The Political Column

18th June 2000

PA-UNP talks on reforms strike compromise note

By our Political Correspondent

The blanket censorship on the media under the May 3rd Emergency Regulations is now before the Supreme Court after several editors, deputy editors and others challenged its validity.

Media freedom is an important input for the sustenance of vibrant democracy, but over the years, governments in Sri Lanka have given little attention to promote it. On the contrary, muzzling the media seems to be the norm.

The irony of the situation is all main parties in Sri Lanka posed as champions of media freedom when in opposition but once they are elected to office they treat the media as an enemy.

The PA which came to office in 1994 after languishing in the opposition for 17 years, is no exception. When it was in opposition, especially in the period between 1989 and 1993 — a period described as a dark era for the independent media — several media organisations, such as the Free Media Movement and newspapers worked against the UNP government to restore media freedom.

Versatile politicians such as Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake and even the present President Chandrika Kumaratunga, made use of these organisations and newspapers to achieve their political ends.

Today, the very champions of the media freedom, now in office, have turned against the free media and lambast them on every possible occasion.

When the media censorship was imposed on May 3, ostensibly to prevent military information from leaking to the enemy and to keep the South calm when the North was burning, the Competent Authority is alleged to have censored even innocuous articles which had nothing to do with the military operations in the North or which could incite the masses in the South. The Competent Authority is alleged to have taken arbitrary decisions in censoring articles. Even articles which criticised the senseless censorship were also chopped.

There had been disagreement within the government itself on the media censorship. Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar said it would be counter-productive as such a move could give rise to rumours and speculation.

The main opposition UNP which is now crying foul over the censorship issue, itself had resorted to censorship when it was in office. Soon after the 1983 'Black July' incidents and when the 1987 Indo-Lanka agreement was signed, the government imposed censorship.

Media censorship is detrimental to the development of society because it ties up the media from reporting corruption and malpractice in state administration.

Former President J.R. Jayewardene once said: "Press under control is a curse. Such acts are tantamount to a total breakdown of democratic principles. Let the people themselves pass judgment and let them refuse to believe or accept all such slanderous and malicious material."

This statement makes one to comment that if only politicians practise what they preach the media could enjoy greater freedom and the country greater democracy.

Recently State television Rupavahini's current affairs division launched a scathing attack on free media activists, claiming that media freedom was a privilege of the elite. The programme accused the FMM of being a cat's paw of the UNP.

If the Rupavahini believes that media freedom is a privilege of the elite, does it think that democracy is also a privilege of the elite?

The question that arises here is whether the Rupavahini stand is an indication of the government's media policy. If so, it could also mean that the country is facing a danger of drifting towards authoritarianism. We had faced similar experiences from 1970 to '77 and thereafter at times when the UNP was in power. The Sirimavo Bandaranaike administration initiated an onslaught on the press by firstly acquiring the independent Lake House Group and later sealing the Davasa Group of newspapers. The present administration which is built on the remnants of the 1970-'77 SLFP regime is also seen to be flirting with such harsh measures.

A free press always finds fault with the government, criticises its action and reminds the pledges given to the people during election times. Thus, it naturally becomes the enemy of the government.

The Rupavahini's anti-FMM onslaught on Wednesday evening also mentioned that the need of the hour was not media freedom but peace in the country.

As the Rupavahini mentioned, peace is very essential for a battered nation which has channelled all its resources to fight a war. But it does not mean that press freedom is secondary. People would want to know whether the money has been spent efficiently to achieve the objective of peace and ending the war or it had been plundered by politicians and cronies. This is why media freedom is very essential, especially at a time when people are burdened with price hikes and defence levies.

When the petitions filed by the Editors Guild and others came up for hearing before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva observed that it was the reader who suffered most due to what he described as battles between the editors and the Censor.

He said the Censor should either allow a copy or disallow it and it was not his duty to amend it and approve it. It left room for speculation, the Chief Justice said.

He wanted to give a practical solution to the problem. He advised the Attorney-General to formulate guidelines in consultation with the editors if the censorship was to continue.

The petitioners have now crossed the first hurdle in their fight against senseless censorship when the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed in their fundamental rights cases.

In was a decisive victory for The Editors Guild in Hulftsdorp when the Supreme Court granted them and other journalists, columnists and cartoonists leave to proceed in their fundamental rights application against the on-going censorship.

The Editors, usually prone to being defendants or accused in defamation suits went on the offensive for the first time and for many of them it was the first time that they had ever filed an action in a court of law.

This showed how seriously they felt that the current censorship had made inroads into the Constitutional provisions of freedom of expression. The Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice quite clearly indicated that the way the censorship was functioning was a clear mockery.

They were also very critical of the Competent Authority absenting himself from Court during the two day hearing, and the Chief Justice advised the Additional Solicitor General to get the Editors Guild involved when drafting guidelines on reporting of war news.

The Editors Guild which had gone on the offensive for the first time also had the benefit of a visiting delegation of the New York based Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) visiting the country at the time the Supreme Court hearings took place.

