Charting a new course for the Fiji Times

Full text of Fiji Broadcasting Corporation news director Stanley Simpson's interview with new Fiji Times publisher Dallas Swinstead on 6 October 2010:

What is the new direction, if any, that the Fiji Times will be taking?

I want to add to the quality product we already have. This will range across all the various features that good newspapers offer. We have excellent world-wide editorial service suppliers but most of all we have a strong, professional editorial department, a department which like most others here at The Fiji Times has really been fearful of their newspaper’s survival.

As everyone knows, Mahendra Patel at Motibhai saved the day. I mention him not for a free plug but to tell you what many people do not know: he has been a board member of the Fiji Times for about 34 years. He knows enough about newspaper ethics and policies to leave new directions to the publisher - me - and I am grateful for that.

The key question everyone asks but, if they stop to think about it, everyone knows the answer to, is your question: new directions?

Yes, we are changing direction. Having watched News Ltd perish in this country, there’s no sense in committing suicide, even with a locally-owned replacement. There is no doubt that The Fiji Times cannot be antagonistic to the government, What on earth does it prove? But we will ask questions in a fair and balanced way because we will be helping to bring the people to the government.

Did Netani Rika resign because he would not go with the new direction you have set for the Fiji Times?

In a word, yes. To his eternal credit, he, in his own words “sacrificed his job” for the Fiji Times. We had several long, constructive and sensitive sessions and the ending was pretty sad for both of us. He’s like the rest of us – we are proud to be employed and we have families to look after. In time, as Fiji finds its way, he will play his part in its history because he is an intelligent and thoughtful person.

I understand you have had a meeting with the Permanent Secretary for Information [Sharon Smith-Johns] – How did the meeting go?

The meeting went well. I presented my credentials, which if I may say so, are pretty good; I said my piece and the permanent secretary said hers. I certainly understood that she was delivering the government’s line and in my short time here I already chosen to support that line. Why? Because most respected people here have spoken to me about infrastructure finally taking shape; about one nation one people, about equality from coast to coast. If you like, you can be cynical about it, but from where I stand – and I first made up my mind about this in 1979 as I left after four years in the chair at the times - the two main communities have to learn to live together EQUALLY, with equal opportunity and equal hard work.

The Fiji Sun is posing a strong challenge – how do you see the competition with the Sun?

Well, when I was last here [PMC editor: The previous Fiji Sun at the time of the 1987 Rabuka coups - no connection to the current newspaper] eventually wobbled to a stop. Now it’s going again and because of a most unequal playing field it is doing better than it might otherwise do. I’m not prepared to comment on its content or its quality.

How confident are you of pulling back government advertising to the Fiji Times?

This will depend on us proving to the people, and thus to the government that we are a newspaper with a good, strong heart and a love for Fiji. We have to help people understand that there some highly-educated soldiers walking on this path set by their leader and, given that education, they will all yearn for democratic elections when the time comes. It is, I believe, inevitable and exciting.

Pictured: New Fiji Times publisher Dallas Swinstead. Photo: Fiji Times

Stanley Simpson's report on FBCNews
On Pacific Scoop

PMC comments on Fiji media decree and regional coverage

Pacific Media Centre

The controversial Fiji draft media decree, news coverage of Samoa and Tonga and the rest of the region and journalism education have all featured in this week's commentaries from the Pacific Media Centre.

Censorship by legal camouflage (forthcoming article in the Walkley Magazine) - April

Radio NZ's Mediawatch co-host Jeremy Rose interviews PMC director Dr David Robie on the Fiji Media Industry Development Decree - April 18

Media7 panel criticises BSA over 'guns and drugs' ruling (Pacific Scoop) - April 17

Fiji fights on for a free media (article in the New Zealand Herald Online) - April 16

PMC director Dr David Robie with TVNZ's Barbara Dreaver and Media Freedom Committee chairman Tim Pankhurst in a Media7 panel on Pacific media coverage hosted by Russell Brown - April 15

Check out our news website Pacific Scoop for further updates.

PMC features in TVNZ report on tough Fiji media crackdown

Pacific Media Centre

Pacific Media Centre's David Robie featured in Barbara Dreaver's Television NZ report on the new Media Industry Development Decree 2010. Dreaver, still banned in Fiji by the military-backed government, says the regime is set to introduce tough new laws that could see journalists locked up or fined 10 times their salary if they write stories criticising the dictatorship...

David Robie, director of the Auckland University of Technology's Pacific Media Centre, knows all too well of the situation in Fiji. He lived there for years, training journalists.

"This is a very vindictive, punitive draft decree and clearly the bottom line is aimed at one news organisation in particular - The Fiji Times," says Robie.

It is virtually the only organisation that has stood up to the regime. It has been a thorn in the self-imposed government's side.

Cartoon: Malcolm Evans/Pacific Journalism Review

Draft Fiji media decree draconian and punitive

By David Robie: Pacific Media Centre

Fiji’s draft media decree is draconian and punitive and will fail as a development communication model.

Many aspects of the draft law are deeply disturbing and the harsh proposed penalties for editors and journalists who fall foul of the proposed rules will curb any hope of a return to an independent Fourth Estate.

This will be a blow to media freedom throughout the Pacific and provide a damaging precedent for other politicians in the region keen to rein in a free press.

The draft Media Industry Development Decree 2010 provides for the establishment of a Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) to “encourage, promote and facilitate” news media organisations and services at a “high standard” and a statutory Media Tribunal to judge complaints against media.

The new provision restricting foreign ownership to 10 percent of a media organisation and directorships to Fiji citizens who have been residing in the country for five of the past seven years, and nine of the past 12 months.

Vindictive section
This is clearly a vindictive section aimed at crippling the Fiji Times, the country’s largest and most influential newspaper, which is owned by a Murdoch subsidiary, News Limited.

The regime wants to put the newspaper out of business, or at least effectively seize control and muzzle its independent stance – seen by the military-backed government as “anti-Fiji”.

While international responses have focused on the serious impact for the Fiji Times group, it will also hit the other two dailies – the struggling Fiji Daily Post, which has 51 per cent Australian ownership, and the Fiji Sun, which has taken a more “pro-Fiji” (ie the regime) line than the Times but has some expatriate directors.

Other concerns about the draft law include:

• Too much power being vested in the ministerial-appointed director of the MIDA and chairman of the Media Tribunal. Both agencies need wider community representation and independence.

• The power to investigate suspected breaches of the decree and to search and seize documents and computer equipment (albeit with a warrant). This would stifle any investigative journalism, although there has been little of that since the 2006 coup.

• A requirement that all news reports publish a “byline” identifying the author. An opportunity for vindictive reprisals from a vengeful dictatorship.

• The power to punish media organisations guilty of an offence under the decree with a fine of up to F$500,000, and individual editors and journalists with a fine of up to $100,000 or a maximum jail term of five years. This is so intimidating that many of Fiji’s better and more experienced journalists will be tempted to leave Fiji if they can – and there has been a steady exodus of media people ever since the first two coups in 1987 – or discourage young people entering the profession.

• The power to proactively investigate a media organisation without a public complaint being filed. This opens the door to vindictive abuse in a climate of dictatorship and the singling out of media organisations that do not toe the regime line.

Better training
There is a case to be made for better engagement by media on national development issues, but this should be achieved through more journalism training and education and more support for the country’s journalism schools and training institutions, such as the University of the South Pacific.

