Time and again, the issue of press regulation crops up. Time and again, members of the government threaten newspapers with the possible implementation of state control over the press. A large proportion of the press continues to boast that it is responsible enough and shuns any initiative towards self-regulation. It runs the risk of having a nasty surprise because nothing prevents the government from legislating on the issue.

Within three months, three allusions have been made by government members and this should incite the press to be wary. In March, the prime minister, Paul Bérenger, threatened to ban live debates on private radios since reporters ?do not check and countercheck their information?. Taking into consideration the fact that our democratic prime minister ? who participated in the May 1968 events ? seems ready to apply censorship to safeguard government policy, the press has to draw its own conclusions ? that it has to regulate itself before government takes control.

Recently, two other members of Paul Bérenger?s party have resumed the debate. Veda Balamoody, commenting on a picture in the press showing a suspect with handcuffs, has called for regulation. In France, he says, such a picture would have been censored since ?it is degrading, humiliating and undermines the dignity of the individual.? As a result, he has suggested that the government should find ways of regulating the press if the latter does not do so itself.

Likewise, it seems minister Sam Lauthan is implicitly threatening people who go and make complaints on private radios rather than at his ministry. His ?between two persons who have the same problem, we will favour the one who comes to the ministry rather than the one who first goes to the radio? looks threatening for the freedom of the press.

If the press developed and published its own Code of Ethics and committed itself to following it, if journalistic self-regulation could ensure that limits are respected or could give citizens the right to ensure it, it would discourage politicians from the temptation to act as policemen with all the risks this could entail.

The fear that the State would decide what the press can do or say or has no right to do or say finally led the British press to implement its self-regulating Press Complaints Commission. The government was threatening to introduce means that would allow it to exert a certain control over the press. This led to a positive and constructive reaction from the profession.

Peter Cole, a seasoned journalist and columnist, head of the journalism department of the University of Sheffield, is adamant: A press council is ?a small price to pay for the freedom of the press.? Some of our local journalists do not seem ready to pay that price. With some arrogance, they continue to assert that they are responsible enough already. They do not understand this is not the most important aspect of the debate.

In fact, its is true to say that they are responsible. But the question is whether journalists should take the risk of waiting for the government to impose regulations on its own terms or anticipate this action by creating their own regulatory body. The saddest thing is the fact that everyone generally agrees that it is not the government?s duty or task to implement such regulations. But some still resist the creation of a Press Council.

The presence of Peter Cole in Mauritius was meant to be an opportunity to launch the debate on the need for a Press Council. There has not been a consensus to even start the debate. How many opportunities will there be again? How many threats will we have to face in the future?