[kictanet] Fw: RE: Kibaki signs Bill into law

[John Walubengo]

looks like this response was burning and cant wait for next weeks discussion on the same.

walu.

--- On Tue, 1/6/09, Concerned Citizen <kenyacitizen at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Concerned Citizen <kenyacitizen at gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [kictanet] Kibaki signs Bill into law
> To: jwalu at yahoo.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:24 AM
> Please post this view on Kictanet.
> 
> Four things are annoying this concerned citizen about this
> debate.
> 
> 1) The media has doen the country a dis-service by failing
> to
> highlight the good in this act.  generally the media should
> stop
> chasing after the horse which has already bolted the
> stable.  The bill
> is now an act. As far "media" concerns go - the
> ONLY way to get rid of
> offending emergency clause is to take the bill back to
> parliament.
> For the media to now paint the picture that the whole
> fracas is the
> fault of the executive is wrong. It was not the executive
> that
> approved this bill in various readings in parliament - it
> was our MPs.
>  Why aren't we hearing more about that?
> 2) Just who is the "media" we are talking about
> here?  Are the
> interests of journalists who work on a daily basis being
> represented
> here?  Personally I have not seen any notable JOURNALIST
> supporters of
> the bill complain about the bill.  Could this be because
> they know (as
> a growing number of the public are coming to know)that this
> is too
> much ado about something that cannot now be changed?
> 3) For Mr Makali to dismiss the concerns of the ICT
> community on this
> bill is short-sighted and arrogant.  The ICT community has
> been
> campaigning for several clauses within the bill to be
> passed for many
> many years - its passing is major cause for celebration for
> the entire
> country as it creates new business opportunities that will
> enrich OUR
> economy. In my view, the good in this bill surpasses the
> few negative
> clauses that are being shoted about from every available
> roof-top.
> 4) As a member of the media I have never felt so cowed or
> suppressed
> in my life.  My colleagues and I have been forced to accede
> to this
> "media" agenda without any consultation.
> When the Media Bill (see how these ill-thought
> abbreviations confuse
> the public???) of last year was under debate, we happily
> took to the
> streets to fight for our press freedoms.
> What is happening now is a travesty of our industry - what
> was an
> ordered campaign against unfair legislation is now becoming
> a
> witch-hunt where the power of the media is been used
> negatively to
> attack various structures.
> Those who are shouting are risking the very same heavy
> investments by
> the media they seek to protect and reversing the gains its
> taken
> decades for this country to acheive which could now be
> under a more
> serious threat of misuse by a few individuals for personal
> gain.
> 
> There is no other industry that needs regulation as much as
> the media right now.
> 
> I think what the media should push for now - in the
> public's interest
> - is a review of the offending clauses by our non-tax
> paying friends
> in parliament and further, a review of the act itself which
> attempts
> to lump too many industries togther.
> 
> The views I hold do not reresent the views of my employers
> and are
> purely personal in nature.
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of dmakali at yahoo.com
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:15 PM
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kibaki signs Bill into law
> 
> Barrack, I don't see our pt of diff. Media are the
> first users of ict
> and thea is no doubt ict is imptant in a modern ecoomy. 
> But that's
> it. So is freedom of speech and access to information.
> And we don't have to compare media and ict. What I
> state and repeat is
> the tendency by ict buffs to think only ict in isolation or
> see
> nothing wrong else with the aw as long as their concerns
> are taken
> care of, then say dismissively that there are other
> iinstitutions to
> deal with their legitimate concerns or reason should
> prevail.  Which?
> How come ict folks are not raising their voices on thoz
> issues they
> acknowledge media have except as btw or in a back handed
> manner? Am
> very awake to the fact the country desperately needed to
> kick up the
> ict sector with facilitative legislation. I have personally
> suffered
> from its lacking. But we can't gloss over fundamental
> issues out of
> that desperation!
> China has all the ict you want but wat kind of society is
> it. You
> can't enjoy ict in a repressive environment. And this
> country is in
> the cusp of potential tyranny midwifed by our unresolved
> political
> equations that we are just about to begin to resolve. If
> any political
> axis should be handed control over the media, even with its
> weaknesses, you will rue the day you dismissed our
> protestations.
> I have written too much and may be I feel too strongly
> about this but
> no emotions. Straight shooting perhaps.
> David
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Barrack Otieno"
> <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>
> 
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:36:51
> To: <dmakali at yahoo.com>
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy
> Discussions<kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kibaki signs Bill into law
> 
> 
> Bwana Makali,
> I think you are being sensational, lets try and get
> emotions out of
> this argument, for as long as i can remember media
> practioners have
> always rubbished the role of ICT in the countries
> socio-political
> landscape, i witnessed this behaviour in a forum sponsored
> by Unesco
> at the Grand Regency a couple of years ago which was
> apparently
> chaired by CEO's from leading media houses and i can
> see bwana makali
> repeating it on this list which is unaccepatble here even
> though we
> are democratic!!, give us a break sir. None the less may be
> we need
> our own ministry as Dr Siganga says to champion the ICT
> agenda and
> save us from this circus. The Media has a point and we all
> agree that
> there are contentious issues that need to be sorted out
> however let
> reason prevail, we have instituions in place to handle this
> kind of
> problems and they need to be put into use
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:59 PM,  <dmakali at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > The media's ref to the comm amendm bill 2008
> (yuck!) as media or ict bill is attributable to two factors.
