Outside Politics

20th August 2000

Media freedom is the right of citizens: Ranil

Let us unite to strengthen democracy: Lokubandara

We are for media freedom: Mangala

Media freedom is the right of citizens: Ranil

Moving the Private Members motion on liberalising media laws in Sri Lankna, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe said: Media freedom was one of the main slogans of the People's Alliance manifesto in the 1994 elections.

The 1977 election was fought on the grounds that the media should not be placed under the control of the government. In 1994, the election was focused on reforming the media laws to give more freedom to the media.

In our neighbouring country India, the independence of the media was enshrined in the Constitution.

But the media was dealt a severe blow by the emergency regulations of the Indira Gandhi regime. But today India has a free and vibrant media.

In Sri Lanka the Press Council laws were enacted in 1973 and in 1974 the Lake House group of newspapers were nationalised.

The 1977 election was the turning point for the expansion of the media in this country. New privately owned newspapers came into being in the late 80s and the private electronic media groups also began operations.

The PA campaigned on the platform of media freedom in the 1994 elections. A commission was appointed that came up with a number of suggestions.

A select committee of Parliament was also appointed to look into the question of media reforms.

However, today there has been a major turnabout. The government is in conflict with the private media. It is using advertising as a way to control the media.

A press censorship was brought in as the war with the Tigers escalated. However the censorship has become a hindrance to the freedom of the media today.

I have got much coverage in the state media whether it is in connection with the Batalanda Commission or the LTTE.

With social liberalisation taking place all over the world, the media is enjoying unprecedented freedom.

However Sri Lanka seems to be the exception to this rule.

Defamatory laws have been amended in most countries. We are not asking for a repeal of the law. The European Court has ruled that the intention to defame someone must be proved in a defamation case.

Under the Press Council laws, the journalist, editor, publisher and printer are all held responsible for what is published.

Article 16 also forbids the publication of all material relating to the Cabinet.

Although these laws are not strictly enforced, their mere presence is used as a tool to threaten the newspapers.

I believe it is the duty of the Cabinet to safeguard Cabinet secrets. But this does not happen because somehow the secrets are leaked to the media. Members of the Cabinet themselves leak the news to the media for want of publicity or because they feel the information is in the public interest.

This government also has more than one reporter. It is said that if the Cabinet does not want it's secrets leaked, it should not meet.

There should be a Freedom of Information Act. It is essential that the people be kept up to date with all the decisions that the government takes. The people have the right to question the decisions taken by the government. The bureaucracy will deplete once the freedom of the media becomes a reality.

This motion is not intended to only free the media in the country. It is also meant for all the people of this land.

They have the right to know about all decisions taken on their behalf. The people must have the right to gather information.

Media freedom is not confined to a politician, a journalist, an editor or a publisher. It is the right of each and very citizen of this country.

Sarath Amunugama ( Minister of Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Development of the Northern Regions): The motion brought by the opposition addresses a number of areas where reforms are needed.

It deals with the freedom of information, the abolition of legislation relating to criminal defamation, implementation of the recommendations of the R.K.W. Goonesekera report and lastly the setting up of an independent media commission.

The first item has already being included in the new Constitutional Bill.

The UNP is happy with the constitutional provisions with regards to the media but is refusing to support the Constitutional Bill because it has other views on other areas in the Bill.

It is asking today for the same rights for the media that are already enshrined in the new Constitutional Bill which they will not assist the government to pass in Parliament.

This is the first time in the world that such progressive laws relating to the media have been enshrined in the Constitution itself.Even Nelson Mandela's Constitution does not have these features.

On the subject of criminal defamation, it will be sub judice to speak on" the matter as a number of such cases are pending in the courts against journalists and newspaper editors. In certain cases, judgments have already been made but subsequent appeals by the aggrieved parties are continuing.

We have to wait until the courts make a final ruling in these cases before we can discuss the issue of criminal defamation.

First of all I would like to know if those who drafted this motion have read the R.K.W. Goonesekera recommendations properly?

Mr. Goonesekera's committee does not recommend the abolition of criminal defamation. What he has recommended are amendments to these laws so that an aggrieved party can seek leave from the Supreme Court before action is filed in the courts for the offence of criminal defamation against a journalist.

This is a badly written motion. Its contents are all old ones.

It fails to address new areas such as privacy laws which received special attention after the death of Princess Diana.

