A freer role in the offing?

Will the amendments to the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the formation of a press council usher in change to the print media landscape in the country?

VETERAN journalist Zainon Ahmad is painfully honest when asked about the state of the mainstream media in this country.

He says the way mainstream media is operating right now is really not satisfactory.

There is a credibility problem, he admits, as mainstream media has failed to scrutinise issues or scandals and ask “all the necessary questions”.

“There have been many scandals like the NFC (National Feedlot Corporation). Did we scrutinise the set-up and ask the necessary questions at the press conferences? We are only asking all the questions now but it is already a bit too late.”

Zainon believes the way newspapers are run should be changed.

“For so long, all the mainstream newspapers have been too pro-government. But the 2008 general election has changed things a little bit. We have seen that the government can be any party and whatever it is, we should have a good press, a better press and a freer press,” he says.

The mainstream media always points to oppressive laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA), Sedition Act, or the Official Secrets Act (OSA) to justify what keeps them in check.

Until recently, newspapers have had to have their printing permit and licence renewed annually, which can be quite disconcerting because they can never be absolutely certain if they will get the okay from the Home Minister.

The Home Minister too has had the “absolute discretion” to refuse an application for a printing licence or a permit to print, publish, sell, import, circulate or distribute a newspaper, and the absolute power to suspend or revoke a licence or permit without stating a reason.

But all this has somewhat changed with the recent amendments to the PPPA which were tabled and passed in parliament last month.

Now, newspapers will no longer need their permit and licence to be renewed annually and the minister no longer has “absolute discretion”, which means his decisions can now be challenged in court.

While the mainstream press has generally welcomed the loosening of the PPPA, a number think it has not gone far enough.

Like many media practitioners, Zainon wants the PPPA repealed and other restrictive laws like the OSA rolled back.

“The amendments to the PPPA only removed the inconvenience of having to apply for the renewal of the permit every year and the minister's discretion. That's it.

“The power of the Act remains. There is enough power in it for the government to act against a newspaper,” says Zainon who is chairman of the working committee (under the Malaysian Press Institute) to set up a press council and draw up the proposal for the Press Council Act.

“If the government repeal the PPPA even today, they will be not be weakened or incapacitated in any way because there are still so many other laws like the OSA, Sedition Act and section of other acts that they can use against the press.

“I always tell the government that repealing the PPPA and rolling back the acts that control the press will not incapacitate them but will instead make them look good internationally and smell like a rose!”

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) general secretary V. Anbalagan says the NUJ is disappointed that the government came up with the recent amendments to the PPPA “suddenly” and passed it without a chance for the stakeholders to give feedback.

He notes that because newspapers have been fearful of losing their annual permit and licence, they end up practising self-censorship.

“You toe the line because you don't want to lose your permit. So newspapers don't write stories that make the authorities unhappy but that is not helping the government to be accountable,” he says.

“And newspapers tend to focus on sensational news to sell papers. There is no place for investigative journalism, so we are not playing our role.”

Newspapers also get directives from the Home Ministry from time to time and can get hauled up if there is a mistake, he adds. So, media owners are always having to walk the extra step to make sure their permit and licence are not suspended or revoked.

“Look at the online news portals. They don't need a permit or a licence and nobody (from the Home Ministry) calls them up so they'll run a story as long as it is not seditious, defamatory or against public order. They are a lot freer. You get a lot of opposition news there. When readers want information and newspapers don't supply that information, they go elsewhere to look for it.

“Newspapers need to ask Are we giving readers value for their money?'”

So now with recent amendments and the annual permit being done away with, newspaper owners can breathe a little easier.

“But even so, if you do a major boo-boo, the minister can still suspend or revoke your permit,” he says.

Anbalagan also finds it odd that the ministry issues the permit and then also plays the part of jury and prosecutor when dealing with the press. “If a newspaper has done something wrong, charge them in court. That way the newspaper can have its say in court instead of having the Home Ministry imposing its values on them.”

