Bordering on censorship
Tuesday, 14 Jul, 2009
PAKISTAN is no stranger to ill-conceived laws and regulations that eventually prove crippling to the national good. Take the blasphemy laws, which over the years have become an instrument for the victimisation of individuals and minority communities. Though less pernicious, the most recent example of discriminatory laws is the government’s announcement that the sending of “indecent, provocative and ill-motivated stories and text messages” via email and cellphones will henceforth be punishable by up to 14 years of imprisonment under the Cyber Crime Act. According to the interior ministry, the government is initiating a campaign against “ill-motivated and concocted stories against the civilian leadership and the security forces.” This borders on officially sanctioned censorship of the free flow of ideas and the people’s right to engage in debate over the actions of the government and its institutions. For one thing, the ‘law’ is dangerously loosely worded: the parameters of ‘indecent’ or ‘ill-motivated’ have not been defined. Neither have any conditions been identified under which potentially prosecutable offences will be delineated from legitimate discourse. This leads to the possibility of the regulation being misused to harass and silence the government’s critics. Indeed, the decision carries disturbing echoes of past attempts at censorship, for email and SMS messages are now an important means through which the voice of the people makes itself heard.
By criminalising what is essentially the people’s freedom to debate and comment, the government exposes itself to the charge of stifling political opposition rather than changing or reconsidering policy. Certainly, no person should be allowed to fan communal hatred or incite others to violence. But the laws governing freedom of speech must be specific and tightly worded, as they are for slander and libel. The government would do well to remember that upholding the tenets of democracy, amongst them the freedom of legitimate expression, is an important part of retaining its democratic credentials. The political parties currently in power may tomorrow find themselves in the opposition, facing the sharp end of the stick they wield today.
************************************************** ********
Child rights denied
Tuesday, 14 Jul, 2009
BALOCHISTAN law minister Robina Irfan has called upon the government and parliamentarians to work for the protection of children’s rights. Noting the increase in child labour, incidents of sexual abuse and violence against children, she termed the situation “very alarming” and demanded that the government take notice. Certainly, the minister’s concerns are valid. Although Pakistan ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, the rights of the country’s children continue to be violated. Child labour and trafficking, violence in the home, school and workplace, sexual abuse, child marriages and the handing over of underage girls in dispute settlements are a few examples of direct transgressions against child rights that take place virtually every day across the country. Also pressing is the issue of juvenile offenders: the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was formulated in 2000 but the codes of conduct laid out therein have never been properly implemented. In reality, minors falling foul of the law rarely benefit from their right, as specified by the ordinance, to state-provided legal counsel or alternative sentencing measures. And beyond these issues, there are the less immediately apparent ways through which children are routinely denied their due: lack of education, healthcare, economic opportunity or even adequate food and potable water.
With the country’s population skewed heavily towards the young and a rising birth rate, it is high time that the protection of child rights became a priority of the state and citizenry alike. It is ironic, meanwhile, that the minister has called for the attention of a government that she, in her professional capacity, is part of. It is the task of the country’s parliamentarians, and the elected government they represent, to not only formulate legislation and policy but also ensure implementation. In the case of child rights, the legislators’ performance has been unjustifiably slow.
************************************************** ********
Why this delay?
Tuesday, 14 Jul, 2009
THE delay in doing away with the 17th amendment with all its aberrations is astonishing given that there is a virtual consensus on its repeal. On Sunday the prime minister repeated his resolve to annul the Musharraf-gifted law that is now part of the constitution. Speaking at the convocation of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani reiterated his determination to amend the basic law, pointing out that the present system of government was neither parliamentary nor presidential — a ‘hodgepodge’, as he put it. Almost every political entity is in favour of scrapping the 17th amendment. In fact, the very first paragraph of the Charter of Democracy, signed in London on May 14, 2006 with Benazir Bhutto and the Sharif brothers present, declared categorically that “the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment shall be repealed”. Armed with this national consensus, the democratic government should have translated this idea into reality long ago. Clearly, the resistance against reverting to a true parliamentary system comes from within the PPP.
The most pernicious part of the 17th amendment is article 58-2b which gives the president the power to sack the government, even if the prime minister enjoys the National Assembly’s confidence, and dissolve the lower house. Ziaul Haq inserted it into the 1973 Constitution by decree and it enabled him to sack the Junejo government. Subsequently, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari exercised this power to sack three prime ministers — Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and then Benazir again. Incidentally the article makes it clear that the president can exercise this power only if a situation arises where the government of the federation cannot be carried on according to the constitution. In each case, no such situation existed and Ziaul Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari used it for purely political purposes. In his second term, Nawaz Sharif had the article repealed. Pervez Musharraf brought it back through the Legal Framework Order.
What is involved now is the PPP’s credibility. Both the prime minister and President Asif Ali Zardari stand publicly committed to the repeal of the 17th amendment. However, mixed signals from the presidential camp smack of dithering and lack of resolve. The president may say one thing in public but his views are perhaps best couched in the statements of loyal functionaries. One cannot but recall here the inordinate delay that went into the restoration of the sacked judges. They were restored, no doubt, but not before mob fury forced the federal government to act. Let the 27-man committee formed last month by Speaker Fehmida Mirza expedite its work.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Sindhi Press Transfer of LBs to the provinces
Tuesday, 14 Jul, 2009
AFTER presiding over an inter-provincial meeting, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani announced the handing over of local bodies to the provinces and said he would advise the president to issue a notification for the appointment of administrators. Local government was a purely provincial subject which had been taken over by the federal government by including it in the sixth schedule during the Musharraf era. Local bodies helped the former military dictator create constituencies favouring him in order to perpetuate his rule.
Ayub Khan’s entire system of ‘basic democracy’ was condemned because of the way he used it as an electoral college. Zia’s system could not yield any results and slowly died. Gen Musharraf advocated devolution of power and through propaganda he tried to make people believe that this would lead to the provision of speedy justice. Military dictators rely on local government as a means of creating new constituencies of support which is why people view it as the illegitimate offspring of undemocratic forces.
The district government system practically destroyed all institutions. As far as financial matters were concerned, local bodies were made completely dependent on the federal government. Districts were distributed like jagirs — fiefdoms for feudal lords.
Now the prime minister has said the provinces will decide when they will hold elections and whether they will be on a party basis or otherwise. We appreciate this but insist that the elections be held on a party basis. Other reforms and changes are needed so that the people can benefit. For example, conflicts between bureaucrats and nazims have led to numerous problems and the situation is in need of remedy.
Why are administrators being appointed as opposed to holding elections? Only the NWFP has objected to elections due to the ongoing military operation and issues regarding the IDPs which make the polls impossible. Why are they not being held in the other three provinces? It should also be noted that elections held on a party basis will determine the current popularity and vote bank of the political parties. We appreciate the announcement of the prime minister and demand immediate implementation because promises haven’t been kept in the past. Hence arrangements should be made for elections in the three provinces without delay. — (July 12)
Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi