FINAL REPORT Media Law to unesco july1.pdf - AIBD

Pre summit Workshop on
Media Law for Broadcasters &
Journalists
25 & 26 May 2008
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
COURSE REPORT
PREPARED BY
Manil Cooray
Programme Manager, AIBD
Funded by
1

CONTENTS
I Introduction/Background 1
II Objectives 1
III Resource Persons 4
IV Participants 4
V The Course 4
VI Conclusion & Recommendations 25
Photo Gallery 26
1. Annex I - Participants List
2 Annex II - Programme
3 Annex III – Details of Statement of accounts
4. Annex IV - CD with audio recording of the workshop
proceedings
2

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This final report provides the details of the “ Media Law for
Broadcasters and Journalists “ organized by the Asia-Pacific
Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD), which was
implemented on 25th, and 26 th May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Partial funding support was received from UNESCO.
Manil Cooray, Programme Manager, AIBD prepared the final
report.
The media law training has assumed significance in recent
years as the global media environment has become more and
more competitive and journalistic techniques have become
more and more sophisticated. Media law training has also
become an important benchmark in terms of the
professionalism of media organisations. The importance of
basic legal knowledge and awareness of legal risks has
increased enormously in recent years as the global media
environment has become more and more competitive and
journalistic techniques have become more and more
sophisticated. The workshop was envisaged to be of particular
interest to the larger broadcasting organisations, television
production outfits, print companies and internet publishing
ventures of which there has been a proliferation in the region
in recent years, while some interest was anticipated by
smaller media organisations, including a few in the nonmetropolitan
centers.
For these reasons AIBD organized the media law training for
broadcasters and journalists to provide knowledge on legal
areas relevant to day-to-day practice of journalism such as
defamation, contempt of court, “hate” speech and related
matters and Journalistic ethics in the era of media
convergence .
II
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were set for the training in the workshop as
follows to enable the participants to:
Acquire knowledge on legal areas relevant to day-to-day
practice of journalism and laws in a media convergent
environment focusing on mobile TV & Internet TV that are
increasingly becoming popular with the emergence of the new
forms of journalism that is changing the media laws.
3

III.
RESOURCE PERSONS
The programme was directed and delivered by Dr Venkat Iyer,
who has extensive experience in the area of media law
training. Dr Iyer is a barrister and a senior lecturer in law at
the University of Ulster, UK. A former Nuffield Press Fellow at
the University of Cambridge, Dr Iyer has considerable
journalistic experience as well (he is, among other things,
currently the Editor of The Commonwealth Lawyer, a journal
published from London which enjoys wide circulation
throughout the British Commonwealth). He has carried out
similar training programmes for a number of media
organisations around the world.
In addition to Dr Venkat a few international and local
professionals, academicians and lawyers contributed to the
panel discussions. Please refer Annex 1 for the list of panelists
who contributed to the session on defamation and the session
on Journalistic ethics in the era of media convergence.
IV.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 42 participants attended. They were mostly from a
non-legal background while a very few were practicing
lawyers.
Please refer Appendix I for the list of participants.
V. THE COURSE
Please refer Annex II for the programme.
The training was highly interactive, with sufficient provision
being made for questions and answers, group discussions
case studies. Michaela Rassloff, who assisted the programme
manager of AIBD during the workshop, documented the
workshop proceedings. The detailed summary is as follows:
Sunday, 25 May
Opening remarks:
Ms Manil Cooray, Programme Manager, AIBD acknowledged
the presence of those from member countries, affiliates and
partners of AIBD for this two day presummit workshop on
4

Media Law for Broadcasters and Journalists organized from
25 th to 26 th May in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. She thanked
UNESCO’s contributions in addition to AIBD, and all others
who were present on self-funded basis that made it possible
to organize this event as a pre summit workshop to the 5 th
Asia media Summit. UNESCO’s support was received through
the former Communication adviser Ms Jocelyn Josiah.
She stressed the importance of basic legal knowledge and
awareness of legal risks, which has increased enormously in
recent years as the global media environment, which has
become more and more competitive, and journalistic
techniques have become more and more sophisticated. Media
law training is also becoming an important benchmark in
terms of the professionalism of media organisations.
She introduced Dr Venkat Iyer, who was the consultant.
Speaking at the opening of the workshop Dr Venkat Iyer
observed “a reasonably diverse range of participants, which is
what we always aim for and appreciate”. However, the
content of the workshop would be similar to previous
workshops and quite general, because of those participants
who are new to the subject. He stressed that “there is a
balance to be struck between, if you like, veterans and the
ones who have come relatively new to the field”. But the
content is going to be updated as well. He also highlighted
that participants should be fully involved in the workshop:
“Let this session be as interactive as possible.” Observing that
the majority of participants are by nature non-legal and only
two or three practicing lawyers are present, Dr Iyer stressed
that he wants this workshop to be a “practical tool for
journalists”.
Session 1:
DEFAMATION
In his introduction to the topic of defamation, Dr Iyer first
defined the term. He stressed that defamation only applies to
false statements that damage a person’s reputation. The term
“reputation” refers to “the image that a person has in the
eyes of other people”. Defamation is also known by the word
“libel”, which refers to defamation in written form.
Defamation, Dr Iyer continued, should not be mixed up with
the concept of “malicious falsehood”, which refers to cases
where complainants suffer economic loss without suffering
5

damage to their reputation. For a statement to be
defamatory, there has to be a degree of stigma attached, he
pointed out.
Dr Iyer then provided the following examples for defamation:
a) attributing criminality
b) accusation of lying, racism or marital infidelity
c) allegations of incompetence or dishonesty in
professions
d) allegations of suffering from a contagious disease
such as Aids.
He went on to highlight the significance of defamation in the
context of investigative journalism and said, in general, the
principle of free speech and the issue of reputation has to be
balanced. Where to draw the line, was sometimes “the most
important and sometimes the most difficult question that
needs to be addressed.”
There are three points that a complainant has to prove, as Dr
Iyer further elaborated:
• The complainant must be recognized, either directly or
indirectly.
• The defamatory statement has to be published.
• The defendant (journalist) must have published the
defamatory statement or be responsible for publication
(e.g. the editor).
Often, as Dr Iyer stressed, journalists are at a disadvantage,
“because your job is to actually prove to the satisfaction of
the court that something is true.”
This provoked two questions from the floor, concerning the
role of a witness in proving the truth of an allegedly
defamatory statement. What if the statement is secretly
recorded, asked one participant. Dr Iyer stressed that it helps,
but it may not be enough in court, because “the other side
might challenge the recording”. Another participant wanted to
know: “What if a witness has signed his or her own
statement?” Dr Iyer said that it was “ok, by and large”, but,
again, the witness might not be willing to testify in court.
Dr Iyer went on to discuss the concept of “innuendo”, which
applies to cases in which something is not stated directly, but
can easily be concluded by the reader. It is interlined. He
cited the example of an anti-smoking campaigner who holds
shares in a tobacco company. This clearly implies hypocrisy.
6

Provided that this statement is not true, it would be
defamatory.
Dr Iyer then stressed that the intention to be defamatory is
not decisive, even though it might have an effect on possible
charges. But there are also cases of accidental or
coincidental defamation, for instance, in cases of mistaken
identities. He also noted that corporations are able to sue for
defamation, but they can only claim for financial loss. There
are, however, countries in which public bodies cannot sue
for defamation (US).
There are certain defenses that a journalist might come up
with against a complainant’s allegations of defamation:
1) Justification The journalist can prove that what has
been published is the truth. It is not enough to cite a
report.
2) Fair comment The journalist can say that a
statement is an opinion, based on facts. This defense is
useful in terms of reviews, but useless in cases of
malice.
3) Qualified privilege Such a defense is based on a
strong and legitimate public interest with the media
having a “moral duty” to report, provided the report is
based on responsible journalism in terms of a moderate
tone, use of multiple sources and giving the claimant
the chance to comment on allegations.
Finally, Dr Iyer introduced the Reynolds v. Times Newspapers
(2001) case and the Jameel & Ors. v. Wall Street Journal
(2006) case as examples for legal defenses for journalists,
especially with regard to qualified privilege.
Session 2:
CASE STUDIES ON DEFAMATION
Participants were split into three separate work groups, each
working on three case studies. The cases covered examples of
mostly investigative journalism closing with particular
questions such as “Do you foresee any legal problems arising
out of the story?” In general, the groups were supposed to act
as a legal counsel. Group discussions were followed by a short
presentation by each group’s chairperson and a cross-group
debate on certain aspects of the case, which was moderated
by Dr Venkat Iyer.
7