> The media have a right and an editorial licence to
> abbreviate long and cumbersome names. Do you guys know how
> difficult it is to write headlines? Write one to test your
> editorial skills - 25 letters across 40cms and include all
> that communications bla bla!?
> >  Second, the media have a right to christen anything
> for ease of reference. Why aren't you media phobes
> complaining about ndungu, waki, kriegler or whatever other
> commissions that don't exist in fact and which you have
> quite happily swallowed? wats wrong with the media or ict or
> (next) postal bill if it captures the essence of what is on
> the table or disputed? I find it trite argument to insist
> that the media have misrepresented the bill. If there is
> nothing contestable about the others, or they are less
> controversial or for whatever reason they dim in
> significance, what is the big deal?
> > Finally, of course, some media could just have failed
> to see the bigger picture and erroneously referred to it as
> media bill. In which case that all fair in war and love. You
> can't moan till morning.
> > Let's face the facts. The law has bad provisions
> that only myopic and selfish people or those with axes to
> grind the media can't see. Unfortunately, it takes a
> very short time before the reality catches up with such
> people wen they find themselves on the receiving end.
> > Jog your memory.
> > David
> > Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "waudo siganga"
> <emailsignet at mailcan.com>
> >
> > Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:35:00
> > To: <dmakali at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy
> Discussions<kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kibaki signs Bill into law
> >
> >
> > Thanks for noting the changing goal posts in terms of
> the title of this
> > Law Alice. In fact a short while ago some referred to
> it as the "ICT
> > Bill" before briefly reverting to Kenya
> Communications  (Amendment) Bill
> > 2008 and then finally resting at "Media
> Bill". For me I think I
> > understand the reasons for this confusion,
> particularly for the public:
> > this is a compound Law in one basket. The lesson I
> learn is that in
> > future we need to change some things otherwise it is
> possible to reach a
> > stage where useful ICT Policy, Legislative and
> regulatory development
> > processes are held back by things that really have
> nothing to do with
> > ICT. What if the courier services who are now
> regulated by this Law had
> > successfully opposed it? We would be missing
> e-transactions legislation
> > simply because of a function that has nothing to do
> with ICT.
> > For starters, the Government should restructure so
> that we have an ICT
> > only Ministry like they have in India, Egypt,
> Mauritius and other
> > countries worth copying. For many years after
> independence we had a
> > Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. That Minstry
> should be revived
> > to focus on the interests of our media brothers.
> > Right now it is very difficult to pin down what is
> "ICT" in Kenya. Some
> > of the issues being brought under the umbrella of
> "ICT" are those that
> > the real ICT people cannot contribute to. Some people
> are saying
> > everything is OK because of "convergence".
> But as can be seen, even
> > trying to converge Laws is an issue unto itself.
> >
> > Waudo
> > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:32 +0300, "alice"
> <alice at apc.org> said:
> >> I agree and for Pete's/Jane's sake could
> media drop the  "media bill"
> >> reference. It is the Kenya Communications 
> (Amendment) bill 2008, which
> >> covers much much more than broadcasting issues.
> and much more
> >> importantly it finally deals with issues of
> convergence from a
> >> technological, content, regulatory, as well as
> economic perspective. it
> >> is important that the communications
> "sector" adapts to this global
> >> convergence trend/scenario, because it will
> provide for expansion of
> >> universal access to ICTs,  in terms of reducing
> costs while stimulating
> >> economic and social growth. This can only be done
> through appropriate
> >> ICT policy and regulatory mechanisms, which the
> bill provides for.
> >>
> >> What we should be focusing on are the challenges
> that will come with
> >> this dynamic because adaption to convergence is
> not the end point.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> best
> >> alice
> >>
> >> p.s. views are personal and not a reflection of
> any of the
> >> institutions/organisations I am affiliated with.
> >>
> >> > Great suggestions,
> >> >
> >> > I feel we can support the media but not
> in-toto.
> >> >
> >> > First, it would be nice of the MoA et. al. to
> let go of the negative
> >> > "Media Bill" campaign and engage
> constructively with other players.
> >> >
> >> > Secondly, media should consider calling ICT
> advocacy personalities to
> >> > a forum where they can share how ICT issues
> have successfully been
> >> > incorporated without the animosity that is
> common when advocating for
> >> > media issues.
