 |
| José Belo |
La’o Hamutuk- Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis
Rua dos Martires da Patria, Bebora, Dili, Timor-Leste
Tel: +670 332 1040 – Mobile: +670 7734 8703
Email :
info@laohamutuk.org
Website:
www.laohamutuk.org
Dili, 29 May 2014
His Excellency Taur Matan Ruak
President, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (RDTL
)
Dili, Timor-Leste
Regarding: Proposed Media law
Your Excellency, Mr President, with our respect,
On 6 May 2014, National Parliament approved a Media
Law, after nearly three months of
work by Committee A.
La’o Hamutuk
participated in a hearing held by Parliament Committee A in Tibar on 19
February to discuss the draft law the Government had sent to them. We feared that this draft
law could damage freedom of expression and freedom
of the press, and that it also threatens
democracy and human rights in Timor-Leste.
Unfortunately, National Parliament has not repaired
the basic flaw in this law, and therefore,
through this submission, we would like to ask the President of the Republic to use your
powers under Article 88 of the RDTL Constitution to
veto this media law, as a symbolic and
actual protection of democracy and the principles o
f independence.
La’o Hamutuk
is asking the President to veto this Law because it will harm democracy and
human rights, restrict many people’s rights to freedom of expression, and give power to a
single group to issue a few licenses while limiting
other people’s rights to share information.
We believe this violates Timor-Leste’s Constitution
and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
We also ask the President of the Republic to write
a letter to Parliament to help the Members
improve this legislation.
Our analysis is as follows:
Free expression is a principle of democracy.
Freedom of expression is a universal principle of democratic nations, and laws must not limit
the rights of any person to receive and distribute
information. This principle is guaranteed
by Articles 40 and 41 of Timor-Leste’s Constitution
and Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Timor
-Leste has ratified. Timor-Leste is legally
obliged to follow them, and legislation must reflec
t their fundamental principles.
Article 2(a)
of the proposed law defines “journalistic activities” as “seeking, collecting,
selecting, analyzing and distributing information to the public, as text, words or images,
2
through a media organ”, which
Article 2(l)
defines as “a person or corporation engaged in
journalistic activity.”
Article 2(i)
says that a “journalist” is a professional whose principle
activity is “journalism.” These self-referential definitions encompass a far broader range than
commercial newspapers, radio and television stations.
In reality, many other people have a profession of
distributing information, even though they
are not professional journalists, such as researchers, academics, civil society organizations,
bloggers, freelance journalists and others. Therefore, we see that this Article allows freedom
to distribute information only to professionals who
receive credentials from the Press
Council, which works for commercial media who have
registered and received a license from
the Press Council.
The law must not block the way for anyone to distribute information, even if they don’t have
credentials from the Press Council, because everyone has the right to carry out such
activities, including sharing information through t
heir personal means, free of censorship or
intervention from special interest.
In truth, nobody needs to request accreditation to
distribute information to the public. The
Press Council cannot limit people’s freedom of expression, as
Articles 42, 43
and
44(b, c
and
d)
in this Law state.
In addition,
Article 12
cancels some people’s right to freedom of expression, rejecting the
rights of anyone who is not an “adult citizen” to be a journalist. This provision restricts
students who want to cover news, create “wall newspapers,” as well as student bloggers who
publicize information.
In Timor-Leste, for example, students at Escola São
Jose (Sanyos) for several years have
written in the newspaper,
Suara Timor-Lorosa’e
, and coverage by students as Colegio Saó
Miguel (CSM) is often included in
STL TV
news.
Not only “journalists” share information with the public.
Article 13.5
says that people who don’t meet the law’s criteria
for journalists cannot
distribute information to the public, which violate
s human rights principles.
This provision
contradicts the work of institutions and organizati
ons engaged in public education, analysis,
commentary and advocacy.
