Despite talk of political reform in Burma, the country’s media landscape remains heavily monitored and the environment for independent journalists is as risky as ever, a new report claims.
Continued censorship and harassment of non-state media workers suggests that pledges by the government to lift tight restrictions on the media sector are superficial, and should not be taken at face value, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
The group’s senior Southeast Asia representative and author of ‘In Burma, transition neglects press freedom’, Shawn Crispin, said in a press release that the environment continues to be “arbitrary, intensive, and highly restrictive”.
In recent months the government has made several amendments to laws that have traditionally placed Burma at the tail-end of press freedom indexes, such as the recent lifting of a ban on accessing websites such as DVB and The Irrawaddy. These have caused a number of countries to speculate that the environment is beginning to open up.
Yet at the same time, the criminalisation of independent journalists continues: last week the 21-year-old DVB reporter Sithu Zeya, who is already serving an eight-year jail term, had his sentenced extended by a decade under the Electronics Act.
Media watchdogs, such as CPJ and the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, responded to the news with anger, claiming it showed that little had changed since the nominally civilian government came to power in March.
The CPJ report noted that since the elections in November last year, “two journalists have been sentenced to prison terms of almost 20 years, and more than a dozen publications have been suspended for their news reporting.”
One magazine that published a full-page photograph of Aung San Suu Kyi earlier this month was suspended for a week, allegedly for violating new laws introduced after publications gave substantial coverage to the opposition icon following her release last year.
The edition was published through a fast-track censorship system whereby breaking news can be submitted to the censor board the night before publication date, rather than the traditional method which can take up to a week. Prior to the suspension of The Messenger, the amendment had been hailed as a positive step.
Crispin also sounded a warning to international donors who have for years supported exiled media like DVB, but who now appear to be shifting their focus to in-country groups working under the banner of “civil society”.
The funding cuts have pushed a number of exiled news organisations to significantly reduce operations, while CPJ notes that the move also risks “casting many journalists and their families into uncertain futures and possible forced repatriation” as groups are forced to cut staff numbers.
“Until new freedoms take hold, exile media continues to serve as a vital source of credible, independent information on developments within Burma and should not be abandoned by donor countries,” he said.
Tags: aung san suu kyi, burma, censorship, Irrawaddy, myanmar, press freedom
Senator backs end to Burma sanctions
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
By liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.
In Burma, political rulers hasn’t changed. New regime is still old regime in new cloths and constitution is not to protect common citizens.
Mill also wrote ” Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects ( their own citizens ) no less than against external enemies. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable in a perpetual attitude of defence againsthis beak and claws. The aim, therefore, of patriots, was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.
If I compare Mill’s standard of liberty and recent Burmese press liberty, can I even call it as LIBERTY which is forming in Burma?
Not long ago, information and journalism minister Kyaw Hsan compare journalists as red ants from Hindu religion stories and said every press must be control he said. I will conclude with my most favourite Mill’s writing.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”.
Kyaw Hsan want to silence the Burmese society and Burmese journalists. Even silencing an individual is not ethical, it even worse silencing the society. Long live true Burmese journalism.