All governments in Fiji – not just the current regime – have lambasted the media ever since independence when it suits them, but have provided precious little support for training and education for the industry.

A government cannot legislate people’s minds. Much more can be achieved by freeing up the media environment, backing off from censorship and engaging with the media in a more cooperative manner.

To get its own side of the story across, the Fiji regime should establish a national news agency like many developing countries do and let the media get on with its job of reporting unfettered in the public interest.

Codes of ethics previously administered by the self-regulatory Fiji Media Council have been incorporated into the draft decree as statutory schedules.

But it is not yet clear what future role the council would have as the authority and tribunal would overtake its powers.

While in a democracy, a media development authority could have merits – especially if it genuinely supported stronger training and education programmes – in a dictatorship it is dangerous. This smacks of blatant and insidious control.

With a decree like this in place in Fiji, who needs censorship?

Dr David Robie is an associate professor in AUT University’s School of Communication Studies and director of the Pacific Media Centre. He is a former head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific.

• Read David Robie’s Café Pacific blog comments on the controversy:
• ‘Camouflaged censorship’ in Fiji and PINA’s comment
• Ruthlessly chilling decree no way to improve Fiji media
• Full text of draft Media Industry Development Decree 2010

Australia, NZ 'misunderstand' Fiji politics, coup leader tells Māori TV

"Let's Be Frank" is due to be aired again on Māori Television tomorrow (Friday) night at 10pm.

By David Robie, of Pacific Media Watch

Fiji’s military-backed prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama has vowed not to be bullied by Australia and New Zealand, and has defended his curbs on the Pacific country’s media.

“I’m trying to do what is good for Fiji, not what’s good for New Zealand, not what’s good for Australia,” he told Māori Television’s current affairs programme Native Affairs presenter Julian Wilcox in an interview broadcast last night.

But he added that Fiji “treasured” its traditional relationship with both countries and blamed the neighbouring governments for the current damaged relationship.

Bainimarama said New Zealanders did not understand democracy in Fiji and he hinted that an improvement might come in relations with New Zealand if Prime Minister John Key “changed his views” on Fiji.

He said it would be “a good thing” for the future relationship if New Zealand appointed a new high commissioner to the vacant post in Suva.

Bainimarama was interviewed in Suva during “48 hours in the Pacific’s military zone” last week, as the bilingual Māori and English public broadcaster billed the special report.

The wide-ranging Wilcox interview and a report by Carmen Parahi on grassroots responses from Fiji Islanders to the military regime coincided with a brief visit to Suva by the special Commonwealth emissary, former NZ Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves.

“This is our one and only chance to right the wrongs. We have had four coups. We don’t want any more coups,” Bainimarama said.

‘No secret’
Asked by Wilcox why he had seized power in December 2006, Bainimarama replied: “It was no secret that what we wanted to do was get rid of corrupt practices [under the previous elected government of Laisenia Qarase], get rid of the racial policies that were around us – especially the racial policies that were going to take our country down …

“It boiled down to the public service not doing their thing … their bit.

“We have removed just about all the people for abuse of authority, abuse of office and abuse of funds. These people were part of the elite group of government …

“It was nepotism throughout and we could see that. So we wanted to get rid of it.”

Bainimarama called for more understanding of the complexities of the Fiji political and social system and why changes were needed.

“People see this nation as a failed state. The European Union sees it as a failed state. The Commonwealth, the whole reason why they have suspended us is that they see this nation as a failed state.

“The [Pacific Islands] Forum, Australia and New Zealand see this nation as a failed African state.
“You have a preconceived idea of what is happening [in Fiji] when you don’t understand what is happening here … and people don’t want to understand because you want to interfere in the way we do business.

Peacekeeping
“In fact, right now … Australia is trying to get us out of the United Nations peacekeeping [role]. What benefit will there be for the Australians? Would it benefit the Māori, for instance; would it benefit the Aborigines if we were removed from the UN peacekeepers?

Wilcox: “You feel Fiji is being bullied by, principally New Zealand and Australia?”
Bainimarama: “Yes, because you don’t understand what is happening here, what we’re trying to do.

“All you see is the military removing an elected government and it wants to remain in power for the next five years [until an election in 2014].

“Yes, we removed an elected government – for good reason. We wanted to bring about development in this country. We wanted to bring this country forward instead of keeping us in the old cannibalistic days.”

Asked why Bainimarama had not left it to elections and democracy to make political reforms, the self-appointed prime minister said the politicians “don’t want reforms – if they bring about reforms, the people won’t vote for them”.

Bainimarama said an authoritarian government was needed to make the political and electoral reforms in Fiji needed to ensure no more coups would happen.

“In Fiji, you don’t come up with your own vote. Your vote is dictated by the chiefs, it is dictated by the Great Council of Chiefs, it is dictated by the provincial councils, and it is dictated by the [Methodist] Church.

‘Not democracy’
“So it’s not your vote. So don’t tell me that it’s democracy.”

Asked by Wilcox about media censorship, Bainimarama said: “The press is still churning out newspapers. The TV station is still on, the radio is still on.

“What we have censored is irresponsible reports, that’s what we have censored.”
Wilcox: “What exactly does that mean?”

Bainimarama: “That you report the facts. I am sure Māori Television understands that …
“The media are free to express what they want – just say the right things, don’t say rubbish.”

Challenged to talk to the people of Fiji about how they viewed his regime, Native Affairs reporter Carmen Parahi contributed a segment on responses from ordinary Fiji Islanders.

Taking a quick break from a game of touch rugby at Lami, Radio Fiji sports reporter Sikeli Qounadovu said: “Life goes on. The politicians are causing the headaches, while we are enjoying ourselves.

“He [Bainimarama] has done a lot for the rural areas of Fiji compared to other leaders … We let them do what they think is for the good of the country.”

Positive view
Several speakers in the Suva city markets were also positive about the state of Fiji.
However, the media were less complimentary.

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika, recent winner of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) Pacific Media Freedom Award and who came in for personal criticism from Bainimarama during the interview, was not available for on camera comments.

But he declared that the Fiji Times would continue its independent role.

Merana Kitione, news manager of Fiji Television, described the daily censorship operation, adding that it spite of the repression it was “business as usual” at the station.

However, asked by Parahi if Fiji Television feared being closed, she replied: “I can’t answer that question – no comment.”

A Native Affairs studio panel discussion following the Bainimarama interview featured a former senator, Dr Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, and Nik Naidu, spokesperson of the Auckland-based Coalition for Democracy in Fiji.

Both speakers argued for dialogue with the regime but while Naidu called for a free media to enable wider debate with the Fiji public, politicians, civil society and aid donors, Dr Nailatikau said dialogue needed to exclude the media.

Asked by Wilcox to put media censorship in Fiji in perspective, Naidu said: “If this was Fiji, what would happen is the military would be here by now, close down the station, most probably put all of us into custody, and this programme would not air.”

Naidu also added it was an irony that Bainimarama was now calling for New Zealand to post a new high commissioner to Fiji when the military government had twice before expelled NZ high commissioners.

Dr Nailatikau said Fiji’s elected politicians had in the past divided the country with racism and the regime was contributing to a sense of unity.