Hence Anbalagan welcomes the recent amendment which would allow the minister's decision to be challenged in court.

He points out that in the past, people found it difficult to get the Home Ministry to grant them a publishing permit for a newspaper.

The online news portal Malaysiakini applied twice for a permit but both times its application was rejected.

Deputy Home Minister Abu Seman Yusop defended the government decision last September, stating that the issuance of a publishing permit “is a privilege and not a right”.

When the new amendments are in place, one can expect the Home Minister's decisions to be challenged in court.

“We still don't know if the media will win a case against the minister. We leave that decision to the court. Who knows if we (media) get a good lawyer in court, we may win,” says Zainon, who is favour of more newspapers coming into the market.

“We should have a multiplicity of papers, then people can choose. Right now, there is not a sufficient number of newspapers yet.

“We must provide that opportunity so that people are able to choose (which newspaper to buy). Or do we not want to give them a choice? People must choose.”

The Star's group chief editor Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai questions why, in the age of the Internet, there is still a need for a printing permit.

“The world has changed. Malaysia has changed, so must the press. The archaic press laws must go. The whole requirement for a printing permit must go. It's as simple as that.

“In any case, the print media is a capital-intensive business and not many will rush in (if permits were done away),” he says.

For the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), the recent amendments to the PPPA are minor. Sure, it takes away the “super power” of the Home Minister but it isn't quite enough, says CIJ executive director Masjaliza Hamzah, citing Section 8A of the PPPA which remains.

Under that section, the printer, publisher, editor and writer of any publication can be charged with maliciously publishing “false news” and jailed for up to three years or fined up to RM20,000 or both if found guilty.

“It looks like the government still wants control. There is no interpretation of false news' in the PPPA. So what is false news' is determined by the minister. False news' can be used as a political tool to penalise some and not others,” she says.

For Masjaliza, laws like the PPPA (which is archaic and should be repealed) have a huge impact on people who have an interest in a free and fair media so the amendments should not have been bulldozed through “without reflection and consultation”.

Zainon candidly questions whether repealing the PPPA and giving the press greater freedom would actually encourage editors to produce better newspapers.

“Toeing the line has become a habit. Some might be using the lack of freedom in the press as an excuse. They say We can't produce a better paper because we have this and that law (restricting us).' If those laws are removed, would they be ready? I am not too sure,” he says, adding cheekily that editors these days seem to think it is better to miss a good story than to make a bad mistake which would cause them to be removed.

The roots of the PPPA goes back to 1948 during British rule when newspapers needed a permit annually to publish.

After the race riots of May 13, 1969, the Printing Presses Act 1948 (as it was then known) was strengthened.

Then in 1984, it was replaced by the all-too powerful and draconian Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA 1984), which accorded the Home Minister power of “absolute discretion” in granting or refusing a publishing permit and printing licence and to revoke or suspend it.

“That was the nail in the coffin for press freedom,” says Zainon.

Over the years, it has been a constant battle for the press to get the act repealed, or at least loosened. One of the ways the press has been looking into to get the act rolled back or repealed is the setting up of a media or press council to self-regulate.

“Let us take over the role as regulator. It is far easier and the government can look good by repealing the law,” Zainon says.

The idea to set up a media council to self-regulate is not new. Zainon says the late Tun Razak had in fact suggested it in 1973.

“But because we didn't set it up, subsequently the government put up these laws and more laws and other laws until now. In 2002, when we finished the draft law to set up a media council, too many laws had already been in place.”

In 1999, the media held a signature campaign calling for the repeal of the PPPA and handed over the petition with over 1,000 signatures to the then Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

A group of journalists, including Zainon, met with Abdullah who agreed to the setting up of the media council. The Malaysian Press Institute was to be the forum and a committee would draft out the rules for the media council.

