TR EMERITUS

作者：林放 2010.05.02 世界新闻自由日(按：五月三日)其实不是胜利的庆典。这一天是要重复提醒从业员坚守己责，继续捍卫和维护新闻自由的完整性。正由于新闻自由仍然披荆带棘，朝这个目标的前路仍崎岖险阻，新闻从业员更需提振无畏无惧的精神去实践这份理想。 这一天也让民众苏醒记忆，每年有数以千计的记者在战场前线牺牲性命；在受到打压制的国度，一些新闻从业员指陈暴政的狞狰面目，或是深入腹地勇敢揭发社会时弊， 有得惨遭杀害，有的身系牢狱之灾。广义而言，那些为民主、自由和人权奋斗的志士，也应归纳在新闻自由战域的范畴，让他们分享这份荣誉。 《世界人权宣言》规定，“人人享有的见解自由和言论自由权，包括持有主张而不受干涉的自由和通过任何媒介和不论国界寻求、接受和传递消息和思想的自由。”宣言虽然举世认同，但个别国家的统治阶层都阴奉阳违，各行其是制定法令和动用高压行政权箝制、干预新闻自由。 通过“灭绝”不利执政者的言论、剥夺人民的知情权来粉饰太平。 实质上，捍卫和传扬新闻自由，利益也延伸到民众的知情权和言论自由，进而保障更广泛层面的人权养份得以舒展广泽。 执政者多数仍残存一种迂腐的观念，以为控制平面或电子媒体的新闻，足以影响群众的取向以达到巩固政权和长治久安的目的。随着信息日益多样化，人民可通过更多管道搜寻信息，对已被标签为“政府喉舌”或受到制肘的报章的新闻“自由”营养深感贫乏，转而对近年来旺火朝天的网络媒体推心置腹。 联合国前秘书长安南于2006年世界新闻日早就预言：“部落客等参与式媒体正成为主流媒体报导的补充。”这说明了，当今的新闻范围已不再局限由主流报章发挥影响力；取而替之的是，人们宁可相信不受政府时刻监督管控的网媒，可以享有不受约束的“新闻自由”所提供的正确信息。虽然网媒的报导和评述未必精准到位或是可能造假，但是，却能取代他们存有怀疑在先的政府管制的报章。这种掌握新闻信息改了跑道，是执政者始料莫及的。 全球的急速步伐促进了一个自由、多元、独立和专业媒体的形成，新闻自由权的重要意义从未像现在这样明显。可以预料，随着新生代心倾网络的信息，报章必须实行更宽广的新闻自由，才能立足于商业现实。任何政府若仍迷信控制传统新闻媒体就等同对政权手到擒来，这个时代已走入历史。 安南指出，新闻从业者应当负责任地行使新闻自由的权利。媒体不应成为煽动或侮辱的工具，不应成为散布仇恨的工具。负责任的审慎报导与新闻自由应该是并行不悖的。 可以预料，政府对媒体新闻自由的制约，将是作茧自缚，面对网媒的进击，管制也逐渐力不从心，政府若高瞻远瞩，则必须见容平面媒体发挥更广阔的新闻自由空间，让肩负责任的媒体绽放社会的荣光。 来源：《星洲日报》  Read More →

A Singaporean by the name of Paul Chan has written to the Straits Times Forum today urging the Singapore media to observe the rules on cooling-off day. He is writing in response to an earlier letter by Mr Jeffrey Law calling on Singaporeans to have "faith" in the Singapore media. The cooling off day was announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong lately to prohibit political parties from engaging in any form of campaigning on the eve of polling day to enable voters to make a "rational" and "informed" decision. However, the media will be still be allowed to report on election news. Mr Chan felt that the cooling-off day rules should apply to the mainstream media as well: "I disagree that news media need not comply with complete blackouts of reporting any politically sensitive content - comments by political heavyweights, lawsuits against candidates, announcements of policy and rule changes, and press statements and advertisements by government departments - during the cooling-off period. Voters should not be bombarded with such news." There is some element of truth in Mr Chan's remarks judging from past elections. For example during the 1997 General Elections, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was reported in the Straits Times as promising Cheng San residents a bag of goodies should they vote for the PAP. Cheng San was a hotly contested GRC between the PAP and the Workers' Party. The state media also carried unfavorable reports of the WP candidates Tang Liang Hong and J.B. Jeyaretnam as well. A smear campaign was launched by the PAP against Tang using the media to portray him as a "Chinese Chauvinist" when the latter is fluent in English, Chinese, Malay and even Tamil. It is widely believed that WP would have won Cheng San if not for the last minute media onslaught by the PAP to discredit the opposition. Mr Chan added that the cooling-off day is of little significance to voters who have made up their minds already: "The cooling-off day will truly be observed as a peaceful day where no politically sensitive content appears in any form. The truth is that Singapore will continue to function without any political news for one day, and voters having made up their minds over the cooling-off day can go to the polls without distractions." With the next election looming ahead, the Singapore media has gone on an over-drive to "sweeten" the ground for the PAP by churning out propaganda on a daily basis. All printed newspapers in Singapore are owned by a single media company SPH whose Chairman is a former PAP minister. The Singapore media is ranked 133th in terms of press freedom by international media watchdog Reporters without Borders last year.     Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans. This page is maintained independently by a TR reader.   Copyright © 2009 – 2010 The Temasek Review  Read More →

By Neville Spykerman from The Malaysian Insider The Bar Council today slammed the police for claiming lawyers acting for Aminulrasyid Amzah’s family were unethical for holding a press conference yesterday with a key-witness in the shooting of the 14-year-old schoolboy. Selangor Police Chief Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar had also described the move by the lawyers as a cheap publicity stunt to garner public sympathy besides adding more confusion to the case. “How dare they talk about what’s ethical? Have they been ethical?” asked Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan. He pointed out that the police had accused Aminulrasyid and the witness of being robbers. Police also maintain that Aminulrasyid had tried to ram into them before he was shot and that a parang had been found in the car. “Is this ethical conduct by the police? What do you expect the family to do?” During yesterday press conference 15-year-old Azamuddin Omar, who was in the car during the fatal shooting, recounted the final moments of his friend’s life. He disclosed that police had shot his friend in the head, and his body fell onto his lap but the car kept moving because his leg was still on the accelerator. He added police kept on shooting until the car hit a wall Ragunath pointed out that statements by the police had only added to the grief and suffering of the family of the dead 14-year-old schoolboy. “It looks like the police have the sole right to issue statements and they are blaming everyone else instead of facing up to what happened and being transparent.” He pointed out this happens every time there was a fatality involving police. Under the circumstances, the lawyers acting for the family and friend were justified in holding the press conference so the boy could tell his side of the story, he said. “There is no breach of the Bar Council’s rules of professional conduct.” He added the family had the right to hold the press conference to prevent a possible cover up in the interest of justice. N.Surendren, who was one of two lawyers who organised yesterday’s press conference said it was held because police had made serious allegations against the dead boy and Azamuddin. “It cannot be correct that police can defame victims but they cannot respond to clear-up their good name.” He pointed out that the public were also entitled to know the truth because the statements by the police had been incorrect and misleading. “This is a case of public interest and they are entitled to the truth.” Surendran said he was very disappointed in the police for maintaining that Aminulrasyid had tried to reverse his car when they opened fire. He pointed out that both lawyer Latifah Koya and himself had conducted themselves professionally besides refuting police allegations that Azamuddin’s disclosures can amount to tampering of evidence. “These are serious allegations against us and we reserve our right to take legal action.” he concluded. - The Malaysian Insider  Read More →