Dr David Robie of Pacific Media Watch. This article is republished from the Pacific Media Centre's Pacific Scoop.
www.pacmediawatch.aut.ac.nz

Pacific radio defends ban over 'unbalanced' Fiji interview

Pacific Media Centre

A New Zealand-based Pacific radio network has moved to defuse a controversy over a Fijian-language interview critical of the Methodist Church and alleged involvement of some leading clergy in past coups.

Pacific Media Network acting chief executive Tom Etuata told Pacific Media Centre reporter Pippa Brown today that the ban on experienced broadcaster Bulou Amalaini Ligalevu-Legge had been lifted after she had been suspended off air following last month’s wide-ranging interview with Citizens’ Constitutional Forum executive director Rev Akuila Yabaki.

Yabaki also spoke about the abrogation of the Fiji constitution, censorship of the media and freedom of expression in the June 6 broadcast, but the programme's criticism of the Methodist Church in the wake of the regime’s cancellation of the annual conference drew three written complaints to Radio NiuFM/531pi.

The controversy was picked up by the independent media watchdog blog Café Pacific.

Etuata said the radio tried to achieve balance in its programmes.

“She was suspended only from one programme, not from work,” he said. “She is still being employed as an announcer while we investigate and get an independent translation because we did get a number of complaints.

“Our community radio aims to provide both views of the topic and provide balance as a responsible broadcaster on air.”

Bulou Amalaini said the off air suspension was “very unfair”.

She denied claims by complainants that she was a supporter of regime leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, saying little information was coming out of Fiji and she had been trying to provide more insight and research into political developments.

'Too scared'
Formerly of Radio Fiji and with 25 years’ broadcasting experience,” Bulou Amalaini said: “People are too scared to talk, but Rev Yabaki was not too scared to be interviewed.”

Rev Yabaki, who is an outspoken champion of human and constitutional rights in Fiji, spoke about the Methodist Church after the banning of the conference, saying Fiji’s largest and most influential religious institution was “in disarray”.

“If you look at the history of the stand that the Methodist Church has taken in the past 20 years, you will note that it supported the first coup of 1987 and also George Speight’s coup in the year 2000,” he said.

“But it opposed the coup of 2006 because it believes that Fiji should be governed by Fijians, who are their members, as if it were their divine right.

“This was the case when Dr Timoci Bavadra and Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour Party won the general elections of 1987 and 1999.”

One complainant to 531pi/Niu FM said: “It would have been fair ... if Ligalevu [had interviewed] a member of the church in New Zealand or an official of the church in Fiji on matters concerning the church.

“But to do exactly the opposite does not only degrade the biggest domination in Fiji but also angers the members of the church who are in New Zealand.”

Bulou Amalaini said she had been told by the station management that "the interview was good but it was not balanced - that I should have interviewed somebody from the Methodist Church as well".

She said Fijian programme producer Nemai Vucago had asked the head of the Fiji Methodist congregration in New Zealand, Rev Peni Tikoinaka, to speak on the programme but he had declined because he said he was not "fully versed" over the issue.

Another Methodist clergyman was also asked but declined.

Rev Yabaki told the PMC that Bulou Analaini had been dealt a "raw deal" by the radio station "in a manner that lacks transparency".

He said she had been denied a hearing involving the three complaints.

Pictured: Broadcaster Bulou Amalaini Ligalevu-Legge (top) and the CCF's Rev Akuila Yabaki.

Niu FM - Pacific Media Network
Full text of Rev Akuila Yabaki interview
Veteran Fiji broadcaster gagged on Pacific radio

PJR praised for 'diversity' edition

Pacific Media Watch

New Zealand's Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, has awarded Pacific Journalism Review a citation in recognition of its latest edition dedicated to the theme of "diversity and identity".

The May edition of the journal, published by AUT University's Pacific Media Centre, highlights some of the complex diversity issues across the Asia-Pacific region, and De Bres says the issue "unpacks and focuses on the place and role of the media in facilitating diversity".

Topics include "culture clash" faced by Western journalists and foreign correspondents entering the Pacific region; diversity reporting in Aotearoa and the rise of "ethnic media"; and a review of the controversy over last year’s media report that Pacific peoples were a "drain on the New Zealand economy".

A feature article is written by a media "insider" in the People's Charter process in Fiji and examines censorship and its impact on freedom of expression in Fiji.

Managing editor and Pacific Media Centre director associate professor David Robie notes that “this edition provides some challenging and fresh insights into diversity reporting in New Zealand, from Fiji to Asian stereotypes … but it also celebrates some important achievements.”

Pacific Journalism Review

Amnesty to engage Pacific media in campaign against poverty

By Josephine Latu: Pacific Media Watch

Amnesty International is gearing up to launch a “demand dignity” campaign with a focus on human rights and poverty in the Pacific region.

The dignity campaign is a global project to promote social and economic human rights, focusing on poverty issues.

The role of the media in this campaign has been highlighted at a special seminar hosted by the School of Communications at AUT University, labelled “Putting human rights at the heart of Pacific journalism”.

Amnesty's deputy director in New Zealand, Rebecca Emery, said: “We find that the understanding of human rights among the media and the New Zealand general public is probably not as well understood as it should be."

The organisation is seeking to develop a “new media network” to bring more awareness about human rights issues in the region.

Emery added that Amnesty was expanding its focus from civil and political rights, to social and economic rights, and that development in the Pacific was seen “a rights issue”.

“We will be looking at the slums in the Pacific – first up, Fiji, then the Solomons and Vanuatu,” she said.

TVNZ’s Pacific affairs correspondent Barbara Dreaver also pointed to poverty as the “biggest issue in the Pacific”.

She gave the example of Kiribati, where “prostitution [of young women] to foreign fisherman, sometimes encouraged by their families”, was a reality of the struggle for survival.

Dreaver also spoke about human rights in the Fiji and her own experiences.

‘Fearless reporting’
She added that “fearless” reporting was needed to bring attention to human rights abuses that communities may prefer to keep hidden.

However, she said journalists needed to report on solutions as well as the problem.

Pacific Cooperation Foundation programme coordinator David Vaeafe said that in a survey conducted at the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) conference in the Solomons in 2007, Pacific journalists identified three main human rights themes as priorities:

• governance, leadership and freedom of expression;

• environmental rights;

• and children’s rights.

He announced that the Pacific Cooperation Foundation was currently working with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission on a learning website for environmental rights reporting, due to launch in at the PINA conference in Vanuatu in mid-July.

The site will include online tutorials, training modules, documents about freedom of information laws, and Pacific country profiles.

“It will be a live working site that will be updated constantly,” he said.

“It’s accessible to everyone and people can go through the training modules at their own pace.”

The modules were written by four journalists from the Pacific and New Zealand, and covered print, radio, television and online reporting.

Picture: Fiji soldiers keeping the press at bay (Radio Fiji).

Josephine Latu is a masters student in the School of Communication Studies and also contributing editor of the Pacific Media Centre's Pacific Media Watch database.

Amnesty International NZ Pacific Media Watch on Pacific media and human rights

Commentators condemn NZ's policies on Fiji

A neglect of perspective and lack of historical perspective in reporting Fiji’s “coup culture” means New Zealand media coverage of the Pacific country lacks insight and balance, say critics.

By Kacey Maher: Pacific Media Centre

Two New Zealand academics have called for a more critical review of the country’s policies towards Fiji. And they are not alone with this suggestion.

Prominent journalists and community people join both AUT University’s Pacific Media Centre director Dr David Robie and University of Waikato political economist Dr David Neilson in criticising media coverage of the Fiji coups and calling for changes in policy.