Those who drafted the motion would have been better off had they focused their attention on privacy laws rather than champion the rights of newspaper owners and editors.

M. M. Zuhair: If criminal sections relating to criminal defamation are repealed, there would be a legal vacuum.

There would only be a civil remedy available which would be completely inadequate at times.

People spend tremendous amounts of money on litigation, and what would be the plight of an ordinary citizen in the event they are defamed. It is a daunting task for an individual to obtain judgments against individuals or groups of companies- for finally they are left with a paltry sum as compensation.

The need is for a healthy balance to protect the interests of both private citizens and journalists. They are two areas which often seem to disagree. Mr. R.K. W. Goonesekera has claimed that governments have freely abused the laws of defamation.

The media should act responsibly and not incite people.

There are tremendous imbalances created by the media and sometimes slants are given which create disharmony.

He also proposed that the media profession also introduce a self- evolved code of conduct.

It has been suggested by the Select Committee on Media Reforms that the Editors' Guild should draft guidelines on self- regulated censorship like the Medical Council and the Bar Association which is the only way to create a healthy and vibrant media culture with high standards of professionalism.

He also noted that the need to protect sources of information should be recognized as a right of a journalist as there was a lacuna in the current legal framework. Presently, it was possible for a police officer to question a journalist urging him to divulge the source of information which violated a media person's right to protect the source.

Let us unite to strengthen democracy: Lokubandara

W.M.J. Lokubandara (UNP): We are now in a new millennium. This millennium is considered as one where technological developments will matter the most. At a time when all barriers are breaking down due to the great advances made in technology, any policy on the media has to very liberal.

I would like to remind this House about the media policies that were promised by this government. If you read their election manifesto dealing with media reforms, it is like a fairy tale. It is clear that the People's Alliance government came into power promising to give preference to the people's wishes. We cannot forget that the PA government's first Media Minister Dharmasiri Senanayake took steps to start the process of media reforms. Because of that, the R.K.W. Goonesekera and Victor Gunawardena committees came into being. They made some good recommendations on media reforms. With the appointment of the new Media Minister, these progressive steps suffered a major setback.

This government has one policy. That is, if it wants a matter to drag on, it will appoint some select committee. Now everyone knows about the new Constitution which they had to withdraw recently. The main promise of this government was that it will abolish the executive presidency as a matter of urgency as soon as it comes into power.

The select committee on the media reforms functioned like a sick person. If it meets on one day, no meetings would be held for a long period of time. Absolutely no attention was given to this select committee. We tried on several occasions to bring this motion forward. The rights of the opposition and the private members rights were done away with. If former minister Senanayake took some steps in the right direction to free the media, the present minister has deliberately done whatever he can to destroy these progressive steps.

When we tried to bring this motion, the Media Minister said the select committee had not finished it's work. This is a hoodwinking of the people. You get S.B's Samurdhi on one side and Mangala's media on the other and these two are running parallel like the railway lines, to rob the people of the elections.

I don't have to emphasise the importance of a free media in a democratic system. In the absence of a free media it is democracy that is dealt a blow. In countries like India, there are no state run media institutions. We allowed TNL to telecast news soon after it started transmissions. If it was delayed for about a year, they would have never got that opportunity.

You promised to allow the media to function without fear. What happened to the movie "Purasanda Kaluwara?" Because you wanted to promote the film "Rajya Sevaya Pinisai", you acted in the most unethical manner.

Karunasena Kodit-uwakku: (UNP): Minister Sarath Amunugama said that this motion was unnecessary because all the media reforms are enshrined in the new Constitutional Bill.

All the press laws in this country are meant to safeguard the elitist class in the country. If an ordinary person is defamed, will the Attorney General's Department or anyone else act on his or her behalf? The press laws that are in force are similar to the laws that the former Communist regimes used to suppress the media. They are not suitable for a democratic country like Sri Lanka. If some mistake has been made by a journalist, there is provision to appoint a media council to deal with him.

The suppression of the media began in this country in the 1960-65 period. Luckily there were people like Dudley Senanayake and C.P. De Silva and the father of the present Media Minister to safeguard the freedom of the press. Because all the newspaper groups worked together, they were able to overcome the challenge posed to their independence at that time.