CASE STUDY 1:
The first case study refers to an art critic who writes a review
on the new video of a controversial rock band.
All work groups agreed that the first two statements – that
the video does not contain any artistic merit and promotes
anarchic lifestyles – are essentially comments. Giving
comments is part of the author’s job as an art critic, they
claimed. These two statements could be understood as “fair
comment”, a legal concept that was mentioned by two of the
groups. All three groups concluded that the third statement
mentioned in the text, the allegation of adultery, being a
criminal act, might be defamatory. It becomes problematic
mostly due to the fact that the statement is based on rumor.
There simply is no proof. Klaus Bergmann from Germany
noted different opinions in his group and stated “our yellow
press would publish it always with a question mark”.
This led to a discussion on the question of public interest.
How to define it, asked Lavumisa M. Dlamini from Swaziland.
Suranga Jayalath from Sri Lanka replied that it could be
understood in terms of a statement’s “national or global
influence”. Michaela Rassloff from Germany/Malaysia
mentioned the example of corruption in politics, which clearly
has no global influence, and said it also depends on the
gravity of the case. Pauline Leong Pooi Yin from Malaysia
agreed that the “impact on the community” is the most
important indicator in defining public interest. Dr Iyer
confirmed these opinions in mentioning cases of child abuse in
villages as an example. Jaspal Kaur from HELP University,
Malaysia referred to the question of media ownership and
stated, “the issue of what is the public interest is very much
tied in with the role of journalists and journalism and media
as the public watchdog”. It was, however, “legally impossible”
to give one precise definition of public interest, added Dr Iyer.
The discussion now changed to the topic of defamation cases
concerning people with an already low reputation like, for
instance, formerly convicted criminals. The plenum mostly
agreed on what Dr. Iyer summarized as follows: “Everybody
has a right to a reputation which is independent of their
previous convictions.” However, if a person’s behavior is
connected to similar wrongdoings in the past, as in cases of
serial criminals, journalists can rely on sources such as
criminal investigation books, as mentioned by Suranga
Jayalath from Sri Lanka.
8

Later on, the debate turned to the question whether it helps a
journalist to explicitly state that a statement is based on
rumor. Malaysian Jaspal Kaur argued that this might lead to
allegations of malicious falsehood. Dr Iyer asked further
questions: “What if […] there is a public interest involved in
that topic, but the media does not have hard proof? […] What
if there is no investigation? […] And the reason why there is
no investigation is because the system is corrupt?” The Sri
Lankan participant Suranga Jayalath suggested that
journalists could lodge a complaint with the authorities and
then write about the proceedings. According to Dr Iyer, this is
a typical move and reporting strategy.
CASE STUDY 2:
The second case study dealt with a story about alleged match
fixing in the national football league based on a taped
telephone conversation with one unknown and one not clearly
identifiable party. The contact that provided the tape wishes
to remain anonymous.
All working groups questioned the authenticity of the tape.
Two groups argued that they would not run the story at that
point, because it was a clear case of defamation. Further
independent fact checking would be needed, they argued. One
group considered reporting due to a large public interest
under the condition that no names are mentioned, the
authorities are alerted and the tape might not be mentioned
at all.
The discussion turned towards the issue of privacy, which
one of the groups considered as a further obstacle in the
second case study. Dr Iyer made it clear that privacy and
defamation are not to be confused: “Defamation is used as
one of the many ways in which privacy is protected, but
privacy is a larger area.” He also mentioned that the contact’s
wish for anonymity does not necessarily mean that he is
unknown to the journalist. Dr Iyer suggested that “publishing
the essence of the story but not the details” and asking a
public authority for a comment might be an acceptable way to
deal with this case.
CASE STUDY 3:
This case study deals with rumors, attained by a journalist’s
confidants, of (1) a company being on the verge of
bankruptcy and (2) its manager spying on his competitors,
the latter not being a criminal offense.
9

Two of the work groups concluded that only the second
statement would apply to defamation referring to the
argument that defamation is related to lowering one’s
reputation, not solely to financial loss. The first statement,
however, might refer to “malicious falsehood”, as one of the
work groups concluded. The third group indicated that both
statements were based on rumor and their verification
depended on the reliability of the source.
Dr Iyer was surprised to see that none of the groups referred
to “innuendo”, even though this was a clear case. The
combination of both statements implies hypocrisy, which
could give way to a defamation suit.
SESSION 3:
COMTEMPT OF COURT
Dr Iyer started the session by comparing the term
“contempt of court” with the concept of defamation.
Contempt of court is a criminal, not a civil offence: while
defamation has to do with financial compensations, contempt
of court implies imprisonment. Defamation and contempt of
court are sometimes similar: if a journalist writes something
negative or critical about a judge, it can either apply to his
personal behavior – which makes it a case of defamation – or
it refers to “his behavior as a judge”, which would make it a
contempt of court case. Quite often, however, both notions
are difficult to separate, as Dr Iyer pointed out. The aim of
contempt of court jurisdiction is to uphold the integrity of the
legal process and the independence of the judiciary, “not to
vindicate the reputation of the judge”, as in defamation cases.
Again, Dr Iyer came back to the role of journalists and the
significance of free speech while briefly mentioning the
Malaysian judiciary crisis. He stressed that journalists have to
be given the freedom to investigate corruption of the judiciary
and misbehavior of judges, since “if you do not have an
impartial judiciary, then ordinary people are going to suffer”.
He emphasized that contempt of court is an important topic in
this workshop precisely because “in many countries, the law
of contempt has been used to silence critics of the judiciary”.
Yet, in a democratic society, there has to be room for such
criticism.
10

Dr Iyer continued to provide examples of journalists risking
a contempt of court case:
1) by publishing material that may prejudice ongoing
legal proceedings
2) by disobeying a court order
3) by publishing material in contravention of laws
4) by scandalizing a judge
5) by interfering with the outcome of a trial
After that, Dr Iyer turned towards major risks for journalists
reporting on ongoing court cases. He first referred to the “risk
of trial by media”. Then he identified risks in relation to
prejudicing. These included:
1) Sensational reporting
2) Time distance between publication and the trial
3) Proclaiming guilt or innocence
4) Revealing previous convictions of defendants
5) Identifying potential defendants and witnesses where
their identities are at issue
6) Reporting “confessions” of criminals to journalists
before trial
There were more factors that a journalist should consider in
reporting on ongoing trials:
1) Postponement orders Journalists may ask for
clarification.
2) Secrecy orders e.g. no names in blackmail cases
3) Scandalising a judge or court e.g. by attributing
motifs to a judge
4) Avoiding “jig jaw” identification
5) Protection of children and rape victims
6) Publications of pictures and cartoons of potential
defendants
7) Confidentiality of sources
Journalists have to ensure that their reports on ongoing trials
are “fair and accurate”. Dr Iyer referred to the example of a
witness accusing the judge of being biased. As long as the
journalist is only reporting what the witness has said, there
will be no contempt case. Where allegations of corruption
are involved, however, it is advisable to approach a higher
authority before publishing anything, especially given the fact
that hard proof is difficult to obtain. In countries where those
authority systems are too weak, a journalist could run the
story with certain precautions such as not naming the judge
or reporting on the missing commitment of anticorruption
agencies. According to Dr Iyer, this would clearly minimize the
Risk. As in the cases involving defamation, the public interest
is again an important defense argument for journalists.
11