> >> >
> >> > I believe the media needs to feel secure that
> if their arguments are
> >> > valid, they'll have our undivided
> support....issue by issue.
> >> >
> >> > Wainaina
> >> >
> >> > On 1/4/09, Bill Kagai
> <billkagai at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The 4 fundamentals;
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. When the Media fraternity suggested
> the bill be rejected in-toto, ICT
> >> >> sector players felt this was akin to
> pouring the birth water together with
> >> >> the baby. Personally I am happy the ICT
> issues did not go down the drain.
> >> >> And I think that was what many of us were
> asking for.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. The Media has genuine concerns as
> Haron Ndubi articulated in his legal
> >> >> opinion on the probibity of the bill.
> However, the Media completely blacked
> >> >> out ICT sector concerns during our
> campaign to have the bill signed. We even
> >> >> went out of the way to show the remedies
> to the issues through the
> >> >> miscelleneous amendment bill as suggested
> in the very fast legal opinion
> >> >> whose author requested we keep his/her
> identity anonymous.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. ICT players and especially Kictanet
> ought to prove it's the bigger wo/man
> >> >> by showing solidarity in the front-line
> with our cousins in the Media
> >> >> looking for a way out of the quagmire. We
> do not have to ignore them simply
> >> >> because they refused to side with us in
> our campaign.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. We are extremely careless in handling
> crisis. If you are familiar with
> >> >> Newton's method of factoring variable
> change and the Monty Hall
> >> >>
> Paradox<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_paradox>,
> >> >> then we can analyse the options the
> President had mathematically.
> >> >> 4a) Sign Bill
> >> >> 4b) Don't Sign Bill
> >> >> 4c) Do nothing and hold Kenyans in
> suspense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Each option had a 33% probability of
> being the 'right' decision. So,
> >> >> assuming he had not seen the bill earlier
> since he was not the author and
> >> >> had decided not to sign the bill
> following the Media owners petition, was it
> >> >> wise to change his decision from
> 'Don't Sign' to 'Sign'??
> >> >> Monty Hall
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_paradox>
> proves that
> >> >> changing the decision increases the
> probability of getting it 'right' to
> >> >> 66.6%. And that is proven by the fact
> that we [in ICT] feel content and
> >> >> support ways of also making our brothers
> in the media achieve 'State of
> >> >> Nirvana'. This bill will also give
> the Minister of Finance some head-up
> >> >> before he dismisses innovations such as
> M-Pesa without prior knowledge.
> >> >>
> >> >> Conclusion;
> >> >> For Makali, Openda, Kaikai and other
> leading Media personalities who I know
> >> >> are on this list, why don't you
> invite ICT stakeholders in to your media
> >> >> stations to engage Kenyans on what is
> good and what is bad in the ICT [not
> >> >> Media] bill so that we can fight together
> against what we feel is not good??
> >> >> This has nothing to do with whether the
> grand coalition will hold or not,
> >> >> since neither the Right Honourable nor
> His Excellency drafted this bill. We
> >> >> did and the buck should stop with us!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Bildad Kagai
> >> >> MD - MediaCorp Limited
> >> >> Nairobi Stock Exchange Authorised
> Information Vendor
> >> >> Suite B2, Tetu Court, State House Avenue
> >> >> P. O. Box 20311 - 00200
> >> >> Nairobi, Kenya
> >> >> Tel. 254 20 272 8332
> >> >> Fax. Rendered Obsolete
> >> >> S - 1°17'13.8"
> >> >> E - 36°48'22.7"
> >> >> www.mediacorp.co.ke
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:21 PM, alice
> <alice at apc.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Thank you Wainaina. Happy 2009.
> >> >>> Now that the bill has been signed,
> what does the ICT industry think about
> >> >>> this whole debate? especially those
> who have worked for such a long time
> >> >>> with government to introduce
> legislation for the sector?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> best
> >> >>> alice
> >> >>>
> >> >>>  Happy New Year for ICT development
> in Kenya.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> We can now look at the
> Media's concerns on the Kenya Communications
> >> >>>> Act and support whatever 
> amendments may be justified.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Wainaina
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >> >>> kictanet mailing list
> >> >>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> >> >>>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This message was sent to:
> billkagai at gmail.com
> >> >>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> >> >>>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/billkagai%40gmail.com
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >> kictanet mailing list
> >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> >>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >>
> >> This message was sent to: emailsignet at mailcan.com
> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> >>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet%40mailcan.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> > kictanet mailing list
> > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >
> > This message was sent to: dmakali at yahoo.com
> > Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> > kictanet mailing list
> > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >
> > This message was sent to: otieno.barrack at gmail.com
> > Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Barrack O. Otieno
> ISSEN CONSULTING
> Tel:
> +254721325277
> +254726544442
> +254733206359
> www.issenconsult.com
> http://projectdiscovery.or.ke
> To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones
> responsibility as a free man.
> Alan Paton, South Africa
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet