Columns

There is hardly a politician who does not pay homage to the concept of media freedom, at least in countries that call themselves democracies. Politicians, particularly those aspiring to higher office will burn incense at the altar of media freedom and portray themselves as defenders of the faith. All this is in the hope of winning public acceptance and hallelujahs from international institutions advocating freedom for the media.

Why, some even proclaim a willingness to shed their last drop of blood defending the media against authoritarian incursions that threaten to destroy one of the four pillars that hold up democratic governance.

Malik Samarawickrema and Mangala Samaraweera: Switching roles from defender of the press while in opposition to offender of the media when in office comes quite naturally to politicians who, like the seven ages of man, play many parts in their political lives

It was in the late 18th century that Edmund Burke stressed the vital role of the press at the time, describing it as the fourth estate in parliament though it sat in the press gallery above the parliament’s chamber where sat the other three.

Since the days Edmund Burke recognized the critical importance of the press there has been a solid phalanx of politicians who pledge to safeguard press freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

But there are also those who pay mere lip service to this freedom because it is profitable to do so in the furtherance of self-interest.
Much of this vocal support, of course, comes when they are in the opposition and the opportunity to practise what they preach seems remote. If and when they come to power they count on public memories being extremely short and their homilies on press freedom long forgotten.

But once in the seats of power they soon begin to forget what they pledged in public and how they castigated-quite rightly I think- the predecessor administration for the Damoclean–sword approach to the media and its repression of practitioners and institutions.

Switching roles from defender of the press while in opposition to offender of the media when in office comes quite naturally to politicians who, like the seven ages of man, play many parts in their political lives.

Admittedly the media is not infallible. It too is guilty of acts of commission and omission and even propagating falsehoods. One reason why media standards have deteriorated in Sri Lanka is because of the plethora of media outlets both in the print and electronic media and the lack of professionalism and trained and experienced practitioners than man them.

Another is that politicians cultivate journalists for publicity and promote themselves and journalists cultivate politicians for self-interest including jobs in state media. This symbiotic relationship also led to stories being planted against rival politicians or those perceived as a challenger to their political patron.

One can understand political anger being directed at institutions and practitioners for distortion, misreporting and worse at deliberate falsehoods. But the reason for the morphing of defender in opposition to offender in power lies elsewhere.
It is the power of the media to expose-and indeed its right to do so- political chicanery, hidden agendas, secret deals, corruption, family promotion and cronyism, lack of transparency and a host of other acts that offend public sensibilities, in fact everything that violate the principles of good governance as spelt out by its leading advocates, that rankles the minds of political power wielders.

It is when the media performs one of its essential tasks of ferreting out and placing in the public domain information that the government desperately wishes to hide from the people but is of public interest, that holders of political power try to coerce the media and want it cowed into silence or for it to retreat from its mandated responsibility.

In recent months the public have witnessed attempts by senior politicians in government making threatening noises against the media that seem not to toe the line they would wish the media to follow.

Media have not hesitated to criticize some actions, proposals and decisions of the government and justifiably so. Moreover, opinions critical of the yahapalanaya administration turning into an appendage of the West have been aired by the media so that the public would have access to other points of view.

Believing the promises held out during two crucial elections last year that the media would be unshackled under a new dispensation, many of the more established and professionally-run media have shown they are not ready to be servile instruments voicing only what the government hopes they should do.

It seems that frequent visits to China and Singapore are teaching our leaders more than how to establish model industrial zones and state-financed quangos. Over the years these two hugely differing states have shackled the media and suppressed dissenting voices.

Lee Kuan Yew, that grand vizier of thought control ran the city state with an iron hand more than a velvet glove. Some might wonder a Leeward lurch might prove useful along with imported economic models would surely be gnawing away at the minds of those who wish to curb the media.

I am not certain whether a story currently doing the rounds that the government intends to disallow print media publishers from venturing into the field of electronic media and TV/radio broadcasters from engaging in newspaper/magazine publishing, is true or not.

But one cannot put it beyond some self-appointed media expert or an official mediocrity in some ministry with nothing significant to do to cook- up a scheme on the false prospectus that this would halt the creation of media monopolies and give government greater leverage in media manipulation.

While this Macbethian broth is being fired up readers were regaled last Sunday with the futile efforts of Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrema trying to wriggle out of an awkward situation as he hurriedly sought to lock the stable after the horse had cantered away.

This is not the first time that the aforesaid Minister Samarawickrema has tried to deny news reports in the Sunday Times as this newspaper made clear last week. His efforts at denial are neatly complemented by a colleague with a name somewhat similar to his- Mangala Samaraweera- reminding one of Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum.

While Samarawickrema is in denial mode Samaraweera is pursuing a creative career perhaps picking up from his early days when he learnt to be a fashion designer.