SESSION 4:
CASE STUDIES ON COMTEMPT OF COURT
CASE STUDY 1:
This case evolves around a crime correspondent wanting to
report on a bank hold-up by use of “surreptitiously obtained”
fuzzy pictures. In her report, the correspondent clearly
identifies the culprit and refers to his criminal past.
All work groups stated that this story should not be published,
since it could provoke a contempt of court case, firstly,
because the identity of the culprit has not yet been confirmed
by the authorities, secondly, due to the fact that the pictures
were unlawfully obtained and thirdly, for revealing previous
convictions. The groups concluded that, as a result of no trial
being set yet, there is a danger to prejudice legal
proceedings. Two groups concluded that the identification of
the alleged culprit could also lead to a defamation case.
Dr Iyer mentioned that the confidentiality of sources could
be a major issue as soon as the case would come to the
courts. Whenever identities are in doubt, he summarized,
pictures should not be published.
CASE STUDY 2:
The second case deals with a legal reporter wanting to expose
a judge of being bribed, relying on a tape recording and still
photographs of the judge and a named intermediary.
Generally, there was a consensus among the groups: Due to
an imminent danger of contempt of court, the report should
not be published, because the evidence was not strong
enough, the authenticity of tape and pictures were at stake.
Instead, public authorities should be notified. Then, the
reporter could follow-up on the proceedings of these
authorities. One group added that this could also be a case of
defamation.
CASE STUDY 3:
The third study examines the case of a feature article that
strongly criticizes a senior judge for misbehavior on the bench
and, according to the freelance author, “misogynist” remarks
during a Rotary Club meeting.
12

All three-work groups agreed that mentioning the judge’s
misbehavior would less likely be a case of contempt of court,
but rather one of defamation. It was therefore not be
advisable to publish. With regard to the second accusation, of
the judge being a misogynist, two of the groups concluded
that further investigation was necessary to prove the truth of
the judge’s statements, e.g. by obtaining a copy of the speech
or double-checking with people who have attended the same
meeting. One group suggested that it might be a case of
“hate speech” if the journalist described the judge as a
“misogynist”. Dr Iyer emphasized that the journalist should
rather report what the judge had specifically said without
labeling him a “misogynist”. This would clearly reduce the risk
of a defamation case.
Bhutanese participant Ashok Tirwa shared his experience with
broadcaster BBS and their report on a court case causing the
son of one of the involved persons to call the editor and ask
him not to mention his father’s name. Dr Iyer replied: “If
something was said in open court and it was reported
accurately and fairly, without malice, there can not be any
action taken.”
Dr Iyer specifically warned against using recording
equipment in court, which, in the majority of countries
except for the US, would be a clear contempt of court case. A
journalist could be jailed immediately. Replying to a
statement from the floor, he stressed that in some countries,
such as the US and probably the Philippines, it was impossible
for public figures to sue for defamation, unless they could
prove malice. This was different from the UK and most
Commonwealth countries.
Monday, 26 May
Dr Iyer started the session with a short review on the issue of
DEFAMATION, which he couldn’t finish the day before due to
time reasons. He provided participants with a short list of
issues that are relevant from the point of view of
journalists:
• A journalist can minimize the risk of defamation by making
sensible alterations to the wording of a story.
• Some groups are more likely to sue than others, e.g.
celebrities, politicians.
13

• In sensitive cases, it is advisable to work with a lawyer in the
process of investigation.
• In terms of quotations of sources, there need to be hard
proof, such as signed documents or tapes.
• A journalist should consider every person or corporation,
which might be affected by the case, in order to avoid
defamation cases.
• A reporter should independently verify the authenticity and
accuracy of former reports, clipping files or photographs and
not rely on the reputation of the media institution.
• Disclaimers do not guarantee immunity from legal
proceedings.
• When criticizing a product, do not criticize the manufacturer.
• Sometimes, libel action is more expensive than compensation.
• Try to meet a potential plaintiff’s demands, e.g. by not
ignoring complaint letters. Don’t be dismissive – it might
affect the case’s outcome.
Participants and panelist Dr Robert Beveridge mentioned the
Scottish case Sheridan v. News International, in which a
politician, accused of adultery, won defamatory action against a
paper, but now finds himself being charged for perjury.
SESSION 5:
HATE SPEECH AND RELATED MATTERS
First, Dr Iyer provided participants with an overview of the main
legal aspects that journalists have to be aware of with regard to
hate speech.
The basis of hate speech laws is, according to Dr Iyer, preventing
disorder and violence, protecting the values of a democratic and
pluralistic society as well as the principles of coexistence,
tolerance and respect for human rights of all people. Again, a
“balance between free speech and freedom from racial, religious
etc. attacks” has to be struck, while both aspects are “equally
guaranteed by human rights law”.
Dr Iyer stressed the fact that a “mere offense” was not enough
to ban speech in free societies. There has to be an imminent
danger to public peace. Malaysian Shamsul Yunos asked how
such an imminent danger could be measured, especially with
regard to societies, in which a large majority would utilize its
dominance to apply hate speech against minorities. Dr Iyer
replied that it was “extremely difficult” for courts to make a
guess on the imminence of violence, but they could assess all
14

variables and “strike a balance”. He added that even small
minorities could become violent or apply hate speech. However,
“posing blanket bans” on certain topics, a strategy used by
certain countries with “overly sensitive” legislation, was
“problematic”, he argued. He also observed that there was a
clear difference between being against the law and being against
what he called “good taste” or “decency”. In this context, David
Barlow and Dr Iyer briefly touched the topic of satire and humor,
especially with regard to the cartoon controversy.
Dr Beveridge then asked Dr Iyer to explore the relationship
between free speech and glorifying terrorism. Dr Iyer replied that
– besides such phrases being “too vague” – there was a
difference between mere advocacy and incitement to violence.
Citing the Apartheid’s view of the ANC in South Africa as an
example for relativism he added: “One man’s freedom fighter is
another man’s terrorist.” Issues such as cultural relativism and
political correctness were important as well, Dr Iyer added.
The discussion now turned to the role of the government.
Shamsul Yunos asked about “violence incited from the
government side” by stigmatizing a social group or another
country. He particularly referred to US president Bush’s labeling
of certain states as belonging to the “axis of evil”. Dr Iyer replied
that such criticism was by no means a matter of hate speech, but
a feature of democratic debate. Participants from Afghanistan
provided an example concerning transitional justice and the
government’s attitude toward criticism of former war crimes,
which it labeled as hate speech. This again, was no incitement to
violence, but “a matter of legitimate debate”, as Dr Iyer pointed
out. Any kind of “rational criticism”, which intended social
reform, should not be considered as hate speech. Pauline Leong
Pooi Yin from Malaysia asked whether the government could
actually misuse hate speech laws in order to ban NGOs. Dr Iyer
responded that this depends on the rules set by the law. Indeed,
he considers an independent judiciary to be the most essential
precondition for a reasonable judgment in terms of hate speech.
He referred to the example of India, whose courts ruled in favor
of free speech in a case-involving advocacy of secession. In a lot
of other countries, this would be treated as sedition, he
explained.
Dr Iyer went on to discuss legal standards in different
jurisdictions such as India, New Zealand, the UK, Canada or the
US. He then provided participants with a list of defenses, which
journalists commonly use in order to respond to allegations of,
hate speech:
15

