5 Questions The Telegraph - Weekly (Nepal)

5 QUESTIONS

This week we preferred to let our valued readers understand views of our professional colleagues regarding the new regulations brought into effect by the Koirala regime. The controversial regulation entitled Public Security Regulations of June 4, 2001 has come under scathing attacks from different quarters of the Nepalese society including the media.

In the process we talked to some seniors in the profession who were not only qualified ones but command respect as well in the sector they are currently involved.

As was expected, the media men invited for the interview wished that the government scrap the said regulation at the earliest and let the citizens enjoy the basic rights guaranteed by the 1990 constitution.

Below the results: chief editor.

The new act can't be seen as a 'progressive' step

Mr. Tirtha Koirala, Consultant editor, The Himalaya Times Daily

TGQ1: - As a senior journalist, Mr. Koirala, how you take the new Public Security act brought in to effect by NC government. Is it a progressive step or regressive? Your comments please.

Koirala: - Every government needs laws, rules and regulations to carryout its administrative duties effectively. As well as the government needs amendment on time to deal with different cases and situations. The Nepalese Constitution section -3 Article -12 has stipulated the fundamental rights of the citizens, the same article concurrently has included some exceptional provisions too. The government could bring this kind of law with the given criteria of the constitution. First, it is exceptional second, the government should not be nakedly ill intentioned and to make the people as 'yes men or yes women'. If the government wishes to remain a democratic one in practice it should resist all critical activities of oppositions and the people. Democratic government(s) should not/ could not compare itself with previous systems and government. Where the government feels pulse of the people and gets success in convincing the people regarding its Programme in essence is democracy. However, it is not like that. In this sense the implementation or say bringing into effect of the new public security regulation couldn't be seen as a progressive step initiated by the government.

Can a set of regulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs take away people's fundamental rights?

Dhruba Hari Adhikary, senior journalist, Kathmandu

TGQ2: Critics say democratic rights of the people have been curtailed due to the enactment of the new Public Security regulations. What say you?

Adhikary: No journalist can afford to be a silent spectator if attempts are made to curb democratic rights of the people. Freedom of expression and publication are constitutionally guaranteed rights.
But can a set of regulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs take away people's fundamental rights? I doubt. Let's wait and see what our Supreme Court says on the petition that is already up for a hearing. Laws and bylaws found inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution have to be invalidated.

Then there is another aspect of the issue. Should the Government remain passive and inactive when the society you and I live is rocked by violence and disorder, causing a serious problem of public safety and order? All of us agree---and demand---that the Government should take appropriate steps to restore law and order. Understandly, excesses and atrocities cannot be condoned. Having said that, I must also tell you what I think about the present Government: though elected with a clear popular mandate, the Koirala administration has proved that it does not have the will, competence and honesty required to run a modern-day Government. When Koirala's team was not able to work even in normal times, how can we expect it to be effective when at abnormal period as the present one ? Yes, I am alluding to the aftermath of the Narayanhity massacre (of June 1).

It's a sort of "rape" of the existing constitution

Mr. Suresh Acharya, President, Federation of Nepalese Journalists

TGQ3: How you Mr. Acharya consider the new security act would infringe upon the democratic rights of the citizens guaranteed by the 1990 constitution? Your opinions please.

Acharya: I'm sorry to say, the present move of the government is the 'rape' of the constitution and the freedom of the press as well.

What ever be the defensive posture acquired by the home minister regarding the new regulations, it is a sort of challenge to the political parties as well as the Nepalese press and the sovereign people of the country. Criminal offense against the press is a direct challenge to democracy.

The government has failed to maintain law and order situation in the country since long and apparently in its bid to cover up its failure in this regard, it is working like an authoritarian government.

By constitution, every body has the right to speech; right to organization and to protest peacefully. The regulation, which is adopted by the cabinet, has curtailed all these basic rights. The rights with which the district administrator has been empowered will surely curtail the rights of the citizens should the government wish to stop any one who is not in its favor or of the ruling party. It is also a challenge to the multiparty system.

It becomes pretty clear that the intention of the government towards the freedom of expression and association is highly negative. This type of decision goes also contra to the declared main objectives of the ruling Nepali Congress. So I request to all the lawmakers of the ruling party to scrap this regulation.

I condemn the attitude of the government and demand the annulment of this regulation.

If it were against the spirit of the constitution, the court would nullify it

Mr. Tara Nath Dahal, GS, Federation of Nepalese Journalists

TGQ4: Mr. Dahal, how would you explain the new public security regulations brought into effect by the Koirala government. We wish to have your comments in this regard.

Dahal: The government clarifies that this regulation is not that stringent and in no way would curtail the democratic rights of the people. However, the manner in which the local chief district officer has been empowered to arrest an individual on grounds of mere suspicion is the real bone of contention among the people. The other issue that has concerned the people is that after the arrest an individual could appeal at the home ministry itself. With this provision the people have taken it as infringement of their rights to go to the court for achieving speedy justice. In effect it is this provision which has exhibited the government's acquiring of a hardened posture.

Finally, the new regulation can't be more stringent than the Security Act-2046. The Acts have been made by the parliament. It is the government's duty to enact rules to implement the Acts. However, care should be taken that the regulations must not amend the Acts and the acts likewise not amend the existing constitution itself. The fact is that a case is in the court against the regulation brought by the government recently. If it were against the spirit of the constitution, the court would nullify it. If not then one should remain always alert to see whether the government does not misuse the regulation. (Unofficial translation-ed).

Koirala Government is trying its best to revive the old Panchayat

Kundan Aryal, Chief editor, The Budhbar weekly, Kathmandu

TGQ5: Critics say that the enactment of the new public security regulations, the good old days of Panchayat has been revived. What is your comment? Do you subscribe to this view or totally reject?

Aryal: There is no doubt that the essence of so-called public security regulation is against the present constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal. It has made a blatant encroachment towards the independent judiciary too.

As a journalist, I must be sensitive about the freedom of the press. Whether this step of the government revives the Panchayat or not, I am not sure what could be the suitable word for it. And I can say that the revival of Panchayat is not so easy. However, if the regulation will fully be practiced, we will have to loose all of our rights that we are entertaining these days according to the constitution of 1990. In this condition our fundamental rights will be suspended and snatched. In accordance with the provision of the regulation, a journalist or a writer can be reframed from ones right and can be arrested whose writings appear a bit unpleasant and uncomfortable to the Chief District Officer.

In this regard, I have to say that the Koirala Government is trying it's best to revive the old Panchayat. But there is light at the end of the tunnel, for the abolition of the freshly enacted regulation because of the intensive and wide demand that the six lefts filed a petition in Supreme Court against the so-called public security regulation.