October 7, 2002	Monday	Rajab 29, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

ISLAMABAD, Oct 6: A spokesman for the ministry of information and media development on Saturday regretted the contents of the joint statement issued by the APNS and CPNE and described them as out of step with the spirit of accommodation and understanding that had characterized government-press relations in the last three years, said a press release.

The spokesman emphasized that the government adhered to a completely free media policy and would never interfere with free flow of information except as required by law in the interest of national unity and integrity. The government, he reiterated, would not hesitate to consider any reasonable amendment that further guaranteed the rights of the citizens and also safeguarded and protected the free media from undue harassment from any quarters.

The spokesman said the government had reiterated time and again that those laws had not been written in stone. The government was willing to enter into a productive dialogue with any of the stakeholder for incorporating any reasonable amendment ton the press laws. The secretary of information had met the representatives of the APNS / CPNE in Karachi and assured them to request the government to withhold promulgation of the press laws till Sept 15 to allow sufficient time to those bodies to come up with practical suggestions for incorporation into the draft laws. However, the press bodies did not respond until then and it had now been learnt that this was because of the absence of their presidents from the country.

The spokesman said the government had always taken the APNS and the CPNE into confidence on all matters relating to the press. The changes proposed by the press bodies in the draft press laws were considered in the best interest of the country and the people and had no other motivation.

Regarding the questions posed to the government in the joint statement of the APNS / CPNE, the spokesman said that the government did not intend to be drawn in a polemic on the subject but for the purposes of record and information of the people finds it prudent to answer the questions for final judgment of the people.

According to the spokesman, the answers to the seven questions posed by the APNS / CPNE are:

i) The original draft proposed 17 members, comprising four from the APNS, four from the CPNE, two from professional bodies, one from the Bar council, one from the FPCCI, one representative each of the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, one nominee of the human rights organization and one woman member.

The revised law contains provision for appointment of 19 members: three from the APNS, three from the CPNE, three from representatives of working journalists, one educationist each from the four provinces, one representative each of the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, one nominee each of the human rights organization and the National Commission on the Status of Women. The inclusion of a representative of the FPCCI has been dropped.

The composition of the press council reflects representation from a wide spectrum of opinion-making circles and the civil society while giving major share of representation to the representatives of the press. It is incomprehensible why the APNS and the CPNE should oppose the inclusion of academics and educationists in the press council.

It is also astonishing to see that the inclusion of the elected representatives of the people and nominees of the Bar council, human rights organization and the National Commission on the Status of Women is being interpreted as nominees of the government.

It may be added that the procedure for nomination from all the provinces can be discussed and a consensus arrived at after consultation with both the CPNE and the APNS.

ii) The inquiry commission of the press council which has been given the power to recommend to the competent authority (DCO) to suspend an offending publication for a specific period or recommend cancellation of the declaration under Section 15 (C), includes two of its three members from the APNS and the CPNE. Need it be emphasized that any decision of the commission will have to be through a majority, if not unanimity, and in every such case APNS and CPNE representatives will outnumber the only third member on the commission. So the power to recommend suspension or cancellation rests with the publishers and editors themselves rather than with government functionaries.

iii) The government has reflected the provision of Article 19 of the Constitution in the code of ethics as the APNS representative had said that those words were enough and there was no need to use any other expression. The following is the text of the addition which the readers may assess, and judge the intention of the government:

“The press shall avoid printing, publishing or disseminating any material, which may bring into contempt Pakistan or its people or tends to undermine its sovereignty or integrity as an independent country.

“The press shall not publish or disseminate any material or expression which is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

iv) The preservance and protection of the uniqueness of the title of the newspapers had, in fact, been a longstanding demand of the publishers which has been fulfilled with the addition of a provision in Section (10) of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance. The government also felt the need that the people should not be befooled by the owners of dummy papers with similar titles coming out from different cities as a counterfeit copy of the major newspapers published from other parts of the country.

So far as attributing responsibility and liability to the printer and publisher for the matter published in his/her publication is concerned, it would not have been fair and just to exempt anyone from the laws of the land which should be applicable to every citizen equally. Should a wilful defaulter of public dues or a convicted person be allowed to publish a newspaper and exploit his or her position for personal gains?

The press, being an important organ and the fourth pillar of the state, should consist of people of character, with clean record of paying public dues, so as to represent the public interest without any stigma.

v) The exclusion of file notes, minutes, summaries and interim orders from the purview of the Freedom of Information Ordinance is, in fact, in consonance with the premise that it is the final decision arrived out of inputs from different tiers of policy-making that ultimately affects the citizen. Such exemptions have been allowed even in the recognized democratic societies as reflected in the US Freedom of Information Act, Freedom of Information Bill of India (pending legislation) and the British laws. The protest of the APNS / CPNE on this count is, therefore, misplaced.

vi) It has been an overdue demand of the people that a proper legislation be enacted to save the honour and dignity of the citizens from defamatory reports as the existing laws on the statute book had failed to provide relief to the common man. The defamation law has, therefore, been prepared in response to public sentiments and is not targeted against the press. In fact, the law provides sufficient defence for reports published in good faith.

vii) As for the last question regarding the absolute freedom of the press to bring anything into print, it is to prevent any damage to the integrity, security and sovereignty of the country.

The spokesman hoped that the APNS / CPNE would take a dispassionate and objective view of the media-related laws, as well as of the defamation law and the access to information law which is a major step forward on the road to democracy and democratic governance.

The spokesman, however, reiterated the government’s offer of discussions on the proposed laws with a view to ensuring continued freedom of the press and, concurrently, protecting the rights of the citizens.— APP