1) As a distributor or publisher, you can prove that you were not
aware of the content of the material or did not suspect it to be
threatening.
2) As a media institution, you can claim that you only reported
the advocacy of racial hatred, but you did not endorse,
encourage or advocate the message.
3) You can argue that the media only acts as a platform to
debate sensitive issues.
Certain risks might occur during life broadcasts, Dr Iyer
indicated. Mentioning a case in Danish television, he stressed the
significance of the moderator’s neutrality during studio
discussions. In order to prevent hate speech accusations, the
media could also paraphrase a statement as a means of “toning
down the language” instead of reporting it directly.
The debate also touched the role of broadcasters. Kaviraj
Rajnethre Mudhoo from Mauritius highlighted the necessity to
define a broadcaster’s responsibility in reporting something that
might lead to racial hatred. Dr Iyer opts for self-regulation, i.e.
soft law instead of hard law. Dr Beveridge mentioned a case
involving the reality TV show “Big Brother” in the UK, in which
the regulator argued that the broadcaster was indeed responsible
for racist comments made by one participants of the show.
SESSION 6:
CASE STUDIES ON HATE SPEECH
CASE STUDY 1:
This case study deals with a local politician agitating against
slum-dwellers in a public meeting during his election campaign
and a reporter who wishes to publish the tape.
Two work groups decided to publish the speech as it is, while
adding opposing viewpoints, e.g. from opposition parties or the
slum-dwellers themselves. This would comply with the
journalistic standards of fair and balanced reporting, they
argued. The third group, on the other hand, chose to tone down
the language by paraphrasing those critical parts which might
correspond to hate speech. One of the groups considered to
include a caption clarifying that “this is not the viewpoint of the
broadcaster”.
Mauritian Kaviraj Rajnethre Mudhoo argued that there was “a
duty to report” due to the fact that this speech was part of an
election rally and people have a right to know about the nature
16

of a politician standing for election. He also emphasized that the
political culture was an important factor. The second work
group summarized this thought as follows: “In Zimbabwe you
might get shot. In Iran you would be promoted. And in Bhutan it
wouldn’t even matter.”
Richard Balme from France/China asked whether it was possible
to explicitly report the statement as hate speech. Dr Iyer said
this depends on the particular editorial policy of a broadcasting
station, i.e. whether the ideals of neutrality forbid or allow for
such labeling. The BBC, for instance, never uses the word
“terrorist”.
CASE STUDY 2:
In this case, a political editor obtains a confidential document
hinting that government desists from giving advertisements to a
newspaper whose editor is known to be a sympathizer of the
opposition and of a neighbouring state, which is hostile to the
country.
All work groups agreed to publish the story due to the
overwhelming public interest, despite the fact that the document
was confidential. One group specifically referred to freedom of
information legislation, e.g. in India.
Dr Iyer indicated that in some countries, harsh official secret
acts were in place, which could be a hindrance. He also pointed
out that even freedom of information laws might include
paragraphs that state exceptions to the rule; most of them
related to national security issues.
SESSION 7:
PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr Iyer announced that the panel discussion would be convened
“relatively flexible”. He also asked participants to “feel free to
participate”. Dr Venkat continued to briefly introduce the panelists
before each of them spoke on selected topics for about ten minutes.
WILLIAM AMPEM-DARKO:
The Director-General of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation
explained that Ghana had a long history of defamation
legislation during pre-independence and post-independence eras.
Colonialists as well as military rulers used defamation law to
suppress and silence journalists. In 1992, during Ghana’s
17

transformation towards democratic governance and after the
introduction of freedom of speech legislation as part of the
Constitution, the media was on the forefront to criticize the
government. As a result of the focus on criminal libel, many
journalists were sentenced and imprisoned every week. During the
general elections, the main opposition party aligned itself with
Ghana’s Journalist Association for a repeal of the defamation act.
On 27 July 2001, Ghana became one of the few countries, which
repealed criminal libel legislation. This, as Ampem-Darko pointed
out, opened a “floodgate” for Ghanaian journalists. Since then, civil
libel has overtaken, with many cases concerning privacy. Ampem-
Darko stressed the need for training and specifically referred to
activities by FES. He concluded that today, Ghana was a country
with one of the highest levels of press freedom and, speaking as a
journalist himself, “we know how to defend ourselves”.
GOPAL SREENEVASAN:
The Malaysian lawyer commenced his speech by saying that he
would provide “a very practical perspective”, one that involves the
lawyer’s task of “enforcing judgments” and takes its starting point
from a plaintiff’s position against the media. He first explicated
that special problems would arise in the world of globalize media,
especially with regard to the Internet. In general, following the
Australian Gutnick vs. Dow Jones case, it is open to a plaintiff “to
sue in any jurisdiction where he can prove that his reputation has
been harmed”. The typical weapon of a plaintiff – to obtain an order
of injunction so that defamatory statements could not be made in
the future – is further complicated in the realm of the World Wide
Web. In practice, it can be highly problematic to even locate the
publisher of a defamatory statement. The next step would be to
approach search engines. Most of them are located in the US, where
the “Communications and Decency Act” guarantees “absolute
immunity to any search engine when it comes to the law of
defamation”, as Gopal Sreenevasan pinpointed. However, the Retkin
versus Google case in the UK, which is currently pending, might
change this and could even “open floodgates” in terms of
jurisdiction against search engines, the lawyer said in conclusion.
JACOB VAN KOKSWIJK:
During his speech, Prof Dr Jacob van Kokswijk focused on the
Internet as well, although he introduced himself as “representing
the user”. He argued that the Internet was increasingly connecting
people, providing them with new possibilities in communicating,
creating and distributing content. New forms of interaction such as
“personalized broadcasting” are now possible without official agents
such as companies or the government, thus “empowering the
user” and “bypassing the law”. New media, according to Prof van
18

Kokswijk, was changing the traditional media’s gatekeeper role and
thereby also questioning the nature of regulation and control.
STEVE BUCKLEY:
Highlighting his non-legal background, Steve Buckley first pointed
out that his remarks would be based on his experiences “as a
broadcaster and as a communication rights activist”. He went on to
briefly discuss international freedom of expression legislation and its
limits. He stated that it was the responsibility of the broadcaster to
“push the boundaries of these issues”.
Subsequently, he turned to the issue of community radio, defining
it as mostly local level broadcasting. In terms of defamation and
contempt of court, community broadcasting faced no “serious
threats”. But hate speech was an issue that has been “particularly
debated” with regard to community radio. The most well known
example was “Radio-Television Libre des Milles Collines” (RTLM) in
Ruanda, which is seen by many “as a major instigator of the
genocidal violence” that took place in the early 1990s. Politicians
often used this example as an argument against community radio
stations. Buckley intended to “put this myth to bed” by further
explicating the Ruanda case and by providing two other examples of
community broadcasting.
The fact that the Rwanda broadcasting station was set up by people
“extremely close” to those in power, was the main reason that hate
speech could be broadcasted. It did not happen because it was out
of control, but “precisely because it was in control”, as Buckley
claimed. Therefore, he opted for an independent instrument of selfregulation.
He then turned to the example of inter-communal
violence in Kenya following the elections earlier this year. This,
again, was an example of a community radio station being to close
to the centers of power.
The third example Buckley mentioned was Nepal. In early 2005,
after the king declared direct rule over the country, a decree was
issued that “broadcasters should no longer carry news” in their
programmes. This was enforced by physical means, e.g. by putting
soldiers into the newsrooms. But broadcasters tried to overcome
this decree by creative means: they had studio discussions, sang
the news and even read out the country’s constitution, with the
effect that listeners took action. By means of this “mixture of
creative resistance”, as Steve Buckley put it in conclusion, the
Nepalese community broadcasters managed to play a crucial role in
peaceful protest and the promotion of tolerance.
19

