 |
| Sri Krishnamurti pn74 |
Its author Sri Krishnamurthi, a journalist and Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies student at AUT, does an excellent job in giving voice to a range of views:
From Hank Art, the publisher of The Fiji Times who was charged with sedition of publishing material critical of the Bainimarama Government (and found not guilty);
To NZ journalist Michael Field who was banned for a while from visiting Fiji (and whose grossly misleading articles, incidentally, was a major reason I started this blog in 2007). "The Bainimarama government is clever enough to realise that they might not last with a free media.”
To Ricardo Morris, current affairs magazine editor in Fiji, who notes that the Media Authority (MIDA) set up to oversee the 2010 Media Industry Development Decree, and became law in 2015, "doesn’t have to do much anymore because (chairman – Ashwin] Raj) simply has to make comment or criticise a media company for some perceived slight and everyone retreats." Self-Censorship is the norm.
“They’ll usually issue statements, and in the past there has been public shaming, so now you don’t really need to bring cases against the media because they are too afraid to do something that might jeopardise their position or if they do get charged they will get charged under some other criminal law as in the case of The Fiji Times now – they are charged under the Crimes Act, a case that has now gone to appeal. That’s a distinction.”
To Dr Shailendra Singh, coordinator of journalism at the University of the South Pacific, who wonders whether Fiji is ready for a free media. " Media have been known to inflame situations, just as governments have been known to use stability and security as pretexts to curtail media scrutiny and criticism. Finding the right balance can be elusive,“ he says.
“Whether Western notions of free, unrestrained media are suitable for a developing, fragile, ethnically-tense country is a moot point,” he says, reminding us without saying so that freedom needs to be in its historical and cultural contexts. What is applicable in the West may not be an exactd fit with what is needed or possible in other contexts.
“The media situation', he adds, " is not going to change – that I can say with some confidence. The laws are going to remain the same for some time yet."
How this may affect election results is anybody's guess.
Looking back to 2010
I wrote about the Decree in 2010, and went into some details explaining its provisions and implications. https://crosbiew.blogspot.com/2010/04/draft-media-industry-development-decree.html#more I quote from parts of it:
"There is an unstated assumption by many who criticize the Decree that democratic countries do not have laws like this but features of the Decree are seen in many countries. South African law, for example, can force journalists to reveal their sources; the Canadian Governor in Council (roughly the equivalent of Fiji's President and Cabinet) appoints directors and the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. The media and the public have no say. Malaysia has at least five Acts that limit media freedom. Fiji differs not in the specifics of the Decree provisions but in the absence of checks on the authority of Government. This would be less worrying were the government elected.
"Another assumption is that the primary political role of the media is as a watchdog on government, for only then, it is assumed, can ordinary people enjoy their human rights. This is not the perceived role of the media in Singapore. There the media is seen as partners of government in nation-building. In other words, in that benevolent dictatorship, nation-building (i.e., acts to assist harmonious relationships in a multi-ethnic society) is seen as more important than media freedom and the public's right to access all information. Fiji is also a multi-ethnic county and the Fiji Decree is modelled on Singapore.
"A third assumption is that Western notions of media freedom usually provides the public with access to all information, presented in a fair and balanced manner. This is only partly true. Most media organizations are run as businesses, owned by businessmen and big business shareholders, and directed by people appointed by these same businessmen and shareholders. Rarely do we see the media speaking up for the poor, the underprivileged, consumers, the Trade Unions, workers on strike, or left-leaning governments. The Fiji Times most certainly did not when Fiji Labour Party-led government was in power. Media ownership and the extent of media freedom are linked."
*** Clearly, my views are close to those of Dr Singh. The social media threats of a coup to replace the Bainimarama Government if FijiFirst wins the elections need to be taken seriously, as did the bomb threats in 2009.
The Fiji Government definitely needs to be periodically urged to relax the MIDA Act and implement its provisions more liberally, while at the same time people need to recognize that media freedom may need to be more limited than in New Zealand or the West.
-- ACW
No comments:
Post a Comment