have been set up to determine a suitable model and constitution for the council, and to adopt a code of ethics. This process did not materialise.

In the absence of media-law reform, a stalemate has arisen. This has not prevented government representatives from sending out conflicting signals on the proposal. (See chart below)