We cannot accept that everyone has to apply for Press Council credentials to do the work of
collecting, analyzing and disseminating information
to the public. “Media organs” like www.aitaraklaran.wordpress.com,
Buletin Fongtil, Buletin Haburas,www.laohamutuk.org
,
www.haktl.org
,
www.timorhauniadoben.com
,
www.diakkalae.org,
www.economia-tl.blogspot.com, Casa Producão Audiovisual (CPA) television progra
ms, NGOs, World Bank
and UN reports, Facebook writers and others have a
fundamental right to distribute
information to the public.
The law should protect the diversity of opinion.
A key function of the press is to circulate information and opinions from different
perspectives, to help people understand various sides, not to give only one view. We are
worried that
Article 3.1(e)’s
description of media’s function to “promote peace,
social
stability, harmony and national solidarity” could b
e used to discourage dissemination of
3
other points of view.
Article 4(g)’s
requirement that media “promote the public interes
t and
democratic order” could also be an excuse for repre
ssing different opinions.
These articles contradict
Article 20.1(c)
which says that a journalist has a duty to “defend
the plurality of opinions, ensuring the ability of
expression of different currents of opinion
and respect for cultural, religious and ethnic diversity.” We hope that the latter point of view
will prevail.
In addition, we are concerned about
Article 23’s
statement that a separate law will regulate
non-profit media. Although we do not know what Parliament plans for that law to include,
the current example is cause for concern. If the intention of Article 23 is to state that this
Media Law does not apply to religious, community and non-profit media, it would be better
to say that explicitly, and to clarify that such publications do not need credentials from the
Press Council to continue to exercise their Constit
utional rights.
Don’t restrict the independence of the press.
Media organs should follow the Journalists’ Code of
Ethics, which was developed by
journalists and their employers, ensuring accuracy,
diversity and freedom of the press. We
appreciate that working journalists have voluntarily committed themselves to follow these
principles.
However, we are concerned when they become law through
Article 21
, enforced (and
perhaps modified) by the Press Council, and applied
more widely than their original authors
intended. This could open the way for media owners
or Parliament to interfere in the
independence of the media, and to limit other peopl
e’s right to free expression.
Furthermore, we are concerned that the Press Council with legal authority, funding and
members chosen by political officials and commercia
l media, should not have the power
(under
Articles 43
and
44
) to prevent anyone from exercising his or her free
dom of
expression.
The State should respect journalists’ rights to create their own bodies, including journalist
associations like AJTL and TLPU, to regulate their
own members, but they cannot compel
other people to follow their rules.
This Law denigrates Timor-Leste’s history.
As we wrote to Parliament Committee A, Timor-Leste
should not forget the history of our
liberation struggle from 1974 to 1999. Many people
in the resistance used media to
communicate and share information to defend the rights and dignity of the people of this
land.
The
Seara Bulletin
and Radio Maubere were among Timorese media which h
elped liberate
Timor-Leste from colonialism and occupation. José R
amos-Horta, Xanana Gusmão, Francisco
Borja da Costa and others used these media to educate, inform and coordinate the struggle
for liberation, even though they were not “professional journalists” accredited by the
Portuguese or Indonesian governments.
In addition, journalists from other countries, including Roger East, the Balibo Five, Sander
Thoenes from the Netherlands, Agus Mulyawan from Indonesia, Kamal Bamadhaj from New
4
Zealand, Amy Goodman from the USA, Max Stahl with h
is film of the Santa Cruz Massacre and
other foreign media coverage were examples of the contribution from freedom of the press
and journalism without borders, free of geographic
and political limitations.
Reporting by these journalists helped our diplomatic front advocate for Timor-Leste’s
independence, supported others providing solidarity
, assisted the resistance and other
Maubere people to know what was happening here and
exemplified the spirit of “A Luta
Kontinua”. Even today, foreign media serve a key role in keeping Timor-Leste in the world’s
eyes.
Unfortunately, this Media Law tries to limit foreig
n journalists’ activities, such as
Article 25
which requires visiting foreign reporters to get Press Council approval, and
Article 12
which
bans non-citizens from working as journalists. Deputada Carmelita Moniz told La’o Hamutuk that “cidadão” in this article does not mean “cidadãode RDTL.”However, the Constitution uses “pessoa” when it intends to refer to everyone regardless of nationality, and Parliament refused to make this change to the Government’s proposal. The judicial system will enforceit basedon the words contained in the law itself.
