Don't create unnecessary distance.

(Baonghean) - Article 7 of the 1999 amended Press Law stipulates: "The press has the right and obligation not to disclose the names of information providers if it would harm them, except at the request of the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy or the Chief Justice of the People's Court at the provincial level and above, when necessary for the investigation and trial of serious crimes." The Ministry of Public Security has just proposed amending this article to: The Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy, the Chief Justice of the People's Court, and the heads of investigative agencies at all levels have the right to request press agencies to provide the sources of information published in mass media. This proposal has been criticized by lawyers as violating the Constitution's provisions on the right to freedom of speech, the Law on Prevention and Combat of Corruption, and the Law on Whistleblowing. Public opinion is concerned that if this proposal is accepted, the leading role of the press in the fight against corruption will be limited.

In reality, most corruption cases are discovered by the public, reported by the press, and handled by law enforcement agencies; no corruption cases have been discovered and handled by Party organizations or state agencies. When reporting acts of corruption, the public's greatest fear is retaliation. Therefore, people feel completely secure providing information about corruption cases to the press because it will be kept confidential and they will not fear retaliation. When corruption is reported in the mass media, law enforcement agencies may seek information for various purposes. If it is to aid in the investigation of a case, that is a good purpose, and the cooperation of the press is essential. If it is to complete the case file, the press is willing to provide the information. However, obtaining information is not without its potential for misuse.

A current reality is that corruption and bribery occur even within law enforcement agencies. Who can guarantee that those who provide information about corruption cases won't be retaliated against? Through media coverage, many corruption cases have been investigated and tried fairly, restoring legitimate rights to the victims. However, there are also cases of wrongful convictions, forcing victims to file lawsuits year after year. In some cases, the temptation of bribery has led to investigations falsifying records and prosecutions wrongly convicting the wrong people, resulting in the victims of courageous whistleblowing. In the current fight against corruption, the most worrying aspect is corruption occurring within law enforcement agencies. When negative elements exist within these forces, revealing the names of those who provide information about corruption cases is extremely dangerous. Therefore, maintaining Article 7 of the Press Law as it is is essential.

If the Ministry of Public Security's proposal is implemented, accessing information in cases may become easier, but the public will no longer dare to provide information to the press. The issue is how to build public trust in law enforcement agencies, as much as they trust the press, so that they voluntarily provide information rather than demanding that the press provide it. In the current fight against corruption, the press truly serves as a bridge between the people and the Party and the State. We should not, for the sake of amending laws according to subjective desires, create an unnecessary, even frightening, gap between the press and the people and law enforcement agencies.

TRAN HONG CO