We know what happened in 1970. The Lake House group of newspapers were nationalized. The Press Council laws were introduced in 1973. The "Dawasa" group of newspapers were sealed and it was made impossible for the "Lankadeepa" group of newspapers to function. By 1977, the only papers published in the country were the Lake House ones such as Daily News, Dinamina and Thinakaran. After 1977, private media organisations began to operate. Media organisations like TNL were allowed to telecast political programmes from 1994. Mr. Amunugama was a powerful member of the UNP at that time. He functioned as the Chairman of Lake House. If there was suppression of the media during that regime, why did Mr. Amunugama accept this appointment. In any country, the bridge between the people and the politicians is the media. Because of this, we have to remove any obstacles that the journalists have in carrying out their duties. We want the laws dealing with criminal defamation removed. If a journalist makes a mistake, the Press Council can handle the matter. We have to change this habit of speaking in one way when in the opposition and in another way when in government. Today the image of politicians has dropped in the eyes of the people. The reason for this is that politicians are changing their policies according to the place they are seated in. We have to change this tradition at least in the future.

We ask the government to support this motion even in its last days in power. The opposition and the government must get together to strengthen democracy in this country.

We are for media freedom: Mangala

Mangala Samaraweera (Minister of Posts, Telecommunication and Media): The UNP refused to support the Constitutional Bill which had the freedom of the media enshrined in it. These proposals were drafted at the end of last year and the constitutional draft had addressed all the concerns contained in this motion.

But the UNP which is trying to appear as the champions of the people's rights including the LTTE joined forces with the Constitutional Bill's opponents and stopped attempts to pass it in Parliament.

We are not against this motion because these are issues that we are also talking about.

When the UNP came into power in 1977, it sacked many journalists.

A group of TV artistes were not allowed to enter the Rupavahini Corporation premises because they had written to former President J.R. Jayawardene asking him to remove the civil disabilities imposed on Ms. Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

The UNP government had it's own death squads hunting out anti-UNP journalists. There were cases of shootings and stabbings of journalists in that era.

Apart from the government death squads of the time, there were also JVP death squads seeking out journalists who they said were partial in reporting the death of Wijedasa Liyanarachchi.

Freeing the media is a gradual process. We are gradully moving towards freeing the media. Even Ms. Bandaranaike has written to me commending me.

We are all for more freedom to the media. When the new Parliament convenes, we will go ahead with the necessary proposals.

Nihal Galappatty: The government portrays all those with opposite view points as anti-national, unpatriotic or anti-PA persons.

There was no recognition of diverse opinions and the state media was a government monopoly which smells all the time, and was stinking from miles off during election time!

He noted it was a fallacy to believe there could be media freedom under a UNP or PA government- both watching capitalist interests of the international community. The hallmark of this government was when the PSD launched a brutal attack on the media on 15th July, last year.

Vasudeva Nanayakkara: Minister Amunugama was obviously a dejected man after Tuesday's events which led to the crumbling of the draft Constitution. You come today and dangle a part of the new Constitution before us and say: 'see what you are missing, this is what you rejected'.

But after that great revelation nothing could restore your dignity.

We had to throw the entire thing away because of your mechanisms, and your attempts to further concentrate power on the executive presidency to the abolition of which the PA is more committed than enacting a new Constitution!

Minister Sarath Amunugama: You can say anything. But at least give the correct interpretation.

Mr. Nanayakkara: Of course you would be the "Maha Brahma' who would definitely know what the correct interpretation would be.

We know you will have all the catch phrases and would offer explanations and interpretations. You will decide what is fair reporting or otherwise. You will know everything.

What is sad is that your good looks often belie your political intentions. No government should think that it could dictate terms to the media or curb freedom of expression. What right has a government to decide about the limits of public freedoms?

It was sad to see Mr. Zuhair intentionally digressing and concealing the truth. How many citizens would actually file criminal defamation? We know how it is used? It is always used as a tool by a certain class, capitalistic governments to silence others.

It is the sword which hangs from above. So we wish to simply throw it away for the greater good of the people. This is why the media is opposed to this.

We have also come up with alternatives, remedial measures. It will become the newspaper's responsibility to correct itself and tender apologies when they are factually incorrect which is a more humane way of tackling this problem.

Show me a state which has gone down the precipice for having too much of freedom, too much of liberty and people enjoyed civil liberties better? Freedom is something which one could always have in abundance without being spoiled by that. That is why it is so sacred, why so coveted.