Associate professor Robie told Radio New Zealand’s Mediawatch programme it was vital for journalists to challenge the censorship by reporting all the “twists and turns and nuances” of the Fiji political upheaval to gain a more complete and accurate understanding of events.

“Fiji is one of our important friendly nations in the region,” he said. “Even though we pride ourselves on being part of the Pacific, in many ways the Australian media…do a far better job of covering the region.”

Dr Robie also said little attention was paid to Fiji news, especially in print, unless it had some context within New Zealand.

“If it doesn’t make the general news then it doesn’t make anything, because it doesn’t get a space in the world pages,” he told interviewer Jeremy Rose.

The following day, the New Zealand Herald reported in a front page story that Māori party co-leader Tariana Turia wanted to send a delegation to Fiji.

The article, in addition to being New Zealand-related, also featured no Fijian sources.

Underground Fijian blogs such as Intelligentsiya condemned the idea, saying such a delegation would be of little to no help.

Editorial view
As Dr Robie predicted, there were no Fiji-related articles in the world section. However, an editorial column seemed to be filling some of the reportage gaps.

“I like the op-ed article in the Herald from Tapu Misa - with thoughtful quotes from a University of the South Pacific professor,” said Maire Leadbeater, a long-time peace activist and spokesperson for the Coalition for Democracy, who also thinks New Zealand coverage of Fiji has been lacking.

The professor, Wadan Narsey, is a Fiji citizen and a frequent contributor to the Fiji Times - a key example of the types of sources Dr Robie hoped the media would seek out.

With the Auckland-based Pacific Media Center, associate professor Robie tries to right the regional wrongs as he sees them in mainstream New Zealand media.

Along with patchy Pacific coverage, Dr Robie says that too often experts from far afield in New Zealand and Australia saturate analysis and commentary.

Instead, he told Radio New Zealand, sources from USP, such as Narsey, ought to give an analysis that is closer-to-home.

Taualeo’o Stephen Stehlin, executive producer of TVNZ’s Tagata Pasifika, agreed with this assessment.

“I think the reporting of the regional voices has been sporadic with an emphasis on New Zealand and Australia,” he said. However, he says, it is a difficult situation, especially for local journalists on the ground within Fiji.

“It would be good to hear more from professor Narsey and his colleagues - but do they take a risk if they speak critically about the coup?” said Leadbeater, echoing Taualeo’o’s views.

Foreign news sources have been gagged in Fiji since April 10, leaving blogs as essentially the only uncensored media from within.

Journalists hoping to enter from the outside must first agree to a background check and sign a visa application stating that they will cover the news “fairly”.

Moral ambiguity
This has many journalists up in arms about the moral ambiguity of having to get permission from the government to cover political stories.

However, interim regime leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama told SkyNews: “It’s not only insightful messages that we are worried about, it’s irresponsible reporting that’s done by the media.

“That’s something we really don’t need done right now.”

Dr Robie told Radio New Zealand, there was a long history of mistrust within Fiji about foreign journalism, especially the foreign journalism that existed within its own borders.

World-wide conglomerate, Murdoch’s News Corp, owns the Fiji Times, the country’s largest newspaper.

He said there had been “major questions about the role of media, particularly print media, not being fair and balanced” in Fiji’s past.

“Over the last couple of years certainly the regime has felt that its side of the story and also the plans and objections - the People’s Charter for example - has never really been covered properly,” said Dr Robie.

“I think that’s very arguable and debatable, but this is a very widespread view.”

It was also reflected in Bainimarama’s actions towards the press.

According to Rebecca Moala, a New Zealand mother Fijian by descent, said: “I know more about how the press has been affected by the whole thing than how the people of Fiji have been affected.”

Radio New Zealand’s Jeremy Rose professed his own dissatisfaction on air: “I’ve got no feel really for how many support this coup, how many are against it.”

However, a lack of resources during this world-wide financial crisis, is a also a problem, says Scoop Media NZ co-editor Selwyn Manning.

“We at Scoop were on a roll from 2003 through to 2007 in positioning strong reportage and analysis on Pacific regional politics and geopolitics in general,” he said.

“But I cannot claim we are doing anything meaningful now, except possibly being a facilitator, or providing the means, for those journalists that have been driven underground in Fiji.”

Lifting the lid
But this could help “lift the lid on the real Fiji,” said Manning.

He explained that it was the covert journalism within Fiji and the news organisations which worked with underground media sources that would find the real stories.

“The mainstream media in New Zealand is devoid of specialist journalists who can work real contacts, real people to ascertain what is the real situation for Fijians in this most murky affair,” he said.

“There's an over reliance on official sources and neglect of attention given to those facing the consequence of the regime's actions.”

It is this neglect of attention to perspective that has Dr Neilson most disappointed with the media. Dr Neilson, a senior lecturer in labour studies, said New Zealand media fell down most in providing issues within an historical context.

He said that the situation could not be understood without at least the background of the coups that came before.

“From Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara onwards, there has been this idea of a middle way between contending power bases, that link to the two major ethnic groups of Fiji,” he said.

The late Ratu Sir Kamisese served as President of the Pacific Islands and was one of the most influential figures of the Pacific Islands Forum.

This “middle way” is the ideal balance of power between indigenous Fijians and the Indo-Fijians, explained Dr Neilson.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka’s first two coups in 1987 were an attempt to keep the indigenous Fijians in power over the Indo-Fijian-dominated Labour Party.

The subsequent 1997 constitution – abrogated by the current President - was designed to ensure that that the indigenous would retain supreme power while also protecting the interests of the Indo-Fijians.

However, Dr Neilson said he felt increasingly pessimistic about Fiji’s future.

Maika Tabukova of the Canterbury Fiji Community is also frustrated over media coverage.

“What the media in New Zealand is doing is making the situation worse,” she said. “Only a Fijian can explain to you what is going on in Fiji.”

Photo: Pacific Media Centre.

Katherine Maher is an American student journalist on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course as part of her Study Abroad programme at AUT University.

RNZ's Mediawatch on Fiji – May 3, 2009
Intelligentsiya – 'The Hand in the President’s Glove'
Fiji's hope lies in peaceful resistance

'Courage under fire' - the Fiji Times experience

The speech by the Fiji Times editor-in-chief, Netani Rika, at the Article 19 conference in Apia, Samoa, 6-8 May 2009.

It is difficult to put thoughts into words when you know that everything you say has the potential to be a threat to the very existence of 180 people with whom you work and close to 1000 who depend on them for a living.

Last month, the Appeals Court in Fiji ruled that the removal of Laisenia Qarase’s government by the army and its shadowy group of supporters was illegal.

The three judges declared not only that the takeover was illegal but that the President appoint a caretaker prime minister to lead Fiji to democratic elections within a suitable time frame.

Hours after the judgment was handed down, the interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, agreed on national television to abide by the ruling and uphold the law.

The next day he was reappointed by the President – this time to head an interim government of the same people who had lead Fiji prior to the declarations of the court.

Immediately, a Public Emergency Regulation (PER) was put in place to ensure that there would be no opposition to Bainimarama’s regime.

In a nutshell the regulation prohibits public gatherings for the purpose of political meetings and – under Section 16 – stops the media from broadcasting or printing material which may incite the people.

