Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom | Analysis

FIJI: Another Move to Muzzle the Media

Analysis by Shailendra Singh

SUVA, Jul 27 2008 (IPS) - Since independence in 1970, this Pacific Island nation has had a succession of elected and unelected prime ministers. Both sets of leaders have tried to muzzle what they see as errant, if not dangerous, media.

Currently, media are faced with a proposal by interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama to consolidate all existing media laws covered under the Constitution, the Public Order Act, and the Media Code of Ethics into a separate “Media Promulgation”.

Fiji’s prime ministers, whether they came to power through the ballot box or the barrel of a gun, have shown little regard for its robust and often strident media.

Founding prime minister, the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, had little patience with what he clearly saw as an impertinent media corps. Ratu Mara was a daunting presence at press conferences and a stare from him was enough to stop a question in its tracks.

His successors clearly regretted that along with the British parliamentary system, inherited from the colonialists, came the ‘irksome’ free press tradition.

Sitiveni Rabuka, who seized power as a third-ranking army colonel in 1987, saw the closure of one newspaper. The original Fiji Sun pulled down the shutters rather than agree to the self-censorship conditions laid down by his regime.

Rabuka, whose winsome smile graced newspapers and television stations throughout the world after he staged the first coup in the Pacific, was later elected prime minister of Fiji. His government was assailed by the media over corruption allegations, including the nation’s biggest financial scandal, the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji due to bad and doubtful debts of some Fijian dollars (FJD) 220 million (146 million US dollars), a staggering eight percent of Fiji’s GDP.

Members of Rabuka’s government often lashed out at the media, but he appeared more tolerant of and accessible to the media than other leaders.

Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry, who became Fiji’s first prime minister of Indian descent after a stunning election victory in 1999, was widely regarded as a champion of the press when he was in opposition. He became strident media critic after he took the top job.

Citing low standards, biasness, the ineffectiveness of the self-regulatory Fiji Media Council and a media conspiracy to bring down his government, Chaudhry warned that he would introduce legislation to make the media more responsible.

But he did not survive long enough to make good on his threat. A coup by George Speight brought down his government after just one year in office.

Speight, who appointed himself prime minister for a while, was a walking headline who loved the attention bestowed on him by the media.

A megalomaniac to the bone, he turned churlish when reports about him became unflattering. He even locked up some overseas journalists in Fiji’s parliament House, where he was holding kidnapped legislators. It was for the journalists’ own protection, he said.

The next elected prime minister, Laisenia Qarase, was soft-spoken and measured in tone compared to Speight, and Chaudhry.

Despite of his demeanor, few people were surprised when in 2003 his government, embroiled in corruption allegations, proposed the Media Council of Fiji Bill.

Apart from calling for a media council stacked with government appointees, the draft bill proposed that offending journalists be fined up to FJD 2,000 (1,328 dollars) for breaches.

The bill was only shelved after a fierce ‘No Media Bill’ campaign mounted by the media, which generated much public opposition to the proposed law.

Today the media are resisting yet another attempt by an unelected government to contain them through legislation. Bainimarama’s proposed legislation seeks to establish an independent tribunal to hear appeals on complaints lodged with the Fiji Media Council.

“It is envisaged that the independent tribunal will also have the ability to impose fines on companies, editors and publishers should they be found to be in breach of the provisions of the proposed promulgation,” Bainimarama said in statement.

While the interim attorney general, Aiyaz Saiyad-Khaiyum, has denied any ulterior motives on the part of the government some observers believe that the proposal, if promulgated, will mean an end to the tradition of self-regulation based on the British model that Fiji has enjoyed.

Following rapid growth in the 1990s, Fiji now has the largest and most vibrant media in the region, with three English daily newspapers, two weekly vernacular newspapers in Hindi and Fijian, a free-to-air and a pay television station, and several 24-hour radio stations broadcasting in English, Fijian and Hindustani.

Currently, complaints are heard by the Fiji Media Council, established in 1998. The council is made of media representatives and public members, the latter forming an independent complaints committee. Successive governments have accused the council of being incompetent and ineffective with regards to enforcing ethical guidelines and improving reporting.

Like similar bodies elsewhere, the Fiji Media Council has been tagged with unflattering labels such as “toothless tiger” and “publishers poodle” by the public and media critics. A common complaint, and not just by leaders, is the council’s inability to tackle unbalanced reporting and the media’s reluctance to correct mistakes.

But British media consultants, the Thomson Foundation, on whose recommendations the present structure of the council is based, clearly favoured self-regulation. They said, “the most appropriate system for Fiji is that the regulation be applied by an independent, non-government body”.

While training for journalists, and the tone of reporting in an ethnically divided society such as Fiji are matters of concern, the bigger and far more damaging problems facing the nation are poor governance and corruption.

A survey carried out by the Berlin-based Transparency International (TI), two years ago, revealed rampant corruption in Fiji, with people even bribing officials in the judicial system to obtain favourable outcomes.

TI’s Fiji chairman Hari Pal Singh said the perception of Fiji as a corrupt place has discouraged those wishing to invest in the country. “A lack of investment means less job opportunities for our school leavers who, if they remain unemployed, cause social problems which the state and society then has to manage,” said Singh.

Often accused of being poorly trained and ill informed, the media has, nevertheless, uncovered many scandals and financial transgressions over the years. Such revelations have left many a government red-faced and embarrassed, and are seen as the major cause of discord with authorities.

While the Fiji media are accustomed to governments trying to impose their will on them, and have become quite hardy, resilient and apt at dispelling such attempts, there are grave concerns about this latest move by the interim government.

In the past the media were able to appeal to the public, or they escaped because those intending to bring in legislation did not survive long enough in office to carry out their intentions.

This time the media will need all their Houdini-like abilities to escape. Bainimarama, who seized power in the December 2005 coup, does not need to be sensitive to public pressure or bow to it. In fact, the regime ignored the storm of protests it caused locally and overseas by deporting two expatriate newspaper publishers recently.

Bainimarama has made it clear that elections will not be held in March 2009 as indicted earlier. Neither has he given any clear dates as to when elections will be held. The media are resisting in the best way that they can. Both of Fiji’s main newspapers have strongly criticised the new law in editorials. Fiji’s largest newspaper, the News Limited-owned The Fiji Times, said the proposed promulgation was “deplorable” and “a brand new” way to ‘’shut the media up”.

According to the Fiji Sun, the proposed law will “drive reporters and editors away from controversy, which may well, be its intention”.

The Fiji Media Council, after earlier accusing the interim government of deceit and a breach of trust over the proposed regulations, has taken a wait-and-see approach.

It has requested the interim government to provide details of the proposal and to take their views about it into account. Council chairman Daryl Tarte said they were confident that the interim government would consider their views.

The Pacific Island News Association’s (PINA) spokesman, Matai Akoula, expressed concern about the proposed promulgation but said they would, in solidarity with the Fiji Media Council, reserve their comments for now. PINA, the main professional association of the Pacific Islands news media, links newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations and national associations of 21 countries and territories in the region.