Timorese Journalist José Belo protests media law at a seminar in Dili hosted by the Secretary for Communication. Photo: Jornal Independente

On 6 May, after only three hours of specific debate, Timor-Leste's Parliament passed a law which would severely restrict Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of the press. More than three weeks later, they have not yet sent the law to President Taur Matan Ruak. The President will have 30 days in which to sign or veto the law after he receives it.

Yesterday, La'o Hamutuk and other organizations wrote a letter urging the President to veto the 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."

The letter is online at www.laohamutuk.org/misc/MediaLaw/LHLeiImprensa29MaiuTe.pdf ,
with an English translation at www.laohamutuk.org/misc/MediaLaw/LHLeiImprensa29MaiuEn.pdf .
More information and analysis, including texts and translations of versions of the law, are at http://www.laohamutuk.org/misc/MediaLaw/14MediaLaw.htm .

We welcome additional endorsements for this letter, especially from organizations, and will provide a supplemental list to the President next week.
 

---

The following is abridged from the English translation of La'o Hamutuk's letter to the President:

Your Excellency, Mr President, with our respect,

On 6 May 2014, National Parliament approved a Media Law, after nearly three months of work. La’o Hamutuk participated in a Parliamentary hearing on 19 February, where we explained that the draft law could damage freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

In reality, many other people have a profession of distributing information, such as researchers, academics, civil society organizations, bloggers, freelance journalists and others. Therefore, this Article limits freedom to distribute information to professionals with credentials from the Press Council.

Since National Parliament has not repaired the basic flaw in this law, we would like to ask the President to use your powers to veto, as a symbolic and actual protection of democracy and the principles of independence. This Law will harm democracy and human rights, restrict many people’s 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.

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 reflect 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, 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, such as researchers, academics, civil society organizations, bloggers, freelance journalists and others. Therefore, this Article limits freedom to distribute information to professionals with credentials from the Press Council, which represents commercial media. In truth, the Press Council cannot limit people’s freedom of expression, as Articles 42, 43 and 44(b, c and d) in this Law would empower it to.

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 as well as student bloggers who publicize information. For example, students at Escola São Jose (Sanyos) write in Suara Timor-Lorosa’e, and coverage by students as Colegio Saó Miguel (CSM) is often on 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 cannot distribute information to the public. “Media organs” like www.aitaraklaran.blogspot.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 programs, 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, rather than to give only one view. Article 3.1(e)’s description of media’s function to “promote peace, social stability, harmony and national solidarity” could discourage dissemination of other points of view. Article 4(g)’s requirement that media “promote the public interest and democratic order” could be an excuse for repressing 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, that such publications do not need credentials from the Press Council.

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 authors intended. This could open the way for media owners or Parliament to interfere in the independence of the media, and to limit other people’s right to free expression.

Furthermore, we are concerned that the Press Council with legal authority, funding and members chosen by political officials and commercial media, should not have the power (under Articles 43 and 44) to prevent anyone from exercising his or her freedom 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.

Timor-Leste should not forget the history of our liberation struggle from 1974 to 1999. Many people in the resistance used media to share information to defend the rights and dignity of the people of this land. The Seara Bulletin and Radio Maubere helped liberate Timor-Leste from colonialism and occupation. José Ramos-Horta, Xanana Gusmão, Francisco Borja da Costa and others used these media to educate, inform and coordinate the struggle, even though they were not accredited by the Portuguese or Indonesian governments.

This proposed law reminds us of dictatorships everywhere who try hide the reality in their countries from the world, strangling people’s freedom of expression to preserve their power. Our experience with the Salazar and Suharto regimes should make Timor-Leste think twice.

In addition, journalists from other countries, including Roger East, the Balibo Five, Sander Thoenes, Agus Mulyawan, Kamal Bamadhaj, Amy Goodman and Max Stahl made tremendous contributions through journalism free from geographic and political limitations. Their reporting helped our diplomatic front advocate for Timor-Leste’s independence, supported others providing solidarity, assisted Maubere people to know what was happening here and exemplified the spirit of “A Luta Kontinua”.

The first nine of these foreign journalists 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. Even today, foreign media serve a key role in keeping Timor-Leste in the world’s eyes.

Unfortunately, Article 25 of this Media Law requires visiting foreign reporters to get Press Council approval, and Article 12 bans non-citizens from working as journalists. These provisions negate reporters' contribution to ensure that a democratic state under rule of law which values human rights will stand strong in this beloved land Timor-Leste.

This proposed law reminds us of dictatorships everywhere who try hide the reality in their countries from the world, strangling people’s freedom of expression to preserve their power. Our experience with the Salazar and Suharto regimes should make Timor-Leste think twice.

Final words

Timor-Leste has been sovereign for more than a decade without a Media Law, and we have not had problems with non-accredited media. Timorese people freely exercised our right to express their opinions and receive uncensored media information for the first time in nearly 500 years.

There is no urgency to enact a press law, especially a defective one 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.

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.

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