This rule gives the Permanent Secretary wide-ranging and arbitrary powers to decide what may cause incitement. There is no requirement for this public servant to declare why the decision has been made to prevent a particular news item from being made public.

Censor 'protection'
On the afternoon of Bainimarama’s return to power, the Permanent Secretary for Information told news editors that as part of the regulation, each media organization would be allocated a censor and that each censor would be accompanied by a police officer in plain clothes.

The police officer – we were told – was to protect the censor.

We were not told from whom the censor would need protection.

In Fiji it is often the case that rules can change from day to day without warning or explanation.

As days and weeks have passed, the number of censors has increased, as has the number of police officers.

These enforcers of the law are no longer in plain clothes and sometimes take on the duty of the censors, deciding what we are permitted to print.

What, you may ask, are we permitted to print?

Basically any story on government must put the interim regime in a positive light or it will not be permitted.

No views contrary to those of the interim government are permitted – even if balance is provided in the form of a comment from a minister of state or a senior public servant.

Censors did not allow the publication of the reactions of the Commonwealth and the United Nations to the reappointment of Bainimarama as interim prime minister by our president.

Thailand gagging
We were not allowed to publish news of street protests in Thailand or the assassination attempt on US President Barak Obama.

Censors entered our newsroom on the evening of the day that the President ordered Bainimarama’s reinstatement.

Of course we had dozens of stories from all across the political spectrum showing reactions to this event.

We were not allowed to publish any of these stories.

The next day our Sunday paper – which is now a collectors’ item – was published with white space in place of the stories which the censors – both trained journalists and one of whom had worked in the mainstream media - had culled.

We carried bold notices in those spaces declaring that the newspaper had been prevented from publishing the stories under the Public Emergency Regulation.

It was a sensation and drove home to the people of Fiji the point that we were powerless to tell the truth, powerless to tell the country what it needed to know, powerless to carry out our duty to the nation and provide free speech.

And it brought home to them the fact that media freedom is intrinsically linked to their right to know and their freedom of expression.

Unfortunately the interim government was not amused and the Fiji Times management was summoned before the Permanent Secretary for Information to be told that white space was not allowed under the Public Emergency Regulation.

What, then, do we do next?

'Normal' coverage
We have decided to go about our daily assignments in the normal manner.

Our journalists and photographers cover every possible assignment attempting to get as many sides of the story as possible.

Yes, we continue to cover stories which do not portray the interim government in a good light.

Those stories are assigned to pages and go to the censors each day. More often than not these stories are declared unfit for consumption by the people and are knocked back by the censors.

The next day we cover every assignment again – including the stories which the interim government does not want – and inundate the censors with copy.

Sometimes the stories get through, at other times they are spiked.

It is an extremely frustrating exercise.

Last week a domestic airline was forced to close because of financial difficulties which are not linked to the current regime.

Our business writer prepared comprehensive coverage, covering all angles of the story, providing fact files, historical background – a masterpiece from a young journalist.

The censor on duty did not allow our reports to run unless we carried a quote from a specific minister.

Story pulled
We refused and pulled the story.

The following day we placed the same stories in front of a different censor – No worries, the issue was covered, albeit a day late.

It is safe to say that the greatest challenge we face with censorship is inconsistency.

What we may or may not cover is at the discretion or more often the whim of the censor on duty.

Last week the Public Emergency Regulation was extended for a further 30 days.

The Permanent Secretary for Information declared this week that the media was now reporting responsibly.

In my view, Fiji’s media has always tried to report responsibly.

Unfortunately, all of our country’s rulers since independence in 1970 believe that responsibility means no anti-government stories.

The people know of our inability to provide a truly independent view of what is happening in our home.

Those who can use shortwave radio to find a link to the outside world and news broadcast on Radio Australia or Radio New Zealand International.

Blog sites
A plethora of blog sites has sprung up spewing Fiji stories, rumour, gossip and speculation into cyber-space.

Most of this news is accessible only to the small portion of the community which has access to the internet.

Unable to halt the onward march of the bloggers, Fiji’s rulers have resorted to ordering the closure of Internet cafes from 6pm each evening in an attempt to stem the tide.

But how does it stop the coconut wireless which for generations has provided steady – if not entirely factual – news in countries around the region?

But we gather this week to discuss courage under fire.

To say that Fiji’s media has been under fire since December 2006 is no exaggeration.

We have been threatened, bullied and intimidated. Our cars have been smashed, our homes firebombed.

Despite this, our staff have remained committed to the ideals of a free media, telling the stories that must be told, exposing the weaknesses in State policies and also covering human interest assignments.

It is because of their commitment and refusal to detract from the cause that the interim government has been forced to gag the media.

It is important in these trying circumstances for senior journalists and managers to maintain a brave face and communicate constantly with their staff, offering support and protection.

Training, mentoring
It is also imperative that we offer guidance and direction and stress the importance of the role of a vibrant, free press in a democracy.

Training, upskilling and mentoring are also important.

At the Fiji Times we have found that our people – and many of them are young – understand the complexities of the situation we face.

How do we build their courage?

Simply, by not backing down.

We continue to cover the issues which are important to people – water, roads, food prices, housing, superannuation, health services, governance, accountability, transparency.

Every story is covered in detail as if we were working in a truly democratic country without the current restrictions.

Each day we challenge the censors by putting every possible news item before them.

Sometimes we are lucky and the occasional story slips through the net.

On those days we celebrate quietly.

The danger is that under the current circumstances, journalists may start to censor their own stories.

We must not allow that to happen.

Pushing boundaries
It is vital – indeed it is our duty – to ensure that journalists continue to make every attempt to cover the issues that matter to the people, even if the stories we write do not portray our rulers in a good light.

Our leaders must learn to deal with criticism form the electorate.

For journalists it is frustrating to spend the day covering issues and then writing reports which cannot be printed.

To their credit, however, our team at the Fiji Times continues to cover the issues, continues to test the censors, continues to push the boundaries of the regime’s regulations.

That takes true immense courage.

In our a situation it would be easy to roll over and practice self-censorship or get out of journalism because it’s just too hard.

To their credit, however, our journalists have risen to the challenge, continued to report without fear or favors and remained objective.

They have bravely stood up to intimidation, rejected censorship and recognized that when a nation is controlled by usurpers it is imperative that the public’s right to know is protected at all costs.

And they are determined to break the culture of silence which so often surrounds our leaders – elected or otherwise.

I am proud of the journalists with whom I work and their colleagues in Fiji’s media industry. They are a tribute to the profession we all love so much.

Pictures of Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika and the "blank space" newspaper by David Robie.

Veteran media freedom champions speak out

Veteran media freedom champions speak out for uncompromised Pacific news

By David Robie in Apia: Pacific Media Centre

Veteran champions of a free Pacific media spoke out strongly in defence of an uncompromising public watchdog role for the region's news organisations at an Article 19 seminar in Samoa this week.

Savea Sano Malifa, editor-in-chief of the Samoa Observer, spoke of his lifelong pursuit of the “hidden stories” at the UNESCO-sponsored seminar, which had a “courage under fire” theme.

“When I started out as a journalist, I realised that I didn’t care much about the everyday, obvious news,” he said.

“Especially the ones that were being deliberately hidden in order that they remained so for a very long time.

“That was the stuff that kept up the pressure to dig deeper.”

Netani Rika, editor-in-chief of the Fiji Times, whose newspaper led the challenge against unprecedented draconian censorship by the military regime after the abrogation of the 1997 constitution at Easter by publishing blank spaces in retaliation against the gag, called for more training of media workers “under fire”.

