MP insists on press freedom, disagrees with parliamentary privilege

Nationalist MP Charlo' Bonnici this evening criticised comments by Foreign Minister about reining in the media and insisted that freedom of expression was paramount in this day and age.

Speaking in Parliament on the adjournment, Mr Bonnici said he accepted Dr Vella's clarification - that he meant media control through self-regulation - but such a Freudian slip could not be ignored, more so as this was the same minister who had stopped journalists from having mobile phones in is office. It was good that this measure too had been retracted.
The comments also had to be seen against controversial, even unconstitutional decisions taken by the government, including the forced resignation of permanent secretaries and breaches of the ministerial code of ethics.
The media, Mr Bonnici said, could not be expected to stay silent. Media criticism was part of a politician's life and had to be accepted rather than curtailed. It was true that the media had to observe the low, ethics and journalistic norms, but the media was a pillar of democracy which had a duty to criticise what was wrong, in a fair manner, without hidden agendas. 

Self-regulation was needed, but to seek to curtail the press, such as by strengthening the libel laws to shut up some bloggers, was regrettable. 

No one, not even the President or the judiciary, should be immune from media scrutiny, although the media had to respect  their office or institution. 

In this context, Mr Bonnici said, he condemned those calling for a boycott of the Community Chest Fund following a news story connected to the Fund. A mistake was not corrected with another mistake. 

Mr Bonnici also referred to the freedom granted to MPs under Parliamentary Privilege and said that he felt there was no need for it. Those who spoke on the basis of facts in hand did not need such a privilege, Mr Bonnici said.

In his speech Mr Bonnici repeated comments he made in the past about the need to strengthen public broadcasting, such as by putting it directly under Parliament's responsibility so that it could be run with independence as in the case of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General.