The government's recent re-activation of that inept state regulatory dinosaur, the Sri Lanka Press Council is an excellent illustration of the long prevalent truth that its media curbs are entirely unrelated to the conflict that prevailed in the North and East.
Chronic insecurity and overreaching authority
In the continuing flush of its military victories, the question may indeed be posed, what has the government to worry about from a critical media when it has the popular vote and when, in any event, the media has self censored itself to the point of near complete negation of its watchdog role? The answers to this question have much to do with what appears to have now become a state of chronic insecurity on the part of some in the political establishment and their desire to repress any form of opposition. It is precisely through such a process of overreaching itself in its attempts to repress, that even an apparently securely enthroned regime may face the first concerted opposition by a critical mass of opinion that says enough is enough. This is an appropriate lesson from past political administrations in this country that this regime may well take heed of, regardless of the adoring cries of the masses whose memories are quite proverbially short.
Resurrection of other old ghosts
The re-activation of the Press Council was accompanied this week meanwhile by the astounding resurrection of another old ghost. Observations made by the Speaker was to the effect that the handing back of exclusive judicial powers in respect of breaches of privilege specified in Schedule A of the Parliamentary (Powers and Privileges) Act No 21 of 1953 to the Supreme Court by the House on 11th September 1997 (during the tenure of Mangala Samaraweera's term as Minister of Media) was to be regretted. This was in response to a complaint that a newspaper had erroneously reported a press conference statement of a minister. The Speakers' apparent thinking was to the effect that such erring journalists could be brought to heel if the House had retained its powers to punish for the serious breaches of privilege.
This reasoning however needs to be put in its proper context. It must be recalled that the Act, as it stood originally in 1953, did not confer parliamentarians with the power to punish for the serious breaches but confined this power to the Supreme Court. Instead, the House had appropriately the authority only to disciple for the comparatively less serious breaches specified in Schedule B. of the Act.
It was only misguidedly in 1978 that an amendment was introduced to the Act, giving Parliament concurrent powers along with the Supreme Court to so punish, as part of the government's intention at that time to muzzle the media. The unfortunate impact of this amendment was soon illustrated thereafter when a paltry mistake resulted in the trial and punishment of the responsible journalists by the entire House, sitting as a Court. It must also be recalled that one of the country's most fearless civil rights lawyers, the late Mr S. Nadesan QC, critiqued this trial and punishment in a series of articles that were published in the newspapers.
These articles, in turn, were raised in Parliament as an issue of privilege and forwarded to a Parliamentary Select Committee which fortuitously (sparing the House further ridicule in the matter) referred the question to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the articles did not constitute a breach of privilege of Parliament but failed to define the precise parameters of what constitutes a breach of privilege. After this unpleasant saga, the repeal of this 1978 amendment was widely promised by all political parties but was actually carried through only in Kumaratunge's administration in what was to its single fulfillment of electoral promises to reform media laws.
With this history in mind, it is most disappointing that there could be regret expressed by the Speaker of the House that the 1978 amendment was repealed.
Problematic features of the Press Council
The reactivation of the Press Council is perhaps part of this same return to a far more retrogressive past. It was rendered inoperative in or around 2002 to universal applause because it had proved itself quite unable to act according to its mandate. It was problematic on many fronts. Its composition was inherently obnoxious given the appointment of its members by the Government, resulting in the body being "politically packed." Its abolition has been called for by committees on reform of laws and regulations governing the media and its deficiencies were discussed on numerous occasions on the floor of Sri Lanka's Parliament.
Self-regulation and the Right to Information
The Press Council's lapsing at that time was followed by the establishing of a Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The PCC, like all self-regulatory bodies, is not perfect. Indeed, a similar critique has been made of the British Press Complaints Commission regarding its ineffective sanctions as well as its voluntary nature which has limited its authority. Yet, the argument that the PCC, (ideally improved with time and experience), constitutes an infinitely preferable alternative to a government controlled Press Council, is irrefutable in terms of its democratic logic.
Troublingly, even though clauses in relation to criminal defamation in the Press Council Law No 5 of 1973 have been repealed, it still contains the power to punish journalists for breach of official secrecy laws which are as archaic. The Right to Information draft law meanwhile remains abandoned.
In this context, the return of a press state regulatory dinosaur is certainly a compulsive sign that this country's woes are most certainly not ended.
|
E-mail