The media meets the terror of the unknown

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardena

Let me frame this discussion by stating at once, without demur, that this is the worst government that we have ever had in terms of protecting the right to freedom of expression and information. I have absolutely no hesitation in making this statement for several reasons as may be elaborated upon in this column, many of which are obnoxiously self-evident.

A qualitatively different situation from the eighties

I would first deal with comparisons that may be drawn with the repression that prevailed in the eighties, particularly in regard to the media. Yet, (and while unequivocally not excusing the excesses that occurred), the crucial mark of those times was that the government was combating ruthless adversaries, not only in a Sinhala-Tamil Northern conflict but also in a Sinhala-Sinhala Southern insurrection. The counter-reaction of the government and paramilitaries which caught up many dissentients in its toils was directly measurable against this dual threat to the State.

To reiterate, this is not to say that such an extreme counter reaction should be condoned, as testified to by the hundreds of enforced disappearances and extra judicial executions or torture of innocents. These excesses left indelible scars on the national psyche. However, the environment in which such excesses occurred was indeed extraordinary and needs to be rationally acknowledged as such. In contrast, what we have now is qualitatively different. It is a situation in which, owing to a combination of fortuitous circumstances and most particularly the extreme chicanery of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the government has a great deal of uncritically enthusiastic public support for the war that it professes to wage. From another perspective, a disturbingly weakened opposition offers no real challenge to the political juggernaut that is the Rajapaksa triumvirate in government. The public meanwhile continues to shoulder an agonizingly high cost of living on the naïve reasoning that it is the war which is leading to such difficulties. In these circumstances, there is no doubt that the government is riding easy, unfortunate as this may be.

Abominably crude repression and intimidation

So, in this context, what exactly leads to the abominably crude repression and intimidation that is being meted out to journalists for simply voicing an opinion, the latest victim of which is the Nation's deputy editor, Keith Noyahr? Many of us who are his friends know him to be a journalist almost painfully aware of the ethics of balanced writing, therein belonging to a vanishing breed of his kind. His most despicable abduction and torture gives rise to many questions. In a context where the government does not currently, have to fear much from defence analysts who are critical of its military strategy, it would be moot to ask as to whether critical writings are sought to be silenced for reasons that have, in actuality, nothing to do with military strategy.

Without a doubt however, repression on such a basis cannot be condoned. This was expressed best in the 1995 Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, which warned that censorship cannot be permitted, even in times of war, if the sole reason is not to protect national security but to prevent embarrassment to the government. These Principles are a definitive study undertaken by a group of experts in international law, national security and human rights in October 1995 at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

And lest I be accused of quoting principles emanating from foreign bodies by so called nationalists, many of whom possess dual citizenship, live for particular periods of the year in foreign climes and blithely send their children to study in foreign universities, let me immediately affirm that the Johannesburg Principles have been repeatedly affirmed by Sri Lanka's Supreme Court as being of direct relevance to protection of freedom of expression in this country.

These are, of course, standards relevant to us now only in theory. In actual fact, the media is subjected to extreme repression, ranging from intimidation through phone calls to the Editor of the Daily Mirror by the Defence Secretary, the continued detention of columnist to this paper, JS Tissanaiyagam and now the abduction and torture of the Nation's deputy editor, Keith Noyahr. It is almost certain that Noyahr's abductors and torturers will not be identified or punished. Is this the rule of law that this government observes?

Media strategy of unofficial censorship

The media strategy being practised by the government is therefore now extremely clear. On the one hand, it has not put into place a regime of official censorship preferring instead to engage in measures of oppression to silence critical media voices and thereby effectively impose self censorship that is more deadening than official censorship. To those of us who remember the somewhat hilarious days of the Kumaratunge administration where the genial gentlemen in charge of the censor's scissors waxed merry with his powers, the current scenario is infinitely more repressive. In those days, the censor was taken before the Supreme Court and the Court in some instances, (metaphorically speaking), rapped the over zealous gentleman over the knuckles. However, the tactics of repression resorted to by the current regime allow for no such checks and balances; the media has to confront instead, the terror of the unknown.

The state media has the right to criticize the government

To add to the cacophony, we have Lake House journalists now being told by the euphemistically titled Media Centre for National Security (MCNS) that they cannot criticize government policy after two journalists took part in a demonstration protecting against the attack on Noyahr. This raises further interesting questions. Is it then a policy of the government to condone assaults and attacks of journalists for their writings? Is it wrong for state journalists to call for the perpetrators to be punished? We would like a clarification from the Director, MCNS on these points.

Further, is this state official not aware of the colossal fraud being perpetuated upon the people by the non-implementation of Section 5 of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited Special Provisions Law No 28 of 1973 (as amended) according to which the broadbasing of Lake House was to take place by the gradual selling of the shares acquired by the Public Trustee to the public? Apparently he pleads blissful ignorance of this fact which does not say much for a public official dealing with the media. It makes no difference meanwhile that the MCNS head's warning has been contradicted by the Minister of Media.

These seemingly chaotic contradictions between the different arms of the government mask a deadly purpose of confusion and obfuscation. We are entitled to ask therefore as to what is the exact media policy of the government? Who is its authoritative voice?
Insofar as the principle of the state media criticizing the government is concerned, we can do no better than revert to a caution of Sri Lanka's Supreme Court issued in 1996, (Fernando v the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and Others, (1996, 1 Sri LR, 157), when the sudden stopping of a Non Formal Educational (NFEP) Programme by the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation was held to be unconstitutional on the basis that it was arbitrary and for no good reason. The programme had engaged in reasoned and justified criticism of government policies and the principle that such criticism, even if it emanates from the state media, must be given free rein, was upheld by the Court.

For how much longer should we tolerate this?

Presently however, it is as if these principles and standards, painstakingly developed by the combined efforts of activists, lawyers, academics, journalists and conscientious judges over several decades have vaporised into thin air. This is the climate bequeathed to us by the current government. It is not a climate that the media or Sri Lanka's citizens should tolerate any longer.