| September 6, 2002 | Friday | Jamadi-us-Saani27,1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A forgettable summit
THE government would do well to wait a little longer before going ahead with the promulgation of the press-related laws approved by the cabinet last week. The proposed ordinances relate to the establishment of a press council, a defamation law, and procedures for registration of printing presses, newspapers and news agencies. Conspicuous by its absence in the new set of laws is a freedom of information ordinance that had been promised by the government and that was to be the main law in the package. This omission has naturally given rise to serious misgivings in press circles because such a law is fundamentally important as a framework guaranteeing the people’s right to know and for the press to function freely and fairly within the defined parameters of its rights and responsibilities. The timing, too, causes unease because the proposed measures have come shortly before the general election, when the print media would detest any constraints placed on its functioning.
With regard to the establishment of a press council, the need for an organization like this has long been felt and has debated. Nearly 50 countries have such bodies which perform useful functions. Indeed, the All Pakistan Newspapers Society and the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors had presented a draft to the ministry of information, and the three sides had agreed on a common text. However, the press council ordinance draft approved by the cabinet contains many points that deviate from the agreed formula. Ignoring minor variations in the number of members to be drawn from the APNS, CPNE and journalists organizations, a major discrepancy concerns a newspaper’s failure to publish a denial or retraction. The draft had provided that in case of a violation of a directive from the press council, other newspapers and news agencies would be asked to publish the aggrieved party’s version. However, the government draft says that, in such cases, the council will recommend to the competent authority to suspend publication of the newspaper concerned for a specific period or even to cancel its declaration. This is too harsh and turns the press council into a punitive body acting against the interests of a publication. Similarly, Clause 9 provides for a retired high court judge to be the chairman of the inquiry commission, even though the agreed draft had merely called for such a person to be a member.
There is also the question of funding. The draft ordinance provides for a government grant-in-aid for the functioning of the press council. Even though the APNS and the CPNE had also made this demand, such a grant-in-aid will make the council appear a government body and militate against its independent working. It would be much better if the funding came from the budgetary allocations passed by the National Assembly, or perhaps, the newspapers could themselves fund the council. In India, for instance, newspapers finance the press council, each member’s share being in proportion to the circulation certified by the Audit Bureau of Circulation.
The code of ethics, which is part of the press council ordinance, also contains two clauses that were not included in the agreed draft. The references to material tending to undermine Pakistan’s “sovereignty and integrity as an independent country” or “violative of Article 19 of the Constitution” (freedom of speech) are vague, open to the widest possible interpretation, and obviously need more careful consideration.
It is not clear why the government is in a hurry to enact these ordinances. A special law on defamation is not needed. The existing law on the subject adequately covers the offence of libel or defamation and no special laws are needed for the media. The proposed law also provides for jail terms for offending editors and journalists. There are also discrepancies between the government version and the agreed draft on the press registration ordinance. In view of the rejection of the three ordinances by the bodies that matter — the APNS, the CPNE, and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists — it would be prudent for the government to defer the laws’ promulgation through ordinances. Let the elections be over, let the press do its job unhindered by any undue restraints, and leave the issue to the elected government to decide. There appears to be no particular reason for such haste in this matter at a time when the government’s attention should be claimed by arrangements leading to a transparently free and fair election
JOHANNESBURG’s Earth Summit will probably be remembered more for the discordant notes that it produced than for putting in place proposals for achieving practicable and sustainable development. As expected, the United States bore the brunt of everyone’s anger, especially of environmentalists and activists representing non-governmental organizations, with Secretary of State Colin Powell heckled as he spoke at the concluding session. Washington has only itself to blame for the hostile reception it got, especially after its cavalier rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and the decision of President George Bush to excuse himself from attending the summit.
However, it would not be quite correct to dismiss the summit out of hand. At least some goals were defined. A 65-page Plan of Implementation asks countries to provide clean drinking water, sewerage and electricity for the very poor and advocates measures to reduce the rate at which the planet is losing its biodiversity, its stock of fisheries, and its forest cover. A major problem with this is that none of these actions have any timeframe or deadline. Instead, governments have been asked to “act with a sense of urgency”. Understandably, environmentalists are disappointed with this language since experience suggests that governments more often than not have dragged their feet on acting on such matters.
The other major cause of disagreement was the rejection of a demand by the European Union and developing countries to give renewable sources of energy and fuel a bigger share of the global energy market. Here too, Washington has been the major culprit, successfully orchestrating opposition that seems hypocritical and myopic, especially since America is one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels and probably will have much to gain from a shift towards finding renewable sources of energy. Critics have said, and understandably so, that this was something to be expected of a US presidential administration whose connections with big business and especially the powerful oil lobby are only too well documented.
The debate here is not that all development should be sacrificed at the altar of a cleaner environment, but rather than those who use the planet’s resources — and in doing so pollute its environment — have a responsibility to account for the negative consequences of their actions. Clearly, America’s refusal to own up to its responsibilities in this regard present it in a very unfavourable light in the eyes of everyone. Washington’s current policy appears to be dictated solely by narrow national interests that sometimes do not even reflect the wishes of the American people but serve the interests of a cabal of corporations and powerful decision-makers. The way the Earth Summit went is a good example of this. But none of this exonerates developing countries of the blame for not even doing what they can on their own and with their own resources.