Summing up the first panel discussion, Dr Iyer said that it provided
“a lot of food for thought”. He gave his opinion to Gopal
Sreenevasan’s explanations, especially referring to the lack of an
“efficient system of enforcement” the lawyer had brought up, which
might, in fact, result in a “denial of justice”. He cited a defamation
case involving US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and the
former Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai. The suit was eventually
filed shortly before Desai passed away. Dr Iyer then invited
participate to further comment and ask questions.
Malaysian Jaspal Kaur raised the enforcement issue as well. She
referred to the difficulties, if providers such as you tube are not
willing to take down offensive material. Sreenevasan shared this
view and said that it was indeed difficult to persuade US providers
to take something offline, even “with a recognized judgment” such
as a court order. Kaur also stressed the “need for a moderating
body” in relation to content, since she observed not enough debate
between government and bloggers.
Maintaining that liability was handled very differently in various
countries, Jacob van Kokswijk also opted for an independent
committee or court and an agreement between countries “about
what is allowed and what not”. Dr Iyer, however, said that “we can’t
have universal agreement in terms of content”, as long as
sovereignty was an issue. In the end, one had to rely on national
jurisdiction, he summarized.
Once more, Steve Buckley brought up the freedom of expression
perspective in stressing that he considered any content regulation
as worrying, especially in the context of diverse approaches on
internet regulation and numerous attempts of internet censorship.
Gopal Sreenevasan shared his concerns, especially with regard to
restrictive legislation apart from defamation laws. He specifically
referred to the Malaysian blogger case and the damaging effects of
the Sedition Act.
Robert Beveridge took up Kokswijk’s argument of the Internet as a
tool that is empowering the user and challenged this as a “very
technological, utopian view of the world”. He asked what effect
citizen journalism had on the standards of quality and integrity of
information as set by established news sources such as the BBC. He
argued that the empowerment could easily turn out to be a
“disempowerment”. In reply, Kokswijk put forward the argument of
the politically mature user, who is capable to make independent
judgments on the quality of information precisely because he is
media literate. He also asked: “Why should we accept that only
the BBC has the best news?” Gopal Sreenevasan said that the
20

courts often have a similar position, assuming that “a certain
degree of selectivity is going to be exercised by the ultimate
consumer”. David Barlow shared Robert Beveridge’s concerns in
stating that the real problem evolved from “the reliability of
sources”, which cannot be assessed by ordinary people. That is
why he also argued for “informed judgments”, e.g. by established
media.
Miriam Awok from Malaysia introduced herself as being a journalist
and blogger herself and asked about the role of bloggers in the
Malaysian context. Gopal Sreenevasan replied that Malaysia was
a country that is “gradually developing political maturity”. Given the
fact that mainstream media were owned by the government, he
argued that internet and blogs have opened up a new avenue for
debating issues, which even has a “knock-on effect” on mainstream
media, “nudging the government” that freedom of expression was
important. Dr Venkat closed the session by thanking everyone.
SESSION 8:
PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr Iyer introduced the two speakers for the final panel discussion on
“Journalism Ethics in the Era of Media Convergence” .
DAVID BARLOW:
David Barlow set off his speech by saying that he was not an expert
on any of the topics that have been discussed during the course of
the workshop, but a radio journalist and a consumer. He stressed
that human beings are “story-telling animals” and that stories were
crucial to the way people live, develop and pass ideas. He described
stories as “the essence of life”. However, he observed, “technology
has complicated the story-telling business”. What has happened
during the printing revolution, Barlow argued, was not so much
different from the changes in media we experience today: suddenly,
more people had access to stories, while, at the same time, more
knowledge was required to actually make use of new technologies.
Barlow went on to highlight that journalists essentially were
storytellers. Stating that “ethics are important” when journalists
tell stories, especially when it comes to confrontational issues or
sting operations, Barlow also asserted that ethics grow out of the
specific culture of a country. At the same time, the “interface
between ethical and legal” increasingly created problem. He
emphasized the need for journalists to be “well advised on the legal
side”, while legal advice should also be easily accessible and put “in
plain language”.
21

ROBERT BEVERIDGE:
Robert Beveridge commenced his speech by providing remarks on
the state of media ethics in education and journalism. He
regretted that ethics, though being an important part of the
academic curriculum, has been “downgraded” by some elements of
the journalistic profession. Then he emphasized the need for “a
strong ethical position” in quality journalism. Stating that his
approach would be rather academic, he started to pose basic
questions instead of providing answers: “Nowadays, what is a
newspaper? And what is broadcasting?” “What is a journalist
nowadays?” he asked, referring to changing roles in the age of
citizen journalism, which he described as being jeopardized by
prejudice and ideology. “In whose interest, by whom and with what
kind of powers should we have regulation?” Voicing his strong
support of “soft law”, he said that he nevertheless had “no
confidence” in press councils or press complaints commissions,
given that they were “generally in the hands of the market and
capitalism or the state”. Beveridge argued, however, that guidelines
such as the BBC codes could be a “good template” or “model” for
other countries – without wanting to be “Eurocentric” or saying that
the BBC was “the best”, he added. Stressing the importance of
Asian-Pacific approaches and the “variety of ways”, he concluded,
“good journalism is good journalism globally”.
Dr Iyer thanked the speakers for their contributions and opened the
discussion. At first, the debate turned to the issue of regulation. Dr
Beveridge differentiated between regulation by statute, by the state
or by self-regulation. “In the end, it’s a political question”, he
pointed out. Dr Iyer mentioned that regulative guidelines were often
considered as a kind of “legal support” in situation where one has to
assess the quality of journalism. So these guidelines would move
somewhere between “hard law” and “soft law”. David Barlow added
that major broadcasters and papers updated their guidelines
regularly and made them available online. Transparency was not
the problem, Robert Beveridge argued, but enforcement.
A participant from the floor asked about self-censorship. David
Barlow highlighted that the freedom of the press depended very
much on courageous and “independent sources of journalism who
are prepared to be unpopular”, citing the example of the BBC who
got into trouble for comparing Argentinean and British causalities
during the Falkland war. Emphasizing that “risk-taking develops
reliability and credibility”, he averred that this was a long process.
JACOB VAN KOKSWIJK
Jacob van Kokswijk brought up the issue of software regulation
and censorship and referred to the fact that search engines like
22

Google changed their software to meet the demands of content
restriction in countries like China. He spoke about a “machine
control” over content, which especially applied to new media.
The debate then turned to citizen journalism. Barlow said that he
might sound “very old-fashioned”, but he saw a “real problem of
authenticity”. Dr Beveridge added that “under-resourced and
understaffed” newsrooms were responsible for the rise of citizen
journalism and its growing influence on quality journalism. Besides,
it was cheaper to rely on material from the Internet. Malaysian
Jaspal Kaur voiced a different opinion. She stated that citizen
journalism and blogs had a value, since they provided alternative
viewpoints and helped to reveal stories. Barlow and Beveridge
stressed the need for a clearer distinction. Dr Beveridge preferred
the term “citizen reporter”. Barlow asserted that the relationship
between citizen journalism in mainstream journalism and citizen
journalism in blogs was “crucial”.
Encouraged by a question from Indian Suranga Jayalath,
participants and panelists now discussed the issue of press
councils. Dr Beveridge said that the ideal press council should not
be dominated by the editors and the proprietors (like in the UK),
but be based on elected members. Dr Iyer expressed his views that
an “inexpensive, quick, effective mechanism” of complaints was
most important. Since the statutory body needed funding, he
suggested that complainants pay a small fee. Dr Beveridge cited the
“British Board of Classification” as a positive example. Not only was
it working in a transparent manner, furthermore, it was an
organization with “democratic legitimacy” in the words of Beveridge
– even though it was a private body, as Dr Iyer added. Barlow said
that it usually takes a long time for institutions to become “publicly
accountable”, as the example of the BBC shows.
Concluding the final session, Dr Iyer expressed his satisfaction and
thanked all participants and speakers for “being so participative”.
REPORT BY THE CONSULTANT
(This was a critique written by Dr Venkat for the AIBD inhouse
magazine – the broadcaster.
Recent years have seen a sharp increase in the interest that
broadcasters and other journalists have been showing in media law.
Part of the reason for this is, obviously, the upsurge in the incidence
of media-related litigation around the world, including in the Asia-
Pacific region. There have been a number of high-profile lawsuits
23

