From Matangi Tonga Magazine Vol. 18, no. 2, August 2003.
When the Tonga government’s ban on the Taimi ‘o Tonga newspaper came unstuck in March, it proceeded to draft bills to amend the Constitution and to introduce new legislation to try to regulate the media.
It is a move that is clearly unfair. Why do we all have to suffer because of the poor judgement of a mis-fit New Zealand-based Tongan language newspaper, with a political agenda, that has threatened government? The proposed amendments are like killing a flea with a club.
The Tongan media, in general, is struggling to survive, because of a small market, an under-developed reading culture and a shrinking pa‘anga. To put into place a poorly considered and heavy-handed media regime, as is proposed, will kill not only the flea, but the local media as well, because of the cost of forced restructuring, and licencing, and the difficulties of trying to conform with new media laws, which remain unclear.
Without a strong local press Tonga overnight could revert back to the days of the Coconut Wireless, where malicious and inaccurate gossip rules, and Tongans will get their news only from Radio New Zealand, Radio Australia and overseas news organisations. Tongans will be the losers because they will be deprived of the right of seeing themselves in their own light, and instead they will continue to be a pariah on the boot of the overseas media.
If the concern is the quality of journalism then let’s work toward improving the standard of journalism, because heavy-handedly regulating the press will not improve journalism, it will kill an industry.
If the concern is the strength of the influence of the foreign press, then government should assist the local press to grow, and Government with its own media should lead the way in setting the standard.
The subjectivity of the proposed changes is disturbing. How can one regulate for “cultural” context when Tonga has a living, vibrant culture that is constantly changing, where the new rubs up against the old, and overlaps, and each benefits from the other?
We also should not forget that Freedom of Speech has never been the sole prerogative of the media but it is something precious that belongs to every man, woman and child, and should have nothing to do with whether or not a person has a licence or a registered media company, or money, or academic qualifications, or a pedigree.
Why does the whole country have to forfeit its rights for generations to come, because of what appears to be some unrelenting personal grudges being played out within the administrators of Justice, parliament and the overseas press?