“How do we build their courage? Simply, by not backing down,” he said.

“It is vital indeed it’s our duty – to ensure that journalists continue to make every attempt to cover the issues that matter to the people, even if the stories we write do not portray our rulers in a good light.”

Move Pacnews
Kalafi Moala, publisher of both the Taimi ‘o Tonga and Tonga Chronicle and who was unconstitutionally jailed for contempt of Parliament in 1996, called on the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) to move out of Fiji and shift its regional news service Pacnews in protest.

“They should get out of Fiji so that they can function independently,” he said.

“We don’t believe they should remain silent. In terms of media freedom, journalists in the Pacific are looking for fresh leadership.”

Russell Hunter, expelled by the Fiji regime while he was publisher of the Fiji Sun in February 2008, also called for Pacnews to move out of Fiji.

“It is appalling that a body that has consistently stood up for media freedom for a quarter of a century or more should have maintained its operations in a censure environment one minute longer than it needed to,” said Hunter, who is now development editor of the Samoa Observer.

Savea Malifa also warned young journalists to defend their independence and not fall foul to the Pacific free “beer and food” culture.

In our small societies, the urge for compromise is compelling. Many journalists succumb to it. They are invited to their governments’ cocktail parties, they accept free beer and food, and they lose sight of the ethics.”

Marc Neil-Jones, publisher of the Vanuatu Daily Post, said his paper constantly challenged assaults, intimidation and bullying by authorities by publicly exposing such behaviour.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Asia-Pacific bureau’s Deborah Muir and Kalafi Moala were lead trainers for the seminar, organised by the recently formed Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF).

PINA failure
The forum’s facilitator, Lisa Williams-Lahari, a longtime Pacific women’s advocate now based at Otago University, steered the programme – a regional response to the failure of PINA in recent months to respond with timely campaigns to defend the region from assaults on media freedom.

The seminar conducted two days of freedom of speech and expression mobilisation and practical training exercises under the Article 19 umbrella – from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The programme was designed to monitor the region’s media more stringently.

A final day of strategic mapping for the forum’s future, leading to the two-yearly PINA convention in Vanuatu in mid-July followed.

The forum issued a final communiqué today outlining its action plan and declaration, including working towards becoming registered as a non-government organisation.

The network also plans to work with other regional organisations with similar objectives such as the IFJ, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Regional Media Centre, AUT University Pacific Media Centre and its Pacific Media Watch project, University of the South Pacific regional journalism programme and the National University of Samoa journalism programme.

The forum explored a regional strategy to have a strong presence at the University of Queensland-hosted World Media Freedom Day event in Brisbane, Australia, next May 1-4.

Picture: Taimi Media Network publisher (left), Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika and Vanuatu Daily Post publisher Marc Neil-Jones. Photo: David Robie.

• Dr David Robie is director of the Pacific Media Centre. He was present at the “Courage under fire” media seminar with the assistance of the NZ National Commission for UNESCO.

Samoa 'Courage under fire' seminar final communiqué
Pragmatic approach to Fiji censorship

Amnesty boosts Pacific human rights campaign

Pacific Media Centre

Amnesty International’s New Zealand section is stepping up a new strategy focused on grave abuses of human rights in the Pacific.

And Fiji has emerged as the major target at the organisation’s national annual general meeting at AUT University this weekend.

“Demanding dignity gives Amnesty International members an unparalleled opportunity to be regionally relevant,” chief executive Patrick Holmes told delegates.

“Grave and growing human rights abuses in the Pacific region are a big concern.

“We will work to ensure dedicated human rights laws in the Pacific are on the radar.”

Amnesty’s Pacific researcher Apolosi Bose, who last month spent two weeks in Fiji on a fact-finding mission, said in a report that the regime could commit further human rights abuses now it had almost unlimited power.

He said people who were critics of the government were afraid to speak out because there was no constitution, no judiciary and the media had been censored.

Holmes said Amnesty International would work towards developing strong partnerships with local human rights groups in Pacific nations.

“Human rights is the only way to human dignity,” he said.

The organisation’s strategic plan for the next two years said the two main objectives were to focus on:

• Grave abuses of human rights in the Pacific, including New Zealand.

• Understanding and contributing to a “footprint in the Pacific”.

One of the two keynote speakers, Sacha McMeeking, law lecturer at the University of Canterbury and a member of Te Hunga Roia Māori (Māori Law Society), spoke of the “antipodean dream” and a wide belief that New Zealand had an exemplary human rights record.

“But embodying the dream means giving effect to the law,” she said. “Having an international human rights role means taking responsibility to step up and show by example.”

The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi had been a legal attempt to embody the dream by articulating rights and responsibilities on both sides.

The 1975 Waitangi Tribunal had been set up to drive things forward.

But the tribunal was only an advisory body and as it had no judicial powers, governments could ignore recommendations.

McMeeking said a challenge for these times was for New Zealand to develop a legal system that balanced protecting Māori human rights and the cultural right to survive as a people while protecting the rights of other New Zealanders.

Fiji human rights lawyer and women’s advocate Imrana Jalal spoke about the need for a regional human rights commission or agency as many smaller Pacific countries could not establish a sustainable national commission.

Picture: Governance board member Tuwhakairiora Williams, Fiji civil rights lawyer Imrana Jalal and Amnesty International Aotearoa's chief executive Patrick Holmes. Photo: Del Abcede.

Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand

Martial law wipes out Fiji's media freedom day

By Violet Cho: Pacific Media Centre

Media organisations and newspapers worldwide are ready to mark World Media Freedom Day tomorrow - but this important day has been censored in Fiji because of the military regime’s decree banning media and political meetings.

Sources at the University of the South Pacific, where an annual free speech debate was due to be co-hosted with the Fiji Media Council, said plans had to be abandoned.

“The journalism programme was working with the Fiji Media Council to organise activities as it has done through the years, but decided against it after advice from the Information Ministry,” said one organiser.

“We had already held a meeting but could not hold a follow-up meeting to continue with preparations.

“We were told that all meetings to do with the Media Council should be deferred until after period of the 30-day emergency regulations expired.

“We were further advised to familiarise ourselves with the emergency regulations.”

The Fiji Media Council, comprising the country’s leading news media organisations, was also ordered to cancel its monthly meeting.

“Media freedom is seriously curtailed in Fiji,” said TV3 reporter Sia Aston, an AUT graduate who was recently expelled from Fiji.

“Reporters there have to carry out their jobs with members of the military and police within their offices censoring stories.

“International media are given selective access to government ministers and officials, banned from attending sensitive press conferences, monitored heavily while in Fiji and told that any reporting perceived as negative will not be tolerated.

“That is not what I would consider media freedom.”

In a statement marking Media Freedom Day, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), said governments guilty of "censorship, hypocrisy, and neglect are putting press freedom to the sword world-wide”.

The president of IFJ, Jim Boumelha, said: “Governments around the world are failing to defend press freedom and the rights of journalists.

“And in the process they endanger civil liberties and democracy.”

According to the IFJ, journalists worldwide are being targeted in justification of security and counter-terrorism by authorities.

“Even democratic states are putting in place laws that constrain the exercise of journalism,” says Boumelha.

“Snooping on investigative reporters and forcing journalists to reveal sources of information is increasing. As a result, media work in an intimidating atmosphere in which censorship, direct and indirect is becoming routine.”