and prosecutions filed against media defendants on such grounds as
defamation, contempt of court, and breach of parliamentary
privilege, sedition, lese majesty, and breach of public morals.
These legal actions can have serious consequences for the individual
journalists and media organisations concerned. Many a newspaper
has, for example, been bankrupted into closure by swingeing
defamation damages. Concerted legal attacks by motivated
plaintiffs, whether repressive governments or powerful business
groups, have also led to a “chilling” effect on the freedom of the
media across whole societies. This has far-reaching implications,
especially when considered against the depressing reality that fewer
than half the countries in the world enjoy truly free media.
Not surprisingly, therefore, there has been much attention paid of
late to the relationship between the law and the media, and to the
need for media practitioners to familiarize themselves with the legal
environment in which they operate. AIBD, like a number of other
professional organisations worldwide, has been engaged in
promoting the spread of legal knowledge and awareness, and as
part of this effort it organized a two-day workshop on Media Law for
Broadcasters and Journalists in Kuala Lumpur on 25-26 May 2008.
The workshop, held as a precursor to the 2008 Asian Media
Summit, attracted a huge amount of interest and significant
participation from media practitioners, academics, regulators, and
legal advisers across Asia and beyond. Exceeding all the
expectations of the organizers, it saw more than 35 delegates in
attendance.
Three specific issues were taken up for consideration during the two
days of deliberations, viz. defamation, contempt of court, and hate
speech. Each of these issues was discussed intensively, and a
number of case studies dealt with. The case studies – which
required the participants to break out into small groups – involved
diverse scenarios of a kind that media practitioners would often
encounter in the course of their professional lives, and these
challenged the participants to apply the principles and the
precedents that they had learnt about in the lectures/discussions
that preceded the small group work.
The substantive sessions were followed by two panel discussions in
which a small number of selected experts were invited to offer their
views on certain topical issues that were directly relatable to the
themes of the workshop. The first of these panels consisted of
William Ampem-Darko, Director-General of the Ghana Broadcasting
Corporation, Gopal Sreenevasan, a practicing lawyer from Malaysia,
24

Dr Jacob van Kokswijk, a legal researcher from the University of
Strathclyde, and Steve Buckley, President of the World Association
of Community Radio Broadcasters. This session allowed the
workshop participants to learn about cross-country experiences in
the fields of defamation, contempt of court, and hate speech, and to
explore possible solutions to many of the recurring problems
encountered in more than one jurisdiction.
The second panel discussion involved two experienced media
figures, David Barlow and Robert Beveridge, who spoke on the
broad theme of ‘Journalism Ethics in the Era of Media Convergence’.
Mr. Barlow has been associated with the British Broadcasting
Corporation in many different capacities (including as Secretary to
the Corporation), while Dr Beveridge is an academic attached to
Napier University in Scotland and a Director of the UK’s well-known
media campaign group, the Voice of the Listener and Viewer.
Together, they addressed a number of issues dealing with the
ethical challenges facing journalists in the post-converge world,
including those posed by sting operations involving sophisticated
technology, chequebook journalism, and the implications of putting
content on the web which may fall foul of the laws/customs of other
countries whilst being acceptable in the host country.
A particularly noteworthy feature of the workshop was that it was
highly interactive, with participants being at all times ready and
willing to pose questions, debate issues, and share experiences
which to me, as the consultant to, and leader of, the event, was
most encouraging. The post-workshop feedback received from
participants was also very positive, with many of them expressing
the hope that similar events covering other aspects of media law
would be organized in the near future. This bodes well for AIBD’s
continuing involvement in this highly interesting and important field.
VI.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The concrete recommendations based on the positive postworkshop
feedback received from participants were that due
to the large number of broadcasters and journalists working in
the media industry similar workshops be organized
• As pre summit workshops to the Asia Media Summit/s
on an annual basis,
• As sub regional workshops in SAARC, ASEAN, East Asia
and Pacific regions,
• As In-country workshops in AIBD member countries
as continuing efforts to educate broadcasters and journalists
in this important area of Media Law.
25

Photo Gallery
Participants attended the Pre summit workshop:
26

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the partial funding support and the
cooperation received from UNESCO office in India, the
participants, the panel of speakers and the consultant for their
participation and cooperation which enabled AIBD to
successfully complete this pre summit workshop on Media Law
for Broadcasters and Journalists on 26 th & 27 th May 2008 in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Report prepared by
Name of Programme Manager: Manil Cooray
Date: 06 July 2008
28

A N N E X E S
29

ANNEX I
Pre-Summit Regional Workshop on
Media Law for Broadcasters and Journalists
25 – 26 May 2008
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
List of Participants
1. AFGHANISTAN Abdul Wahid Nazari
Director General
Radio Television Afghanistan (RTA)
Wazir Akbar Khan, 13th Street
Kabul, Afghanistan
Tel: +93 20 210 10 86
Mobile: +93 798 24 28 17
E-mail: wahidnazari@hotmail.com
2. Abdul Rahman Panjshiri
Head of Planning and International Relation Department
Radio Television Afghanistan (RTA)
Great Massoud Road, P.O. Box 544
Kabul, Afghanistan
Tel: +93 20 210 24 87
Mobile: +93 79 32 18 23
E-mail: panjshiriar@yahoo.com
3. Abdul Salam Rahimy
Director-General
Saba Media Organization (SMO)
House No.42, Street 2, Karta E Seh
Kabul, Afghanistan
Tel: +93 778667709
E-mail: plar@sabacent.org
4. BHUTAN Pema Choden
Managing Director
Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS)
P.O.Box 101 Thimpu, Bhutan
Tel: +975 2323071
Mobile: +975 2 323073
Fax: +975 2 323073,E-mail: pc@bbs.com.bt
5. Ashok Tirwa
Senior Producer
Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS)
Post Box 101
Thimphu, Bhutan
Tel: +975 2 323071
Mobile: +975 17111618,
E-mail: t_ashok@bbs.com.bt

6. BOTSWANA Caiphus Moletsane
Botswana Telecomms Authority (BTA)
Plot 206/207 Independence Avenue
Private Bag 00495
Gaborone, Botswana
Tel: +267 3957755
E-mail: moletsane@bta.org.bw
7. CHINA/
(FRANCE)
Richard Balme
Professor for Science
Peking University
School of Government
Liao Kai Yuan Building, Office 413
Beijing 100871 China
Tel/Fax: +86 10 6276 7272
Mobile: +86 136 9920 8390
E-mail: rbalme@pku.edu.cn
8. GERMANY Klaus Bergmann
Head of Administration Berlin
Deutsche Welle
Voltastrasse 6
13355 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 4646-8000
Mobile: +49 172 3247866
Fax: + 49 46468005
E-mail: klaus.bergmann@dw-world.de
9. INDIA Zohra Chatterji
Joint Secretary
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Government of India
Room No. 659, 6th Floor, A Wing
Shastri Bhavan, New Dehli, India
Tel: +91 11 23 38 25 97
Fax: +91 11 23 38 10 43
E-mail: jsb.inb@sb.nic.in
10. INDONESIA Zulkarimein Nasution
Lecturer and Chair, Undergraduate Program
University of Indonesia
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
FISIP UI, Kampus UI
Depok 16424, Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 7866377, +62 21 87188607
Mobile: +62 811 946004
Fax: +62 21 7866377
E-mail: nasut_z@yahoo.com