This provision negates the history of our struggle,
suffering and the contribution that media
made to ensure that a democratic state under rule of law which values human rights will
stand strong in this beloved land Timor-Leste.
The first nine of the foreign journalists listed above gave their lives for Timor-Leste’s
independence. If they had sought accreditation from
Suharto’s
“Dewan Pers”
, Timor-Leste
might still be under Indonesian rule today.
This proposed law is reminiscent of policies implemented by dictatorships everywhere to
hide the reality in their countries from the world,
strangling people’s freedom of expression
to preserve their power. Attempts by the Salazar an
d Suharto regimes to control the press
should give Timor-Leste pause.
Other comments
Article 27
sets formal requirements for media to publish certain information regularly and
Article 32
requires a specific editorial structure. We believe that such matters are for the
media themselves to control, based on their nature
and financial resources. According to the
definitions in
Article 2
, people who disseminate information through blogs,
Twitter,
Facebook and similar means are also media organs, and a single person cannot form an
Editorial Board.
Final words
Timor-Leste has been sovereign for more than a decade without a Media Law, and so far we
have not had problems with non-accredited media. During this time, Timorese people freely
exercised our right to express their opinions and receive media information without
pressure or censorship for the first time in nearly
500 years.
We believe that there is no urgency for Timor-Leste
to create a press law, especially a
defective one like this, which will reverse our society’s advances toward using social and
other media to exchange ideas without limitation.
We recognize that journalists’ capacity, .misinformation and lack of experience sometimes make people unhappy with published
articles, but state regulation is not the solution.
Therefore, this issue needs deeper study and analys
is before deciding whether to have a
Media Law, and what it should include to be consistent and appropriate for this digital world,
as well as with fundamental and universal human rig
hts.
In closing, we believe that Timor-Leste can continue with the freedom of expression and the
press defined in our Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
with the good intentions of our leaders, journalists, media owners and entire society.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we are
ready to answer questions or provide
additional information in writing or in meeting with the President of the Republic, if he is
available.
.
Sincerely,
.
Sincerely,
Juvinal Dias, Celestino Gusmão,
Charles Scheiner
La’o Hamutuk
This letter is also supported by:
From Timor-Leste:
Arsenio Pereira, NGO Forum (FONGTIL)
Manuel Monteiro, Asosiasaun HAK
Carlos Florindo. ETADEP
Alex Tilman, www.diakkalae.com blog
Jenito Santana, Kdadalak Sulimutu Institute (KSI)
Nolasco Mendes, Mata Dalan Institute (MDI)
Marilia da Silva Alves, FOKUPERS
Filomena Fuca. Rede Feto
Apolinario Ximenes, FORAM
Feliciano da Costa Araujo, ISEAN-Hivos Program
Zenilton Zeneves, Luta Hamutuk
Maria do Rosario (Zizi) Pedruco, http://www.timorhauniandoben.com/ blog
Hugo Fernandes, Asosiasaun Jornalista Timor-Leste (AJTL)
Matias dos Santos, Timor-Leste Koligasaun ba Edukasaun (TLCE)
Max Stahl, CAMSTL
Susan Marx, The Asia Foundation
Madre Monica, Yoko Nakumura Escravas do Sagrado Coração de Jesus
Meagan Weymes, independent journalist
Rowena McNaughton, independent journalist
Nugroho Katjasungkana, Fortilos
From around the world:
David Robie, Pacific Media Centre, regional
Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the Global South, regional
John M. Miller, East Timor and Indonesia Action Network, USA
Maire Leadbeater, East Timor Independence Committee, NZ
Carmel Budiardjo, TAPOL, UK
Jude Conway, Hunter East Timor Sisters, Australia
Gabriel Jonsson, Swedish East Timor Committee
Mikio Monju, Japan East Timor Coalition
.
