The proposal to create a statutory media council and to introduce a code of conduct for all Malaysian journalists raises more questions than it answers, said Universiti Sains Malaysia communications lecturer Dr Mustafa K Anuar.

Responding to malaysiakini 's questions, he said the objectives of self-regulation may be thwarted if the practical effects of currently restrictive laws are not taken into account first.

Copies of the draft proposal were distributed by the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) to all media organisations early this week. Also on the mailing list were Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Information Ministry parliamentary secretary Zainuddin Maidin.

Mustafa's concerns were backed in a separate interview with Charter 2000 (a citizens' media initiative) joint co-ordinator Anil Netto who expressed doubt as to intentions behind the proposal.

Civil society concerns

Said Anil: "I see the proposal as an attempt to stifle independent and alternative journalism. Those concerned about media freedom and independent journalism have every reason to be worried.

"The people behind the proposal and those eventually responsible for monitoring compliance are hardly champions of media freedom. They are widely seen as establishment individuals who have the interests of the powers that be at heart."

Mustafa viewed the code of conduct as an attempt, in principle, to promote professionalism among journalists.

"This is a matter that has become a concern not only for MPI, but also working journalists and others who feel strongly about ethical reporting and freedom of expression," he said.

"This, therefore, implies that the drafters of the code should also consider views expressed by various sectors in civil society, and not just primarily be confined to those of the MPI and a few other groups."

Mustafa said an effort to have media reform is a concern of all people who cherish democracy and freedom of expression.

"The independence of the media council is not only linked to the question of its effectiveness as a regulatory body, but also to respectability," he explained.

"If the council can't address the issue of certain undemocratic laws that hinder the work of a journalist, then it not only becomes less effective in terms of improving journalistic and ethical standards, but also loses credibility and respectability among journalists, civil society groups, concerned citizens."

Legal and practical problems

He further said the journalists' code of conduct would have to be located in a context where laws such as the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) and Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) exist.

"Only then will we be able to gauge to what extent the code can be effective in promoting high standards of journalism and also press freedom. In other words, the code cannot be drafted and implemented in a social vacuum," he said.

To explain this in real terms, Mustafa cited two examples from the code.

"One, we're told that 'the journalist's primary duty is to report accurately, correctly and faithfully and to respect the right of the public to fair and objective news'.

"We would take this to mean that in a news report, every effort has to be made to ensure that all parties related to a particular issue and this would include not just the government or the ruling coalition but also the opposition and critics be given equal opportunity to air their views."

With the PPPA hanging over the heads of editors and journalists, he asked if this would be possible.

"Wouldn't the editors or owners of the media organisation be 'guided' in the day-to-day running of the media by the questions of a publications permit and of possible revocation by the Home Ministry?" asked Mustafa.

Anil pointed out that in Australia and India, one of two main objectives of media councils was to defend media freedom from attacks, especially from the government.

"In fact, Australia has a Freedom of Information Act and there is no licensing system or any other requirement for government approval to launch a newspaper or other press enterprise."

He said the other aim is to regulate the media to ensure that journalistic ethics are observed, and for this, most press councils were empowered to investigate all complaints against the media.

Frustration-plagued profession

The second scenario is where the journalist is expected to be 'critical of news sources by way of checking facts and other information to ensure accuracy. Facts are to be checked as carefully as possible even if published earlier'.

"A conscientious reporter will probably be banging her head against the wall so long as the OSA exists, for this law limits in many ways her ability to check and verify certain information," said Mustafa. "Can she then be faulted for inaccuracies that may occur as a result of this deterrent?"

Another possible scenario that can limit the ability of a reporter to get accurate or sufficient information is when she is barred officially or unofficially from interviewing certain personalities in government because she has not been issued a press accreditation card. In such circumstances, he again queried if the reporter should be penalised.

He said, therefore, that the drafters of the proposal should consider the laws that impinge upon the development of ethical and responsible journalism as well as freedom of expression, and subsequently call for their repeal.

Concurring, Anil perceived the proposal to be the first step in introducing tighter control over independent-minded journalists.

"The proposal is redundant when there are so many oppressive laws already in place. Is there any guarantee any of these laws will be repealed?"

Potential influence of funders

On the composition of the council, Anil suggested that at least half the membership should be non-media people "because the mainstream media in Malaysia is so pro-establishment and shackled".

Mustafa pointed out that the political will of the council to promote ethical journalism and press freedom could be influenced by its sources of funds.

"For instance, to what extent can the council penalise or reprimand publicly a media institution if the party concerned is one of the financial contributors? Can private funding somehow influence decisions made by the council?"

These are among questions that need to be linked to the question of the council's independence and effectiveness, added Mustafa.

Lip service expected

Anil claimed that some rights groups are not supportive of the media council although they had given full backing for the formation of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam). The difference is based on the objectives.

"Suhakam was set up to uphold human rights and not to regulate the work of human rights groups," he said.

"Given the present climate, it is highly unlikely that a media council would lobby strongly for greater media freedom. Such a council would be more likely to pay lip service instead."

He also said it would not be in the interest of the mainstream media to allow independent media room to flourish, simply because investigative and critical journalism from any independent competitor would eat into the market share and profitability.

In this respect, he added that the mainstream media would not take kindly to journalists who exert even a semblance of independence from pro-establishment reporting.