Petition of Journalists: a Change of Heart? said Information Minister on his own blog.

28 August 2007

This morning I was in parliament trying to defend the press freedom bill. It is the first piece of draft legislation in the multi-statute media freedom pack. After three days of debate, the bill was accepted by 26 votes and sent to the Social Affairs Committee with the support of 34 votes.

As I was crossing the northern lobby in a break from the chamber, I saw Hiriga Ahmed Zahir, Managing Editor of Haveeru Daily at the reception counter situated at that lobby. He is a respected journalist and a personal friend of several years. I asked him how he was doing and what he was doing. He replied that he was putting in a petition to ensure that they got a chance to be present in the parliamentary committee when the press freedom bill is improved upon. Patting him on his back I wished him well as I hurried back to the chamber to continue with the session.

After a long day at work I was taking some time to myself. I was going through the day’s newspapers when a headline on Haveeru Newspaper caught my immediate attention. It carried a story about the petition I saw being filed this morning by Hiriga Ahmed Zahir. The story simply said that the journalists have filed a petition with the Speaker expressing concern that the current bill on press freedom may hinder professional development of journalism in the Maldives and contains provisions which impede press freedom in the Maldives. It also says the petition marks eight reasons why the bill may not be good enough to hold press freedom in the Maldives. It goes onto say that another purpose of petition was to seek presence in the parliamentary committee when the improvement on the bill happened. I shall get a copy of the full petition from parliament later on. I shall examine it very closely.

I feel that this petition that has come truly as a surprise for me is a signal of a different kind. Perhaps it indicates a change of heart. Perhaps it signifies distrust in the information ministry’s leadership. Perhaps it questions the credibility of the media reform work done so far. Perhaps it amounts to a slap on the face for a person who has been involved in media reform work that has benefited the journalists of this country. Perhaps it is none of the above. Or perhaps it is all of the above and more.

Here are some reasons why this petition indicates a turning point for me:

I came to Information Ministry on 14 July 2005. Coming from a legal background I took about two months to get a sense of the Maldives media and the needs of the industry that was about to happen. Having a draftsman’s training, I prepared the draft bills on media myself.

By end of August 2005, I was already engaged with the media organizations of this country with draft bills on press freedom, right to information, registration of newspapers, media council and a draft code of ethics. I circulated the four bills and the draft code to the media organizations and sat down with them for five consecutive days in a workshop style consultation session. That was last week of August 2005.

Comments were noted and the bills were improved. I sat down with them again for five nightly sessions during the last part of October 2005 to adopt the revised versions.

This means that two separate consultative rounds have been had with the leading journalists and media organizations of the country before the media bills were finalized and sent off to parliament via the Law Commission. It is a first for any form of bill in this country to have emerged from stakeholders themselves.

A translation of the bill was done by a Maldivian and sent off to Article 19, an international lobbyist organization for media freedom and freedom of expression. They published a list of several comments. A mission from Article 19 met me in Male’ in May 2006 and shared their comments and concerns. I made a promise to them – I will keep the parliament aware of their comments and concerns and try my best to incorporate those comments when the press freedom bill is taken up for review in the committee stage. I also told them that if I took the bill back for revision I shall again fall back a few places in the already long queue and that it would serve no real purpose.

During the past one and half years I had no complaints from any news organization except Article 19 about the bill, local or international. I was looking forward for serious improvement of the bill and bring about a good press freedom bill out from parliament acceptable to all parties Maldivian and foreign.

During the debate, I did just as I promised Article 19. I told the parliament of the existence of their comments and concerns. I supplied copies of the Article 19 document to the Speaker. I also supplied another document from the Ministry of Information to the parliament that contains the Ministry’s view on each of the comments or recommendations made by Article 19.

Even until a day or so back, I had had almost daily contacts with Hiriga Ahmed Zahir and several other journalists in the media industry. None had alerted me on this petition. None had told me of any concerns they had on the bill. I received nothing in writing or in words. I received nothing formally or casually.

And here, this evening, I am reading from the print media, that journalists I have close and daily contact with are petitioning the parliament that they have serious concerns over the bill drafted by me; - and that they feel that there are provisions in the bill that impede press freedom and professional development of journalism in the Maldives. Would not I be surprised? Of course I am taken aback.

But I can tell you one thing for certain: During my two plus years at Information I received no proposal for change or reform from a single journalist or media organization in this country. If anything has been done for media reform in the Maldives it has been fed like tonic to the local media organizations and journalists. And having served their cause, I feel that journalists who call me up almost everyday for friendly chats and long telephonic discussions and for various forms of assistance must have the basic courtesy to at least let me know if they had any concerns on a piece of my work that impacted on their professional duties. As I am the face for press freedom bill in parliament, this petition also affects my credibility when some “47 journalists” send a petition against one of the most important bills in the media reform pack when I have no clue about the cause or existence of the petition.

Ideally, the journalists as petitioners cannot have direct access to parliamentary committees. They should be going through my office. It is my job to ensure that their concerns are met. Direct action happens in local streets. Not in parliamentary committees. But this is what happens, when journalists turn political.

Like I have stood for them and entertained them through out my tenure at Information, this time too, I would have been there for them if they had supplied their concerns to me; shown me where the bill falls short; identified areas that impede professional development of journalists in the country; provided me with parallels or trodden paths in other jurisdictions; suggested ways to uphold and sustain their freedom here in the Maldives.

Anyway, the petition is filed. Good for the journalist of the Maldives. It is done for a good and noble cause. May God bless them and reward them with a professionally sound media environment to practice professional journalism in the Maldives!

I guess I am just learning the tricks of the trade and how things operate in the media world here. How each plays politics on the other. I must see who these 47 journalists are. I know that one newspaper produced some 61 journalists for the referendum coverage as well. I just hope that the petition is not an attempt to crush the media bill like some journalists got together to quash the formation of the Maldives Media Association.

Report: velidhoo Community