The newly appointed state minister for information and broadcasting, Mohammad Ali Arafat, speaks with Badiuzzaman Bay of The Daily Star about the state of press freedom in Bangladesh, rumours and disinformation, the Cyber Security Act, his priorities in the first 100 days, and other issues.
***
There have been a lot of criticisms and questions about the freedom of press in the last 15 years of Awami League rule. Starting another term, how does the government view these questions?
Historically, it is during the Awami League’s rule that democracy, and democratic institutions such as the press, have flourished. Take, for example, the spread of digital media following the government’s digitisation drive over the last 15 years. Awami League has always been pro-media and pro-expansion. True, there have been criticisms in some cases. But I see this more as a difference of opinion. We don’t claim that we have always made the right decisions or made no mistakes. On the contrary, I can cite many examples of how we have revised decisions in light of legitimate concerns. One thing you have to keep in mind is that a government, too, can be prone to mistakes. Trial and error is part of the decision-making process, and adjustments can take some time. So, for a fuller understanding of our approach, you should factor in not just our reactions to criticism but also how we’ve adjusted our decisions in light of that.
On the question of press freedom, the government often cites the growing number of media houses to indicate the state of the press. But can a quantitative measure reflect its qualitative state or freedom?
Yes, of course. A government that wants to control the press will want to suppress its growth. The fewer there are, the easier it is to control them. A pro-press government will think differently. It’s true that higher numbers do not automatically translate into higher quality. But it’s a step in that direction. Quantity is also something that you can put your finger on. But how do you gauge quality or freedom? Everyone has a different opinion about it. There is no methodology that can be used to objectively measure it.
But the opinion of journalists or rights organisations can help determine the level of quality or freedom.
No, that’s still an opinion. Only an objective scale can ensure exact measurements. Those working on rights may have a bias; they see the world from an idealistic point of view. Journalists, as direct stakeholders, cannot be objective or unbiased either. Therefore, I see their evaluations as their opinions, with which I may or may not agree. But I cannot take them as concrete evidence. That said, we should try to establish an objective methodology.
Since being sworn in, you have talked about rumours, misinformation and disinformation on several occasions. You said those spreading rumours or disinformation through various channels would be held accountable, and that you wanted to create a framework to prevent it. What might that framework or strategy be?
That’s an important topic. The threat of disinformation has been identified as a top global risk at the recent World Economic Forum summit in Davos. I think, in principle, we all agree that we want free flow of information and full freedom of the press, but at the same time, we want to prevent disinformation from misleading people. How to ensure that any anti-disinformation drive does not overstep into press freedom? There is a fine balance to be struck between the two. I have a few ideas about how to go about it, but I want to discuss with all the stakeholders of the media to make the process inclusive. I think we all understand the importance of separating fact-based journalism from motivated journalism, which is a disservice to citizens. Together, we can try to find a way.
Can you be a little more specific about your plan?
Primarily, we want to sit with all the stakeholders and collect their ideas. The objective is to collate and fine-tune them and build a structure to ensure accountability for spreading misinformation and disinformation. Accountability does not mean punishment, but exposing and shaming those behind disinformation campaigns so that they eventually lose their credibility. In other words, we want to motivate those who want to practise fact-based journalism and expose those who don’t do so.
Will you support a shift away from the current practice of taking legal or extra-legal action for ‘objectionable’ reports to a practice of social rejection?
Personally, I’d prefer social action. I think the power of social response in such cases is important to recognise. For that, we need a cultural transformation that will be more effective and sustainable. But to reach that level will take time given our present socio-political reality.
Let’s talk about the Digital Security Act (DSA), which was replaced by the Cyber Security Act (CSA) before the election. Now that the election is over, many fear that use of the law will be intensified again. What’s the government thinking about it? Will critics and political activists again suffer the abuse of the law?
First of all, the DSA was a new law, and it took some time to adjust it. We’re not denying that it was not abused in some cases. Our law minister has also acknowledged it. The DSA had some flaws in it, and this is why it was replaced. For example, earlier there was a provision for arrests in case of defamation without any option for bail. In my opinion, it was not right. It was the most talked-about aspect of the law, but the CSA has made a huge departure from that.
Now, there is no provision for jail—hence no bail concerns—instead, a fine will be imposed, which will be payable only after the final judgment. The judge will determine the fine considering the gravity of the offence. I think these changes should be acknowledged. This is another proof that the government accommodates public feedback and makes adjustments where necessary.
There are still considerable concerns about the DSA/CSA.
There is no room for concerns about the DSA because there is no DSA anymore. For one, there is no scope for harassment anymore because there is no jail term in case of defamation. The journalist community didn’t raise objections about other sections that have nothing to do with journalism. Concerns about those other sections are irrelevant. If you study the CSA properly, you will see that those in journalism have nothing to worry about.
But can we ignore the prospects of the abuse of the law?
Any law can be abused, and we all have to play the role of the watchdog to prevent it. Such abuse hurts everyone: it harms the victim in question, causes discontent among the public, and tarnishes the government’s reputation. The abuse is done by individuals out of ill motive; there is nothing to gain from it for the government politically.
If someone files a case out of ill motive, whose responsibility is it to prevent it? Even if a defendant doesn’t land in jail, few cases are usually disposed of, so a defendant has to carry the stigma or burden of a case for long.
The CSA removes the main concerns by eliminating jail terms. My personal opinion is that there is a tendency in some sections of society to view court cases as a tool of harassment. Often such cases are politically coloured, even when politics has nothing to do with it. To prevent this tendency and demotivate filing cases with ill intent, I think there should be a remedy or safeguard within the legal framework, not just for DSA/CSA cases but all kinds of cases. No one should be allowed to abuse the law in any way.
We have often seen people face consequences, through various means, for having diverse or critical thoughts. This has created a climate of fear. Even journalists are being forced to self-censor. What will you say about it?
I think this is an artificially created narrative. I see no reason for fears over expressing opinion. In the majority of TV talk shows, I have seen commentators criticise the government, often mixing facts with falsehoods. In these shows, you will see criticism aired 70-80 percent of the time every day, from evening to late night. Not just on television, you will see critical views on other platforms as well. This does not support the narrative of the culture of fear. You can talk about self-censorship, but how do you measure its extent or level? Yes, there has been some abuse of the DSA, but you cannot judge the mood or reality in the whole country in light of that.
What will be your priorities for the first 100 days in office?
There are some administrative tasks, which are a big part of the job of a minister. There are also some strategic areas that need attention. For example, there has been an orchestrated disinformation campaign against Bangladesh and the government globally, and we need to be careful about it. The growth of media through technological advancements has also created some realities that need to be taken care of, for the sake of the industry. Our main goal is to protect the interests of citizens, not to secure the continuity of our authority. We need to leave a strong foundation for the future of Bangladesh in line with the spirit of our Liberation War.
Source: The Daily Star Link