SPEECH
OF H.E. KAY RALA XANANA GUSMAO ON THE OCCASION OF THE CONFERENCE ON MEDIA
LAW
HOTEL TIMOR, 26 AUGUST 2003
The
Law of the Media
Good morning to all,
Members of the Organizing Committee,
Friends form Jakarta,
Ambassadors,
Journalists,
Dear friends,
I am pleased to have been invited to this Conference, an important event
in the process of building our democracy.
The young
Nation of Timor-Leste welcomes our brothers from Indonesia and I am convinced
they share with us the same expectations and concerns. I also welcome
to this Conference our friends of Portugal and INTERNEWS.
As I said, in Timor-Leste, we are still in the early stages of the global
process of building a State based on the Rule of Law and, likewise and
inevitably, in the beginning of the process of building democracy.
It is said that the Media is the fifth pillar of sovereignty. Regardless of the truth, the least we can do is to understand the complexities surrounding the work of the media. Such complexities are inherently related to the requirement for media to be:
- Strict
- just, balanced and independent
- sensitive to the most vulnerable sectors of society - women,
children, victims of violence, ethnic and religious minorities
In earnest, all the above simply means professionalism. I have followed closely, since the beginning, the development of timorese media. I must acknowledge the dedication and tirelessness of the timorese journalism. I have often emphasized to them that they are embedded in this process, whereby we all are learning to contribute with the best of our abilities. I have also often empahsied the absolute need to improve and any progress, in this regard, can only be measured later on.
If one asks whether our media have, in this short period of time, achieved the desired level of professionalism, I would say we have not. But there is one fact: that is the willingness to be better, the willingness to do things right, do exist and this is increasingly becoming more visible in the day-to-day media work.
Thus, this kind of gatherings are to be cherished, for they enhance interest, point towards new perspectives and help to highlight real needs and, above all, stimulate human response.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There exist other issues, interrelated to the deontology, which goes beyond the realms of journalism, such as to provide information.
In a democratic society, sometimes we put unworthy emphasis on the need to have 'multiple voices' as if by virtue of living in such a society, we allow ourselves to be disoriented by these 'many voices' which, for being often scattered voices, instead of being helped to understand the importance of an event or the development of a new situation, unwittingly, leave us in a limbo, and worse still, are the source of confusion within our people.
It is true that journalists are important vehicle for the dissemination of the needs of the communities and individuals, they are the voices that expose the problems and provide information and, often, influence decision-making.
It is in this context that when a journalist joins the President in his trips, the emphasis ought not to be on the rituals of formalities; instead, it should be on the substance of the meetings with the local communities. The journalist must take note of the debates, of the exchange of opinions, the opinions expressed by members of the population, their own expectations, their requests, their problems and filter them into clear information, not about the President, but about the real situation faced by the community.
Otherwise, all that is relayed to the public is a President being well received by the population and the news became the least relevant possible.
And only when this (correct emphasis) exists that we start to look after our democracy, that we allow journalism to mirror the real situation in the country, in terms of the difficulties, in terms of hopes and in terms of trust or mistrust of our people, in terms of the participation of the people in the democratic process, a process whereby the rights and duties of each individual is enshrined, a process focused on the social and economic well-being of the citizens.
Ladies and Gentlemen
That is precisely the reasons why we need responsible and professional journalism.
I know that it is not easy for us to talk about a professional journalism when we see our press facing serious financial problems. However, I take this opportunity to thank ONGs such as INTERNEWS, APHEDA, INDE, CEP, AVI, UNESCO, Asia Foundation and OIT/USAID, which have become part of the response to the needs of capacity-building of our human resources in the journalism sector.
In the meantime and, in response to the objectives of this conference, there are other more pertinent factors to be raised here. That is, how to deal with norms that may be democratically accepted and susceptible of being adopted in order to regulate what the media says or disseminates?
We are at a crossroads where codes, laws and regulations clash leading
to lack of consistency in terms of principles and renders our ability
to make good judgments a disgrace.
For those who are affected by the media reports such as the judges, lawyers, journalists, including politicians and members of government, it is hard to identify a common understanding of the norms and regulations of the media. It seems that it has been easier to make the negative side of the situations prevail over the positive side. Of course, there must exist an equilibrium that balances out both aspects and it is for this reason that we must talk, bring into light, exchange opinions, we must reflect about human rights, from the freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the rights of dignity and to the reputation of persons, which are safeguarded by our Constitution.