The Pacific regional media event, “Building courage under fire”, originally planned for Fiji has been moved to Apia, Samoa, because of martial law.

The regional event, with aim of boosting Pacific journalism’s ability to counter pressure on media freedom is being organised by the Pacific Freedom Forum, UNESCO and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community.

The meeting starts on Wednesday and will run until May 8.

Other regional World Media Freedom Day activities include:

Malaysia: According to International Freedom of Expression (IFEX) exchange, Independent Journalism in Malaysia is organising a public forum on “media under Najib: Hope or Disappointment?” at the Central Market in Kuala Lumpur on May 10.

Philippines: The National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) plans a wreath-laying ceremony on May 3 in memory of journalists who have been killed.

Thailand: The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) and UNESCO Bangkok is organising an event to highlight the importance of freedom of expression and media independence after conflicts and crises ranging from Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime to the Philippines under Marcos.

Violet Cho is the Asian Journalism Fellow at AUT's Pacific Media Centre.

IFJ accuses governments of ‘hypocrisy’
Fiji government
Fiji Media Council
University of the South Pacific

Fiji regime leader's brother slams 'bad guy' image

By Violet Cho: Pacific Media Watch

The older brother of Fiji’s military strongman, Sefanaia Bainimarama, has defended the commodore against criticisms as a “bad guy”, saying many people are involved in the coup.

“I don’t think he is [a bad guy],” said Sefanaia Bainimarama during a panel discussion about the Fiji crisis in the weekly Maori-language Marae current affairs programme on Television New Zealand.

“He [Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama] has been put up as a bad guy, but there are a lot of people involved in this coup and all of these problems. They haven’t come to the fore.

“It’s Frank that’s bearing all this things - all the other people are not visible in there.”

Sefanaia Bainimarama justified the coup by saying his brother was trying to achieve a “peaceful country” for the future. Fiji has been hit by four coups in two decades.

The commodore had to do what was needed - “when the country’s in trouble, somebody needs to step in and take order.”

He also compared the situation in Fiji with countries in Africa.

“We do not want to be like other countries in Africa that are taking arms and fighting with each other - that’s the last thing we need in the Pacific and in Fiji.”

Though international and local media strongly portray Voreqe Bainimarama negatively, some claim he is the only person who can restore a fair and non race-based democracy in Fiji.

But, said Nik Naidu, spokesperson for the Auckland-based Coalition for Democracy in Fiji (CDF), it was the commodore himself who had “stolen democracy from the people”.

On April 10, the Fiji President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, abrogated the 1997 constitution, sacked the nation’s judiciary, postponed elections until 2014 and reappointed Commodore Bainimarama as prime minister.

The regime has imposed draconian censorship by decree on the media as part of a 30-day martial law.

“The problem in Fiji is not about democracy or elections, it is about some people retaining power, privileges and money,” said Naidu.

“As long as elections are not held to put them back into power that will never be acceptable.

“So they will wait until the time is right for them when they brainwash the population and social engineer people to think in their way. And they can guarantee a result that can put them back into power. Otherwise, they will not have election.”

Naidu confirmed that Bainimarama had choices to put things right and he could also do it.

But “there are other forces that are pushing him along to their agenda,” he said without clarifying this.

Sefanaia Bainimarama said media hype was a big thing that spoiled much in every country in the Pacific, including Fiji.

Sireli Kini, a former chief executive of Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Ltd, said a lot of Fijians relied mainly on radio for their news.

Due to the crackdown on media, Radio Fiji news now hardly carried anything for the people about what was happening in the country at present.

For a good country with good government, there should be media freedom and information was very important, Kini said.

He said people needed to know what was happening and what the government was doing.

If people did not get information, it was hard for them to "react” and they did not know what they were supposed to do about the crisis.

Since the Fiji regime declared martial law, there has been a massive crackdown on media with journalists being asked questions, intimidated, detained - and three Australian and New Zealand journalists were deported.

The government gagged Fiji Television and has forced the regional Suva-based Pacnews agency to self-censor its news on the republic.

Picture: Commodore Voreqe "Frank" Bainimarama. Photo: Radio Fiji.

Media freedom organisations condemn censorship
Fiji on TVNZ's Maori-language current affairs programme Marae [video]

A tale of censorship crises – Fiji and Thailand

By Violet Cho and David Fisher: Pacific Media Centre

While the international media is relaxed about Thailand's Easter political crisis, condemnation is being heaped on Fiji's military regime. Thais and Fiji islanders have woken up to a new era of shadowy rule of law - a challenge for local and foreign journalists alike.

Geographically, Thai and Fiji politics are worlds apart - but the military dictatorship in Fiji and the barely democratic Thai government share a similar view towards independent and alternative media.

Both view media as a threat to their rule, and justify repression through maintaining stability.

Both countries are currently under a state of emergency.

In recent weeks, the fragility of democracy has again been on display in Thailand and Fiji, two popular destinations for Australian holidaymakers, noted the Melbourne Age, making comparisons between the two countries and censorship.

In Fiji, the “systematic dismantling of the planks of democracy” was certainly to the detriment of the country’s long-term interests. In Thailand, the “passionate supporters of the ‘real democracy movement — the urban and rural poor who form the bulk of the electorate” — had eased off their street protests.

On the April 10, Fiji’s President, Ratu Josefa lloilo, revoked the Constitution adopted in 1997. He repealed the state courts, postponed elections until 2014 and declared himself the head of the state.

Then he reinstated the coup leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama as prime minister and decreed a 30-day “public emergency” in Fiji.

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s government also introduced martial law in Bangkok and areas around the city two days later on the April 12 after a massive protest asking him to step down.

Abhisit has been under pressure to step down from the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), which is a major anti- government force in Thailand.

Emergency decrees
The emergency decrees highly affect people and allow governments to have full control over media by forcibly stopping publication or broadcast in justification to control the disorder in the country.

Since the state of emergency was introduced, at least five community radio and television stations in Thailand have been targeted with raids, arrests of staff and the confiscation of equipment.

This followed an order from the Internal Security Operations Command for community radio stations to stop inciting unrest or face closure, which was reported in Asia Media Forum.

Other stations in regional areas have reported various forms of threat and harassment by local authorities exploiting the current situation.

So far, one community radio station in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand and DStation TV based in Bangkok have been forced to close.

Under the name of state martial law, the regime in Fiji had threatened human rights defenders and government critics. The government detained and intimidated local journalists and deported three foreign reporters who were filing critical stories.

The journalists - Sean Dorney from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and New Zealand’s TV3 crew of reporter Sia Aston and photographer Matt Smith - were expelled from Fiji.

The regime detained local journalists who gave interviews to foreign media and news reporting about the situation in Fiji.

The regime also shut down two repeat transmitters belonging to the ABC in the tourist town of Nadi and the capital of Suva, forbidding Fiji journalists to speak to foreign media about the crisis in the country.

Mass resistance
Unlike the Fiji’s military crackdown on media, Thai government mainly targeted the media which clearly links to anti-government groups which – also unlike Fiji - have a presence on the street and are actively staging mass resistance.

DStation, for example, is an important part of the UDD propaganda network, as it is used to broadcast protests and speeches.

