Editorial

These last few days have seen increased VVIP traffic through Colombo by competing geopolitical players beginning with an Israeli Minister followed close on her heels by the Iranian Foreign Minister, two US Undersecretaries and a French Ambassador for the region.

Away, a Sri Lankan delegation was in Brussels this week for talks on the Joint Commission with the European Union (EU) where it seemed more of a Question (by the EU) and Answer (by Sri Lanka) session had taken place.

A multitude of issues were on the agenda to be raised by the EU delegation ranging from Sri Lanka’s human rights record to GSP plus concessions – all tied up to this country having to pay obeisance in return for economic assistance and preferential treatment.

In the meantime, however, there are mechanisms other than the Joint Commission, to hang Sri Lanka, should the need arise, such as the UNHRC.

One of the matters on the agenda was IUU (Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated) fishing. They have pressed Sri Lanka to come up with a new Fisheries Act. The EU says they are very concerned about IUU practices worldwide and once ‘red carded’ Sri Lanka for engaging in it, and banned the import of fish products from this island nation.

The ban was imposed soon after the end of the 2009 northern insurgency in Sri Lanka and when the then Colombo Government went full throttle with China’s renewed interest in this country’s post-conflict economic revival. Chinese vessels in joint ventures with Sri Lanka were said to have been engaged in IUU practices, and the ban clearly had a heavy geopolitical flavour to it.

Why the EU ban on Sri Lanka was questionable was because, with the opening of the northern seas for fishing after decades of conflict, southern Indian fishermen who had already depleted their own fisheries resources began coming in flotillas illegally across the IMBL (International Maritime Boundary Line) that divides Sri Lanka and India thrice weekly and engaged in IUU practices without a care in the world. Bottom trawling by big steel-plated fishing boats powered by strong engines and shielded by the diplomatic clout of the Indian Government began the rape of the marine resources in Sri Lankan seas to the detriment of the local (Sri Lankan) fishermen, many years ago.

All of this has been well documented but the EU continued to import fish products from Tamil Nadu Fisheries while banning Sri Lankan imports. When questioned about this duplicity, the EU would say they don’t get involved in bilateral disputes (between India and Sri Lanka).

With the pro-West Government in power and place in Colombo by 2016, the EU ban was lifted and it is heartening therefore, that the French Ambassador for the Indo-Pacific who was in Colombo this week told journalists (please see page 9) that his country, with a stake in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Indian Ocean is interested in the fight against IUU practices and intends bringing these within the framework of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) of which Sri Lanka is the current chair, and India a member. Sri Lanka clearly hasn’t the diplomatic or political muscle to take on India in this blatant poaching scandal by itself.

The entire fishing zone in the north of Sri Lanka is so overfished by the industrial fishing fleets of Tamil Nadu that the poaching will only end when the entire ecosystem in the region is completely destroyed and there are no more fish to catch.

 

When the State is under surveillance

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal issued a judgement upholding a decision of the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) giving a petitioner from Galle the right to obtain information on how a state bank conducted a competitive examination regarding recruitments of officers several years ago.

The Court agreed with the Commission that while interview marks of other candidates and the merit list of those who had been selected may well amount to personal information, the release of the information was in the public interest.

The petitioner concerned had passed the examination (please see full story on page 6) but had not been shortlisted. She deserved the ‘right to know why’ as a citizen and a member of the ‘public’ representing the larger ‘public interest’.

The overall question here was whether public examinations should be ‘honest, upright and transparent?’ In answering that question as ‘yes’, the Court’s position was that when a merit list prepared on individual marks determines as to who should or should not be selected, its release is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. This finding has wider resonance beyond the facts of the case.

The inclination to closely guard information relevant to promotions, recruitments and salaries of the public sector is common not only in banks but also in other public sector institutions including universities. Lots happen after the marking process which leaves applicants bewildered and angry at being shortchanged. The decision in this case should therefore be a motivational factor in a change in attitude in general across the state sector.

The Court observed the importance of striking a balance between the right to privacy and the larger public interest. This caution is very relevant at a time when a Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is being operationalized. Meanwhile, one of the Justices of the Court made some important assessments on how the RTI Act has turned the traditional balance of power upside down. Instead of the State policing citizens, citizens are questioning the State and the State is compelled to ‘police itself’ due to fear of adverse public opinion.

This is the opposite of the ‘Surveillance State’, he remarked. ‘The roles have been exchanged, the observer has become the observed,’ he pointed out.