Last week Samaraweera told the media that some 200 LTTE cadres had secretly left Sri Lanka during the final stages of the war with a help of a defence ministry official. He did not say when he came to learn of it or when the government knew of it. But Samaraweera does have a habit of dropping explosive stories in the lap of the media.

Readers will recall that immediately after the presidential election the same Mangala Samaraweera exploded an incendiary device accusing the defeated president and some acolytes of plotting a coup- something to do with attempts to annul the election result and remain in power. Some 20 months later nary a word is said about it. It seems to have been interred with other promises such as an unfettered media.

Some say such tales from beyond the Bentara Ganga should be taken with a pinch of salt. One would have thought that a bottle of Epsom salt is more appropriate. Anyway it might be unethical to advertise brand names.

Samarawickrema’s denials are no better. Having failed to raise the flag with his criticism of the Sunday Times he turned to the parliamentary floor where he felt safest and had a bigger audience including the media.

But those who read this newspaper last Sunday would have found that its diplomatic correspondent had done a commendable demolition job that the minister is unlikely to forget for a long time.

Still some comments seem appropriate. Samarawickrema said that the “mere intention” was to “unjustifiably” make a comparison with some of the sordid deals made during the Rajapaksa with US lobbying firms. I cannot be certain what the minister means by “mere intention” but if he had the faintest idea of news reporting he would know that the most important and news worthy parts are in the opening paragraphs.

It is best that he re-reads that opening paragraph which says he has retained a lobbying form “to educate officials on a non-existent peace process, increase economic ties and market access.”

If anybody is doling out misleading information it is the minister. In quoting those words from the news story the minister deliberately omits the words after process and attaches the words “part of the deal”. Who is providing “incorrect and misleading information” minister?

In the months following the election victories last year the world was told that peace has returned to Sri Lanka. If that is so there is no need for a peace process. And where is this “process” to be found and who is spearheading it?

Admittedly steps need to be taken to achieve reconciliation which could take a generation or two to solidify. But if there is a peace process in motion it must be proceeding in utmost secrecy with a foreign lobbying firm one of the few privy to it.

Minister Samarawickrema states that the contract had been entered into in the “fullest transparency manner”. If what the minister is struggling to say is what I think he means then that agreement is no secret. So how was it done in the “fullest transparency manner”?
Why that is simple. The Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington evaluated it, the Economic Management sub Committee approved it, the cabinet said okay and even the Attorney-General weighed in obviously only with legal advice and nothing more.

Therefore it was done with the fullest transparency. So that is what transparency means. Now did the public know about it? Did parliament where representatives of the people sit, know about it? Did that loquacious cabinet spokesman who briefs the media after cabinet meetings announce it? After all by the minister’s own admission the cabinet approved it on June 14th?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. Where then is the transparency unless transparency means something different to the minister. I thought that the openness and transparency that the advocates of yahapalanaya professed to pursue meant that the actions and decisions of government would be made known to the public by the various means of mass communication.

But the culture of secrecy prevalent in corporate activities and dealings seem to have been transposed to the affairs of state. Consider for instance the remark made by the chairman of SriLankan Airlines Ajith Dias that discussions/disputes between the management and its employees are an internal matter. Perhaps he has forgotten that he is head of the state-owned enterprise.
Some of the functions allocated to this lobbying firm are matters that should be handled by our Washington embassy. Expanding the Sri Lanka caucus and building a “friends of Sri Lanka” caucus is what embassy officials should be doing. The UK has these. But I doubt they came into existence with the assistance of lobbying firms.

Another function of the lobbyists is “promptly notifying of any Congressional or Administrative action of importance to Sri Lanka.” For heaven sake this is what every diplomatic mission should be doing. It is part of the job just as writing regular political and economic reports are traditional functions.

The normal practice is that when other ministries or departments wish to obtain the assistance of a diplomatic mission such requests are channelled through the Foreign Ministry. Even such simple things as arranging meetings for visiting delegations should go through the foreign ministry. But this does not appear to have been done in this instance. Whether our Washington embassy informed the foreign ministry about the evaluating request from Samarawickrema’s ministry is also not disclosed.
All that is said is that the foreign ministry was aware of the agreement. How? Because, according to the minister, the “decision approving the recommendation of the Cabinet Memorandum had been sent to relevant Secretaries.”

So it is only the decision that had been sent to the foreign ministry, a post facto act. If this is not bypassing settled conventions what is!

If the Sunday Times had not made this deal public-as it did other lobby deals during the Rajapaksa days- would the Sri Lankan people have ever known of it? When history comes to be written perhaps! Maybe further excavation might reveal hitherto unknown connections. Who knows!