Partiality, of course, is no excuse to limit media freedom. What is alarming is how this crackdown on “pro-UDD” media and the UDD in general exposes the deep bias of the central institutions of the state, the monarchy, military, judiciary and bureaucracy, when dealing with political dissent.

No attempts were made to restrict the media of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the yellow shirt group which occupied Thailand’s Government House for three months last year and Bangkok’s international airport for eight days, causing massive damage to an economy reliant on tourism.

There was never a crackdown on the PAD and there have been no arrests of their leaders, who are part of the Thai elite and have support from the powerful old guard of Thai society.

UDD or red shirt protesters are asking for a representative democracy, and challenging a system that gives huge power to unelected courtiers. They want a system that will provide services for the majority of Thai people, not just benefits for the rich.

In contrast, PAD want an end to representative democracy, replaced by a system where a large proportion of seats in parliament are appointed by the monarchy and military. This explains why red shirt protests are crushed by the military within days, while PAD alternatively have a free hand to protests for months.

Future in doubt
The current conflict in Thailand is a fundamental one: the monarchy is in crisis because the king is old and the crown prince is unpopular, which leaves the institution’s future in doubt.

Any discussion of the role of the monarchy and succession is strictly forbidden, enforced through a lese majeste law, which is the centerpiece of the Thai censorship regime.

The monarchy is a key battleground. The institution conveyed open signals in support of the 2006 coup that overthrew the populist elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra, and directly led to the current crisis.

Thaksin has now openly accused King Bhumibol of giving his blessing to military leaders before the coup and announced that two privy councilors were the masterminds.

The 2006 coup can be seen as a favour to the king, who was threatened by the grassroots popularity of Thaksin. The monarchy gave clear signals supporting the PAD, through Queen Sirkit’s attendance at the funeral of a protester who died during clashes with police.

There was also no dissent from any royals when the PAD in part justified their actions as necessary to protect the monarchy.

The Thai background is a long and complicated story, and is too often left out of mainstream media reports of the Thai crisis. There has been a lot of praise in foreign media for the Abhisit Government’s handling of the crisis, showing restraint and sparing civilian casualties.

But since local media reporting heavier casualties have been censored, and there are no independent investigation, who knows what the story really is?

Partial justice
The “restraint” shown must be seen in comparison with the lack of action against the PAD. It then becomes obvious that Thailand has a partial “justice” system – that goes after red shirts, Thaksin and his supporters and turns a blind eye to crimes carried out by the military (the 2006 coup being an obvious one) and yellow shirts.

Rarely is the term “monarchy” used in foreign media, without descriptors attached such as “much revered”, “Buddha-like”, “loved” and “immensely popular”. How can journalists know this when criticism can lead to long prison terms?

In contrast, international media overwhelmingly condemns the actions of the Fiji government.

Thai and Fiji islanders have woken up to a new era of shadowy rule of law. This is a challenge for local and foreign journalists alike, who will have to walk carefully.

Picture: Thai anti-censorship protesters at Pantip Plaza, a popular IT mall, during a previous rally. Photo: Global Voices.

Violet Cho is the Asian Journalism Fellow at AUT University’s Pacific Media Centre.

Media freedom groups keep up pressure over Fiji censorship

By Violet Cho: Pacific Media Watch

International media freedom organisations and human rights advocacy groups continue to raise concerns over freedom of the press and civil rights in Fiji.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has appealed to the Fiji’s regime to repeal its gag on the media.

On Good Friday, President Ratu Josefa lloilo abrogated the 1997 constitution, sacked the judiciary, postponed elections until 2014 and reinstated coup leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama as prime minister.

He also declared martial law for 30 days in Fiji.

Since then, the regime has gagged Radio Australia broadcasting repeater stations in Fiji, imposed censorship, and intimidated, detained and deported journalists.

The IFJ also urged the regime to avoid international isolation.

It argued that harsh government suppression of both foreign and local media risked isolation from international communities and this would “greatly harm the people of Fiji”.

“There is no right to propaganda,” said Aidan White, general secretary of the IFJ.

'Warped view'
“Fiji’s military leaders have a warped view of the role of a healthy media if they believe that they are entitled to media reporting that put them in a good light, regardless of their actions.”

The International Press Institute also condemned the regime’s crackdown on media.

David Dadge, director of IPI, said the regime’s strong control would only accelerate the problem in the country and he called for an end to censorship and the intimidation of journalists.

In response to Bainimarama, who blamed media for the Fiji political turmoil in an interview with Radio New Zealand, Dadge argued that it was a “deplorable attempt to hide the truth at a time of political uncertainty”.

Instead, he said: “Contrary to what the regime says, the media can contribute to better understanding and can ease tension in divided societies.”

The Pacific Media Centre at New Zealand’s AUT University condemned the regime’s "ruthless censorship" and harassment of media organisations.

Associate professor David Robie, director of the PMC and a former head of the University of the South Pacific regional school of journalism in Fiji during the 2000 coup, criticised the government repression of media and dissidents.

Dr Robie praised Fiji journalists for a “creative and courageous” response to martial law.

'Burmese-style system'
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) appealed to Fiji’s president and coup leader to reverse the regulation against media institutions and the Paris-based organisation also compared Fiji military government with Burma’s military dictatorship.

“The military government is heading dangerously towards a Burmese-style system where the media are permanently subject to prior censorship and other forms of obstruction,” said RSF.
The Pacific Freedom Forum, an advocacy group of journalists, criticised the intimidation and detention of journalist.

"This bullying behaviour on the part of Fiji authorities will only serve to still further focus attention on that country's situation, because the story will still, eventually be told," PFF chair Susuve Laumaea, of Papua New Guinea, said.

Amnesty International said Fiji’s military government’s “draconian measures” had systematically caused deteriorating human rights in the country and civilians were feeling insecure living in the unstable country.

A Pacific researcher for Amnesty International based in London, Apolosi Bose, said after a fact-finding visit to Fiji: “What is developing is a culture of extreme fear and intimidation.”

He added: “The government’s emergency regulations, which include exoneration of police and soldiers from responsibility for actions, even when they cause injury or death, are having a major impact.”

In the statement, Amnesty International also said that the regime had threatened human rights defenders and government critics as well as detaining reporters.

Key actions
In key developments since the repeal of the constitution on April 10:

• April 13: Three foreign journalists - Sean Dorney of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Sia Aston and photographer Matt Smith from New Zealand’s TV3 - were expelled from Fiji.

• April 13: Fiji Television reporter Edwin Nand was detained for about 36 hours over an interview he did with expelled Australian reporter Dorney.

• April 15: The regime ordered ABC to shut down its two FM transmitters in the capital Suva and in the tourist town of Nadi. This move also affected Radio New Zealand International because it also relays programmes via the ABC transmitters.

• April 16: The regime detained Pita Ligaiula, a reporter for Pacnews, a regional news agency owned by Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), over his stories filed to the international news wire Associated Press. He was released after being held for about 12 hours.

According to IPI, the regime has warned Fiji journalists not to speak to foreign media about the political crisis and some journalists have been taken into custody for questioning.

The regime announced in a change of policy it would accept “approved” foreign journalists into the country. It also asked local reporters to practise the “journalism of hope”.

Meanwhile, news media organisations in the country such as the Fiji Times, the Fiji Sun and Fiji Television have stopped publishing political stories after the regime warned the Sunday Times not to carry on publishing blank spaces or it would be closed down

Violet Cho is the Asian Journalism Fellow at the Pacific Media Centre.