Zainon says the committee met a number of times and finally in 2002, the draft to set up the media council was ready. They handed it to the Information Minister who then passed it on to the Attorney-General. But much to their dismay, it was rejected.

When he asked the A-G later for the reason behind the rejection, says Zainon, the former said it was because professional bodies had punishment for misconduct but the media council did not have any.

“I told him we didn't want to punish anybody. We want to negotiate. If a newspaper makes a mistake, it will run an apology in the newspaper and all the other newspapers who are members of the media council will also carry that apology.

“For the press, an apology is a big thing,” he says, adding that the A-G then said they could give it a try and if it works, they would look at amending or repealing the PPPA.

“But editors were very angry when the media council was rejected. We had written and drafted it and so much time had already been expended on it. So whenever another meeting was called on the media council, editors would say No need lah. What's the point?'

“Because on one hand, you have all the government laws and on the other you have the media council. Both are regulators which means you would have two layers of control (instead of one) and I sort of agreed with them.”

In 2010, the idea resurfaced at an editors' meeting in Putrajaya with the Home Ministry secretary-general. And this time, editors decided to go for a press council instead of a media council by confining it to only the print media.

Zainon, who is chairman of that committee, says a lawyer who is familiar with media laws has already drawn up the draft. It is now “almost ready” and if it gets the nod from all the newspaper and magazine editors, it can be submitted to the government.

But why the need for government approval in the first place if the press council is self-regulatory?

Zainon explains there are basically two ways to set up the council one which is independent, free and self-funded, and the other which is a statutory council and born through an act of parliament.

The Malaysian press opted for the latter because it would get an annual grant from the government and also be accountable to parliament.

“We would have been better off with our own independent press council but the point is we don't have the money,” he says, citing MPI's experience of struggling to pay bills for years before things eased a little when it received a government grant.

Zainon believes the press council can start off as a statutory body and when it gains support and recognition, perhaps it can then look at becoming independent and self-funded.

If the council is government funded, would it side with the government on issues?

No, insists Zainon, explaining that it would be a bit like Suhakam with regard to the way it operates being government funded and a statutory body yet maintaining its neutrality.

He also says the chairman of the press council should be a former judge to ensure neutrality.

And other than editors, media owners and NUJ representatives, he adds, there would also be representatives from NGOs and “sufficient members of the public” in the council so that it will be fair.

He stresses that the press council should only be set up by the press itself and any suggestion that it be set up by others, then handed over to the press, is a definite no-no.

Once the council is set up, he says, one of the first tasks is to draw up a code of ethics that editors, journalists and the NUJ must agree to.

The functions of the council would be to receive complaints on articles and find a solution; to promote press freedom and provide training to journalists so that their reporting is professional and objective, he says.

Over the past week, the A-G has been calling in groups in the media to discuss the council. Zainon is one of those who attended the three-hour meeting with the A-G on Friday.

He says they are now exploring various options and the possibilities of the council being beyond just print.

“Nothing concrete was agreed to. It was more of a discussion on how to move forward. But the offer is very good and the concept commendable,” he says, without offering specific details.

But Sin Chew editor-in-chief Pook Ah Lek maintains that it is important that the press council be confined to only the print media.

“We should exclude the electronic and online media because they have different laws governing them and do not come under the Home Ministry,” he says.

However, he points out that he was not at the meeting with the A-G and has yet to see the concept proposed by the A-G.

The press has already waited 40 years for the council, so they can wait a bit more, Zainon feels.

He hopes the council will help in the maturing process of the media.

“Even though the British newspapers are pro-this or that, they provide balance. We want to do the same. Using the May 13 riots as a a ghost' to frighten people doesn't work any more because most people are educated, have grown up and are not scared of ghosts any more.

“There were more people at the Bersih 3.0 gathering than the previous one (Bersih 2.0) because people are more aware of their rights.

“While the mainstream media should seek to improve itself, the government too should think carefully about how it handles these things. They can't handle it the way they used to in the past.”