What is unfortunate is that these were the very charges we raised before, and are compelled to repeat now. Now I get confused about the sides. Both sides are the same in style of governance and in attempts to squeeze the breath out of the free media.

My contention is that this not a problem with personalities.

It is the system which sucks. It is the system and the power syndrome which render them completely arbitrary and arrogant in their political make up.

Minister Samaraweera as an affable opposition member stood for media freedom.

Minister Mangala Samaraweera: I still do.

Mr. Nanayakkara: That part is very well known, sir. This is why I say that it is not a problem with the personalities but the system which rendered politicians to think that they can do anything and get away with it.

Minister Samaraweera: Make your final speech in the House.

Mr. Nanayakkara: Do you believe that I won't be re-elected?

Minister Samaraweera: Unless you decide to contest from the UNP.

Mr. Nanayakkara: We have formed an alliance in stark opposition to both the main political forces.

I had to cross over when the PA became more like the UNP and gradually became an extension of the very UNP which we collectively opposed.

All of you are suffering from the anti-media syndrome. This happens when people lose their modesty, their humaneness and become politically arrogant. It goes hand in hand with power.

When such elements are at the helm, naturally they want to curb the media at every turn, and there starts the fabrication and suppression programme.

Dharmalingam Sidhar-than: Barring the proposal urging the abolition of criminal defamation, the government has on principle accepted all other proposals which are likely to be included in government-proposed media legislation in the near future.

Some newspapers are sowing the seeds of communalism though their editorial comments. Some are so biased that their motives for writing appear all very sinister.

The media has been bitterly critical of the newly presented draft Constitution. This was at a time when we of the Tamil political parties claimed that the proposed Constitution fell far short of our aspirations.

But the media campaign urged that the new Constitution be received with a negative feeling for it sought to divide the country. Tamil newspapers are also being curtailed in their freedom of expression.

Often they are portrayed as LTTE sympathizers.

Tyronne Fernando: The best example of the government's media policy came when we held talks with the government.

The state media went to town attacking the UNP, vilifying its individuals. We discuss matters constitutional in the morning and get bashed in the evening over Rupavahini and SLBC.

Minister Samaraweera: You did not get hammered by state media like that. Is it our fault that your leader can't control his mouth. What is wrong? His going to Singapore or the state media reporting it?

We have to leave a lot of things behind, if we are to talk. After talks, SLBC, ITN, Rupavahini and Lakhanda are trying to out do each other in their zealous campaigns against the UNP. There are two programmes which usually indulge in UNP-bashing, "Viparama" and "Pasuvadana". Now the 'Pasuvadana' is called the 'pashuvadana' meaning cattle talk.

Now you have magically presented Douglas Peiris and is using his presence which the government has allegedly engineered to take further swipes at the UNP. Is this within your canons of decency and fair play? We ended A.J. Ranasinghe's 'avichara samaya', a period of moral decline and gave freedom for the media. It is we who started news and views programmes, and allowed the free expression of opposite political views.

Now that we are on the subject of the PA's handling of the media, let me ask what happened to Lasantha Wickrematunga and his wife? Where are the inquiries? Against whom have you taken action?Your goondas are living happily.

Minister Samaraweera: There is no cover up. Give us a lead if you have and then we could see. Take Iqbal Athas' case. We took prompt action against them.

Tyronne Fernando: Any government would do well to remember that criminal defamation is an outdated irrelevancy. When an individual is affected, as opposed to the entire society, a civil remedy should be sufficient. These matters could be settled separately.

We have an important lesson to learn from the landmark case of Wimal Fernando in 1996.

The SLBC Education Service was shut down one day. That morning, one minister had been interviewed and the Labour Minister was to be interviewed in the evening. The closure was effected in the 'Dawasa group sealing style' which is a common practice for SLFP-led governments.

Wimal Fernando, a listener went before courts challenging that his rights to listen to that interview was violated as a result of the closure. The Supreme Court determination upheld that besides the necessity to have a free flow of information, citizens such as Wimal Perera had the right to have access to information of his choice.

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning economist has commented that there are more people dying of famine in China than in India. India had a developed, vibrant media culture which educated its people.

Indians averted many disasters due to being well informed.

This is why, not in that abstract sense, but as an essential fundamental right of people, media freedom comes to the fore.

The Special Report

Editorial/ Opinion Contents