11. LAOS Sipha Nonglath
Director-General
Laos National Radio (LNR)
P.O. Box 310
Unit-1, 005 Ban Sisaketh, Chanthabouly
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel: +856 21 212428
Fax: +856 21 212430
E-mail: siphan@hotmail.com
12. MALAYSIA Mariam Anak Awor
Reporter, Radio News
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Brighton Road
98000 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: +60 85 42 36 41, +60 85 42 70 86
Mobile: +60 19 469 23 25
E-mail: m_awok@yahoo.com
13. Jamil Bin Hashim
Head of Documentation
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Unit Perhubungan Antarabangsa
Bahagian Pengurusan Am, Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia
Tingkat 4B, Bangunan Persekutuan
Jalan Sultan
46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 79 58 37 60
Fax: +60 3 79 60 78 09
E-mail: jamilrtm@yahoo.com
14. Safinaz Mohd Hussein
Lecturer, Law Faculty
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
43600 Bangi, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 8921 6372
Mobile: +60 13 209 0225
Fax: +60 3 306-8925 3217
E-mail: finaz@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my
15. See Swee Hwa
Assistant News Manager (Output)
Radio News Centre,Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Pusat Berita Radio,Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia
Wisma Radio, Angkasapuri
50614 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 22 88 78 65
Fax: +60 3 22 82 02 91
E-mail: shsee59@gmail.com

16. Marry Inggu
Programming Executive
ASTRO - All Asia Broadcast Centre
Technology Park Malaysia
Bukit Jalil
57000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 95 43 66 88, Ext: 24 93
Mobile: +60 17 211 60 44
Fax: +60 3 95 43 68 79
E-mail: marry_inggu@astro.com.my
marrymay@hotmail.com
17. Eneng Faridah Iskandar
Director
Malaysian Communication and Multimedia
Commission (MCMC)
Off Persiaran Multimedia
63000 Cyberjaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 8688 8148
Mobile: +60 19 386 8794
Fax: +60 3 8688 1003
E-mail: eneng@cmc.gov.my
18. Juriah Abdul Jalil
Associate Professor/
Head of Private Law Department
International Islamic University
Malaysia (IIUM)
Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws
P.O.Box 10
50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3-6196 4350
Mobile: +60 16-610 0261
E-mail: juriah@iiu.edu.my
19. Juriyati Mat Jalil
Assistant Reporter
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) –
Pej. Menteri Besar, N9
Angkasapuri
50614 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
20. Affandi Abd Karim
Producer, News
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) Sabah
Beg Berkunci No. 2022,Jalan Tuaran,
88614 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Mobile: +60 12 634 92 87
E-mail: fendy_ufm@hotmail.com

21. Jaspal Kaur
Senior Lecturer
HELP University College
Department of Law,
Level 7, Wisma HELP,
Jalan Dungun Damansara Heights
50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 2094 2000
Mobile: +60 12 214 0804
E-mail: jaspalk@help.edu.my
22 Sadiah Binti Latip
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
98700 Limbang, Sarawak, Malaysia
Mobile: +60 16 86 154 66
E-mail: deelatif@gmail.com
23. Elaine Cheah Siew Lee
Head of Mandarin Desk
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Radio News Unit
1st Floor, Wisma Radio, Angkasapuri
50740 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 2288 7243
Mobile: +60 12 2134-336
Fax: +60 3 2282 0291
E-mail: elaine@rtm.gov.my
24. Mhd. Fadil Sharif
Strategic Information Management Division
Ministry of Information Malaysia (MOI)
Tel: +60 3 79 68 33 68
Mobile: +60 19 63 13 535
Fax: +60 3 79 68 34 18
E-mail: fadil@moi.gov.my
25. Effanorzila Mohd Rashid
Reporter
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Angkasapuri,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mobile: +60 19 785 36 35
E-mail: xanda_zatoichi@yahoo.com
26. Michaela Rassloff
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES)
Angkasapur, P.O. Box 1137, Pantai
59700 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 22 82 24 89
Mobile: +60 17 3456 480
E-mail: michaela.rassloff@gmail.com

27. Wajihah Razali
TV Reporter
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
No. 10, Jln. 31
Rantau Petronas Barat
24300 Kerteh, Terengganu, Malaysia
Tel: +60 9 86 40 379
Mobile: +60 14 2552 747
E-mail: wa_gee_hah@yahoo.com.my
28. Syahniza Md Shah
Assistant Director
Malaysian Communication and Multimedia
Commission (MCMC)
Off Persiaran Multimedia
63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 8688 81 40
Mobile: +60 19 394 25 84
Fax: +60 3 8688 10 03
E-mail: syahniza.mdshah@cmc.gov.my
syahnizamdshah@yahoo.com
29. Ati Hasmila Bt. Ahmad Tajulddin
TV & Radio Reporter
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Jabatan Penyiaran Negeri Pahang
Peti Surat 152
25710 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
Tel: +60 9 514 52 10
Mobile: +60 13 98 24 171
E-mail: nurazi_tihani@yahoo.com
30. Juliette Vivier
Programme Manager
Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting
Development (AIBD)
Angkasapur, P.O. Box 1137, Pantai
59700 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 2282 3719
Mobile: +60 12 319 7367
Fax: +60 3 2282 2761
E-mail: juliette@aibd.org.my
31. Azizah Yaccob
Reporter, Radio News
Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)
Angkasapuri
50614 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: adeqyong@yahoo.com

32. Pauline Leong Pooi Yin
Lecturer
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR)
13 Jalan 13/6
46200 Petaling Jaya
Selangor, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7958 2628
Mobile: +60 12 306 7411
Fax: +60 3 7955 3181
E-mail: pauline.leong@gmail.com
leongpy@mail.utar.edu.my
33. Shamsul Yunos
Special Writer
Ministry of Information Malaysia (MOI)
Bahagian Pengurusan Maklumat Strategik
Tingkat 12, Menara PKNS
No. 17, Jalan Yong Shook Lin
46050 Petaling Jaya
Selangor, Malaysia
Mobile: +60 19 221 79 14
E-mail: shamsulyunos@yahoo.com
jlham@editorial@gmail.com
34. MALDIVES Mohamed Jinah
Editor, Voice of Maldives (VOM)
Ameenee Magu,Male, Maldives
Tel: +960 332 05 88
Mobile: +960 331 89 15
+960 967 77 27
Fax: +960 332 83 57
E-mail: jinah@vom.gov.mv,jina_999@hotmail.com
35. MAURITIUS Kaviraj Rajnethre Mudhoo
Board Member
Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation (MBC)
Tel: +230 201 1006
Fax: +230 201 3859
E-mail: rmudhoo@mail.gov.mu
36. MONGOLIA Lkhagvasuren Badamdorj (Lia)
Head of International Relations Department
Mongolian National Public Radio
and Television (MNB)
Tel: +976 11 326663
Mobile: +976 88110445
Fax: +976 11 327234
E-mail: mrtv@magicnet.mn
lia_usa2004@yahoo.com

37. Erdene Erdenechimeg
Editor in-chief
Mongolian National Public Radio
and Television (MNB)
P.O. Box 365
Ulaanbaatar 11, Mongolia
38. Altai Enkhzul
Channel 25 Television
Mongol News Co. Ltd. Building
Juulchin Street, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Tel: +976 11 321989
Fax: +976 11 321989
E-mail: f.relations25@gmail.com
39. NEPAL Gokarn Bhatt
Chairperson
Conscious Media Forum (CMF)
Anamnagar, COCAP Building
Near Milan Bidhya Mandir
Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: +977 1 42 67 315
Mobile: +977 9841 81 33 76
E-mail: emfnepal@gmail.com
anawart@gmail.com
40. OMAN Anwar M. Al-Rawas
HOD Mass Communications
Sultan Qaboos University
P.O. Box 225, P.c.: 118
Muscat, Sultan of Oman
Tel: +968 24 14 16 73
Fax: +968 244 955 99
E-mail: rwas@squ.edu.com
41. SRI LANKA Suranga Jayalath
Legal Counsel – News
The Maharaja Organisation Limited (MTV)
146, Dawson Street
Colombo 02, Sri Lanka
Tel: +94 11 47 92 734
Mobile: +94 77 3979104
Fax: +94 11 24 47 308
E-mail: suranga@mtv.maharaja.lk