We ought to talk more and think more about the undertakings of our Constitution. And we ought to reflect more on other legislations that are needed in our country, particularly those used here from other countries - such as the Criminal Code of Indonesia and the Portuguese laws - and we ought to question if these legislations are in conformity with the highest norms of human rights prescribed in our Constitution and that are found in the human rights treaties that we signed.
The aim of this conference is to initiate this learning and clarification
process and it intends to start examining our laws in order to determine
whether they are the most suitable ones for our democracy and for our
nation.
Unfortunately, while we are holding this Conference, one of our daily newspapers is running the risk of closing down because the Court applied a $50,000 American dollars for defamation. Another newspaper is being sued for the same reason in the amount of $23,000 American dollars!
It is difficult to understand whether the laws that we use, applied by the Courts, are so irreducible and so much so that even our judges cannot rely on their own ability to deliver appropriate judgment. Or our Courts do not know the value of money or that the laws applicable in our country, may not be the most appropriate ones to nurture the spirit of criticism and democracy and to regulate the spirit of responsibility or professionalism.
In the two cases just mentioned, there are two emerging urgent cases to respond to them. On one hand, there is the necessity to create the Press Council, apart from the existing associations such as the AJTl (Association of the Journalists of Timor-Leste) and the Journalists Union as the mediators of the disputes between the media and the public. I believe that we have within our reach laws which prevent the publication the withdrawal of the right to reply, as well as we can demand that the journalists adhere to their Code of Conduct.
On the other hand, there is the need to discuss the application of the laws that we have enacted. This will enable us to become aware of the inappropriate application of the laws against our own human rights. And such will be a useful mean to alert the judges, the prosecutors, the leaders and the society as a whole to avoid using these laws, even though they may be part of the legal books we are using.
We must be conscious that we are all in the departing point, all the components of the society, starting with the institutions of the State to the civil society, we are all giving the little we have to kick off this difficult process, one which can only be measured later on.
Let us think, during this conference, whether we should or should not conitnue to use Indonesian legislation. The problem is, if we continue to use the Indonesian Criminal code, we must, totally get rid of the nature, the substance that embedded a repressive regime. Otherwise, if our courts continue to apply the same way the laws which were applicable then, by Indonesia (in East Timor), our Constitution will cease to be the safeguard of our freedoms and rights.
We all
expect that the articles 134 (namely on innuendos against the President)
and article 154 (on the public airing of hatred and despise against the
Government), in the Indonesian Criminal Code, are not to be applied in
Timor-Leste. Furthermore, there is specific reference pertaining to criticisms
against individuals occupying certain government positions. In one way
or another, this is going to override the spirit of scrutiny and criticism.
If we are to use the Portuguese Law - the criminal codes and press and
journalism laws of that country - these must also be subjected to a close
examination to ascertain whether they conform with our Constitution, so
that the application of these laws do not result in lack of respect for
our democracy, one which we aim at being open and transparent.
Given enough time, Timor-Leste shall draw its own new laws which embrace the freedom of expression, in a ways which conform in the best possible way, with our Constitution, culture, economy, needs and circumstances. One day we shall be able to enact a law on 'The Freedom of Information', outlining clear guidelines to acquire information from the Public Institutions, as it is envisaged in the number 2 of the article 41 of the Constitution on 'the access to the sources of information', without hindering the need to safeguard national security matters or confidential information, whenever there are justified reasons to protect them, and/or of the personal and privacy realms, as envisaged in article 38 of the Constitution of RDTL.
Nevertheless, we are all in this honorable process towards building our State. Such aim demands that we act in a wise way, with moderation, and above all, with on going investment of energy and commitment.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
May this conference be the beginning of the debate about the most pressing issues pertaining to the media (in Timor-Leste).
I hope
that these debates lead to a better understanding of the laws on defamation
and that we can find the most appropriate means that enable those affected
to recover their reputation. Nevertheless, it is for us all a duty to
also look into ways to protect the still vulnerable voices of our media
and journalists, who give their best to participate in the new democracy.
It is only when we are guided by moderation that we can prevent the closing
of a newspaper, just like the workers who may have to be jailed simply
because they can not afford to pay the fines.
I hope, above all, that out of this experience, the debates will clarify
the Codes of Ethics so that the journalists will consciously undertake
the duty to act in accordance with these Codes, for them to continue to
work with professionalism and within minimum possible standards considering
the existing circumstances. It is also good to seriously think about the
need to create a Press Council that may help offset conflicts and thus
avoid expensive lawsuits.
Finally, may this conference be also a way to help our Courts to understand and to act upon the need to eliminate some, or to never use again, laws that do not conform to our Constitution, which is the safeguard of the rights and liberties of the citizens.
Keep up the good work and I wish you a successful conference!