 |
The pen versus the sword
WE add our voice to the outrage that is sweeping the South Pacific over the
deportation of Russell Hunter, publisher of the Fiji Sun, from his home in
Suva.
The action by the non-elected government of Fiji further underlines the
growing threat to the traditional democratic freedoms of all Fijians.
We are deeply concerned for the welfare of Mr Hunter’s family still in Suva.
Given only a few days to follow him out of the country, his East Sepik-born
wife is now faced with the uprooting of 11 years of household memories as
she struggles to comply.
That is an especially cruel and unnecessary gesture and one that adds to the
Fiji administration’s growing bully-boy reputation. But above all, we are
alarmed at the increasingly gloomy future for the Fiji media and for the
people of the island nation.
It appears that Mr Hunter has been deported for daring to publish
allegations of tax evasion against interim minister Mahendra Chaudry, a
former prime minister, who was himself, ousted in a coup.
Commodore Bainimarama claims that Mr Hunter broached his working permit by
“conducting himself in a manner prejudicial to the peace, defence, public
safety, public order, security and stability of the sovereign state of the
Fiji islands”.
In our opinion that statement is nothing but a pompous cover-up for a swift
action taken to choke any further probing of the allegations against Mr
Chaudry.
It is ironic that Chaudry, who was Fiji’s first elected ethnic Indian prime
minister, was ousted by an armed coup but is now defended by the head of the
Fijian defence force.
Mr Chaudry’s irritation with the media is well known and has been previously
expressed on a number of occasions.
The deportation has taken place despite an assurance given to Pacific Island
News Association board members during a meeting with interim prime minister
Bainimarama in December.
The assurance committed the government to uphold media freedoms in Fiji.
The assurance now stands revealed as a convenience, a straightforward sham
designed to calm growing Pacific Islands media concerns current at the time.
There is a pervasive habit in our region, a disease that at times has
threatened to engulf many of our scattered island states.
It stems either from the armed forces or from members of the various
parliaments in the South Pacific.
And it’s as old as the profession of journalism it seeks to target.
Simply, those in authority will support the media and the concepts of
freedom of speech, publication, association and other constitutional
freedoms only as long as the media acts as a positive publicity channel on
their exclusive behalf.
There have been at least two serious attempts to gag the PNG media; both
have been fought off by the determination of reporters and the support of
their managements.
One took place in the second half of the 1980s, when legislation was drawn
up that proposed draconian controls of the media.
These included the issuing of licences to publish and to write and gave the
government of the day absolute effective authority to control what content
appeared in the press and was broadcast and televised.
That legislation was defeated.
Then in 1995 a similar attempt was made.
Only strong action on the part of the media, the re-creation of a voice for
media professionals that is today’s Media Council, a seminar held by the
council to inform the public of what was at stake and the combined protests
of media workers, resulted in the abandonment of that second attempt.
The issue in Fiji can therefore be seen as one for all in the South Pacific,
where our vaunted media freedoms are still young and fragile but have
already been exposed to the blunt crudities of armies and power-hungry
politicians.
Australia and New Zealand both host powerful commercial and statutory media
interests, regulatory bodies and unions.
Many senior journalists from those countries have lived and worked and
contributed to the independence of the media in our region.
We ask of them a favour.
Please speak out now on behalf of those threatened freedoms and the people
whose interests they are intended to serve.
|
|