The delegation was headed by the well-known face of Peter Arnett, a veteran Vietnam war correspondent and more recently CNN's man in Baghdad during the Gulf War.

The CPJ delegation met Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera and Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar and urged them to review the on-going censorship in Sri Lanka saying it was outdated and utterly counter-productive.

But what might have been more counter-productive to their well-meaning visit to Sri Lanka was Peter Arnett's indiscretion to be interviewed by a prospective UNP candidate Mr. Milinda Moragoda, on a local TV chat show on the Maharajah run MTV.

The man behind scheduling that interview was none other than the US Ambassador in Colombo Shaun Donnelly. Obviously Peter Arnett did not know the political credentials of the interviewer.

The CPJ delegation had been very careful to steer clear of any political manipulations while in Sri Lanka. They only attended a reception thrown by the Editors Guild where they met Editors and publishers, and Mr. Arnett himself first agreed to, and then turned down a request to be interviewed by TNL, the TV station run by the UNP leader's brother.

That faux-pas apart, the CPJ delegation made a valuable on-the-spot assessment of media freedom in this country and would report to the world's press freedom and international civil rights movements about the state of play in Sri Lanka.

The question of censorship was also raised at the PA-UNP talks. Responding to a query raised by UNP chairman Karu Jayasuriya, President Kumaratunga said she had received draft guidelines which she was reviewing with Media Minister Samaraweera and Constitutional Affairs Minister G. L. Peiris.

It is now believed that the censorship will be relaxed stage by stage before the case filed by the Editors Guild comes up for hearing.

Besides the censorship, the two parties discussed the main devolution issues such as land, the unit of devolution and the independent election commission.

On the question of land, there appears to be a tentative compromise, whereby all forest reserves, national reserves and water-sheds areas and the coast will remain under the control of the central government. All tea, rubber and coconut plantations, too, will continue to be owned by the centre. Minor forests and other unutilised lands within the parameters of the regional councils could come under the regional council.

Any settlement would have to be along the guidelines issued by the central land council which would be set up under the new constitution. Inter-regional settlement projects would also be under the authority of the proposed land council.

The two parties also agreed that there should be an interim administration for the North and the East for two years. This administration would have representatives of all political parties now represented in parliament. The LTTE would also be invited to join the council. At the end of two years, a referendum will be held in the East to decide whether the Eastern province should remain merged with the North.

They also decided that the referendum should not be restricted only to the district of Trincomalee and Batticaloa, but should be held throughout the Eastern province including the Muslim areas and the Ampara district.

SLMC leader and Minister M.H.M. Ashraff who was also present at this meeting said the SLMC's position was that if a referendum was held throughout the Eastern province, his party would not insist on a separate South-Eastern council.

The two delegations also had given due consideration to protect the rights of the Muslims and Sinhala people resident in the Eastern province.

UNP's constitutional expert K. N. Choksy presented a paper on the establishment of an independent election commission on behalf of the UNP. Mr. Choksy proposed that the commission should consist of five persons appointed by the President on the advice of the constitutional council.

The commission will be responsible for conducting all elections and also make use of the police and armed forces to prevent intimidation and other malpractices.

UNP delegate Mahinda Samarasinghe asked whether the independent election commission could be set up before the general elections by amending the constitution, if the new constitution was not ready by then. But the President said she hoped to pass the new constitution before August.

The UNP also suggested the setting up of an independent police commission. But this matter was not discussed at length during the three meetings last week.

At the conclusion of the first meeting which was held on Monday UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe raised a question about a Parliamentary bill that sought to amend the elections law to control political advertisements of the electronic media.

Mr. Wickremesinghe said much TV propaganda could be necessary for future elections because of terrorist threats to political figures at public meetings. Mr. Choksy said that he believed this bill could be a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

After considering the UNP's submissions, President Kumaratunga agreed to withdraw the bill.

In another development, President Kumaratunga advised her ministers to take more security precautions when attending public functions. In this regard, she sent a note to the weekly meeting of ministers through Minister Dharmasiri Senanayake. The weekly meeting of the ministers was presided over by Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake. Among the matters the ministers discussed was whether it would be possible to hold the general elections in August under the present circumstances. However, there was no decision taken.

After the meeting was over, a fleet of luxury bullet-proof vehicles were awaiting the ministers to take them back to their homes.

Another important event of the week was the visit of the Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. Mr. Singh met the President, the opposition leader, senior ministers and political party leaders.

He told minority political party leaders that India was committed to Sri Lanka's territorial integrity. He said that in his talks with the President he emphasized the need to restore peace as early as possible.

Mr. Singh said India no longer took decisions based on the 1987 experience. In 1987 India sent a peace-keeping force to Sri Lanka under the 1987 agreement.

At a separate meeting Mr. Singh said India's mediation was possible only if all the parties requested it to do so.

It means that India would not commit the same mistake again by trying to force a peace deal down the throat.

Situation Report

Editorial/ Opinion Contents