42. SWAZILAND Lavumisa M. Dlamini
Broadcast Manager
SWAZI TV
P.O. Box A146
Swazi Plaza
Mbabane, H 100, Swaziland
Tel: +40 43036/7
Fax: +40 42093
E-mail: ndumim@swazitv.co.sz
Speakers/Panellists
1. William Ampem-Darko
Director-General
Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC)
Tel/Fax: +233 21 223968
Mobile: +233 243152026
E-mail: willieadarko@yahoo.com
2. David Barlow
Broadcasting Consultant
International Relations
Public Broadcasting International (PBI)
6 Rue des Ecoles
79120 Chenay, France
Tel: +33 5 49 29 38 99
E-mail: davidbarlow@wanadoo.fr
3. Robert Beveridge
Lecturer, The Open and Napier University, UK
Craighouse
Edinburgh
EH10 5LG, Scotland/UK
Tel: +44 131 455 6156
Mobile: +44 77881455750
Fax: +44 131 455 6193
E-mail: r.beveridge@napier.ac.uk
4. Steve Buckley
President
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
705 rue Bourget, suite #100
Montreal, Quebec
H4C 2M6, Canada
Tel: +44 1142201426
E-mail: steve@gn.apc.org

5. Jacob van Kokswijk
Researcher at the Law School of Strathclyde University, Glasgow/UK
P.O. Box 3265
D 52199 Herzogenrath, Germany
Tel: +31 88 353 22 44
Fax: +31 53 489 4259
E-mail: Kokswijk@msn.com
j.l.f.w.vankokswijk@utwente.nl
6. Gopal Sreenevasan
Advocate & Solicitor
Partner Sivananthan – Advocates & Solicitors
Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights
50290 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: + 6-03 20956655
Fax:+ 6-03 20959955
E-mail: gopal@sivananthan.com
Consultant
Venkat Iyer
Barrister
Editor of The Commonwealth Lawyer, UK
Senior Lecturer, University of Ulster/UK
School of Law
University of Ulster
Shore Road, Newtownabbey
County Antrim, BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland/UK
Tel: +44 28 90368876
Fax: +44 28 90366847
E-mail: venkat_iyer_@hotmail.com
Programme Manager
Manil Cooray
Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD)
P.O. Box 1137, Pantai
59700 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: + 6-03 2282 3719
Fax: +6-03 2282 2761
E-mail: manil@aibd.org.my

ANNEX II
Pre-Summit Regional Workshop on
Media Law for Broadcasters and
Journalists
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 25-26 May 2008
Sunday, 25 May
Consultant: Dr Venkat Iyer
--------------------
Programme
09.00-09.15 Registration
09.15-09.30 Opening
Welcome by Ms Manil Cooray, Programme Manager,
AIBD
09.30-11.00 Session 1: DEFAMATION
This session will discuss the law of defamation and
address such issues as: how far can a journalist go in
challenging the reputation of individuals and corporate
bodies in the course of their work? What are the
precautions they need to take to avoid libel suits?
What are the defenses available when such suits are
filed? Attention will also be paid to related risks such
as suits for malicious/injurious falsehood, which are
sometimes filed against journalists in relation to
stories involving investigative journalism. This session
will also touch upon key aspects of online defamation.
11.00-11.30.1 Coffee break
11.30-13.00 Session 2: CASE STUDIES ON DEFAMATION
This session will involve the participants breaking out
into small groups and discussing one or more case
studies on defamation. Each group will choose a
chairperson and a rapporteur. The latter will report on
the findings of the group back to the plenary, where
there will be an opportunity for the groups to put
questions to each other and for a general discussion of
the case studies.
13.00-14.00 Lunch break
14.00-15.30 Session 3: CONTEMPT OF COURT
This session will deal with a variety of risks
associated with journalistic coverage of legal
proceedings and of the courts in general. Issues
discussed will include: how far can a journalist

15.30-15.45 Tea break
go in criticizing a judge or the work of the
courts? To what extent can a journalist
comment on pending cases? What are the
special precautions that need to be taken in
reporting cases involving sexual offences? This
session will also deal with the protection of
journalistic sources.
15.45-17.15 Session 4: CASE STUDIES ON CONTEMPT
OF COURT
This session will involve the participants
breaking out into small groups and discussing
one or more case studies on contempt of court.
Each group will choose a chairperson and a
rapporteur. The latter will report on the findings
of the group back to the plenary, where there
will be an opportunity for the groups to put
questions to each other and for a general
discussion of the case studies.
Monday, 26 May
09.30-11.00 SESSION 5: HATE SPEECH & RELATED
MATTERS
This session will discuss the legal problems
associated with the coverage of, or comment
on, sensitive issues involving race, religion,
community, caste, etc. It will offer tips on how
a journalist can avoid pitfalls in this area without
sacrificing his freedom of expression or
compromising on essential journalistic values.
The discussion will encompass examples such as
the controversial Danish cartoons case.
11.00-11.30 Coffee break
11.30-13.00 SESSION 6: CASE STUDIES ON HATE
SPEECH
This session will involve the participants
breaking out into small groups and discussing
one or more case studies on hate speech. Each
group will choose a chairperson and a
rapporteur. The latter will report on the findings
of the group back to the plenary, where there
will be an opportunity for the groups to put
questions to each other and for a general
discussion of the case studies.
13.00-14.00 Lunch break
14.00-15.30 SESSION 7: PANEL DISCUSSION

This session will involve an exchange of views,
experiences and ideas on defamation, contempt
of court, and hate speech among a panel of
distinguished journalists/broadcasters who have
a close familiarity with these areas of the law.
It will allow workshop participants to discuss
some of these issues with the panelists and to
seek possible solutions to common problems
across Asia and further afield.
Panelists:
• Moderator: Dr Venkat Iyer, Lecturer, University of Ulster,
UK
• William Ampem-Darko, Director-General, Ghana
Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), Ghana
• Steve Buckley, President, World Association of Community
Radio Broadcasters (AMARC), Canada
• Kunda Dixit, Founding Editor, Nepali Times, Nepal
• Prof Dr Jacob van Kokswijk, Researcher Law School of
Strathclyde University in Glasgow/UK, Netherlands
• Gopal Sreenevasan, Advocate & Solicitor
Partner Sivananthan – Advocates & Solicitors,Malaysia
15.30-15.45 Tea break
15.45-16.45 SESSION 8: JOURNALISM ETHICS IN THE
ERA OF MEDIA CONVERGENCE
This session will discuss the ethical challenges
facing journalists in the new era of media
convergence. It will identify particular areas of
difficulty, e.g. sting operations involving
sophisticated technology, implications of putting
content on the web which may fall foul of the
laws/customs of other countries whilst being
acceptable in the host country, and so on, and
attempt to find a consensus on some of the
challenges.
Additional Speakers:
• David Barlow, Broadcasting Consultant, Public
Broadcasting International (PBI), France
• Robert Beveridge, Director, Voice of Listener and Viewer -
Lecturer
The Open and Napier University, United Kingdom
16.45-17.00 Closing
* * * * *

ANNEX III
The Statement of Accounts are forwarded by AIBD finance department
directly to UNESCO.

ANNEX IV
Audio recordings
The unedited audio recordings are included in the enclosed CD