| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
Media Minister Dharmasiri Senanayake is a perturbed man these days. For long, the Minister had perfected the art of walking the tightrope between an oft erratic Government media policy and angry journalists looking to draw blood. Last week however things changed, and Minister Senanayake lost his balance in the face of bitter criticism by the media that promises personally made, to make the Broadcasting Authority Bill available for discussion before presenting it to Parliament had been ignored.
Attempts were made at damage control by the Minister who assured through the state media that an opportunity would be available to discuss it in the House. That statement however raised more questions. How are the journalists supposed to take part in this debate? Is it through the parliamentarians?
Is this the ridiculous manner in which the Government plans to create "new institutions, aimed at guaranteeing media freedom as well as raising the quality and standards of free media, both print and electronic" (Courtesy PA Election Manifesto)
Doublespeak, doublespeak and yet more doublespeak. One cannot help feeling some sympathy for Minister Senanayake in his present predicament but some hard questions remain to be answered. Take this for starters...........-.....whatever has happened to the R.K.W. Goonesekere report on Media Law Reform commissioned by Minister Senanayake himself not so many moons ago? The report recommended that there should be a separate and independent authority which would lay down a national broadcasting policy and would issue licenses to private radio stations in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. The report suggested that the Canadian Broadcasting Act could be looked at for guidelines. The report was released in May of last year and it has not even been made public as yet.
The Media Ministry acts coy when requested for copies, and says softly that it cannot be released yet as it is "politically sensitive". The report of the Committee on Broadbasing ownership of Associated Newspapers Ltd. suffers the same fate. Both are forgotten by all and sundry including the UNP which does not even agitate to table the reports in Parliament.
Meanwhile, the promised 1996 year of media reform falls flat on its face and months later an impossibly undemocratic bill setting up a politicised broadcasting body is sprung on an unsuspecting public. Can one be blamed for feeling disillusioned?
Doublespeak is not confined to the PA. The UNP waxes eloquent on the bill and calls upon the heavens to witness the fact that ministry officials who are necessarily governed by their political afflliations will dominate the Board of Directors.
The UNP has indeed a short memory.In 1994 it was the UNP which first proposed the establishment of a broadcasting authority and the Presidential committee which sat down to draft the broad outlines of a bill included Secretaries to four Ministries including the Ministry of Defence,the Secretary to the President,the Addl Solicitor General,the heads of the two state run media and two representatives from ITN and Teleshan.If ministry officials were considered essential to decide the groundrules then,the UNP cannot afford to pontificate now on the manner in which the body is proposed to be run.
In fact,the present bill appears to have borrowed heavily from the 1994 draft though the PA has been far more heavy handed.The Bill sets up a Board of Directors which has eleven members in all.Of these,four members are Secretaries of Ministries, the fifth is the Secretary to the Treasury and the sixth is the Chairman of the National Film Corporation.
Five other members are appointed by the Minister of whom at least two should have had "experience in broadcasting".Any of the appointed members including the Chairman may be removed from office by the Minister without any cause assigned.
Meanwhile the Authority has been given the power to issue licences to radio and TV stations.Licences will be issued once the Authority looks at the "current needs of the broadcasting industry and satisfies itself that the applicant is technically financially and professionally competent" This clause would be laughable if it was not so alarming.The wording is so vague that unlimited discretion is given to the Authority.What is meant by "current needs of the broadcasting industry" ?Has there been any technical,financial and professional standards laid down as guidelines?At the very least,some standards should be specified in the Act itself.
Licences must be applied for annually and the authority may suspend or cancel any licence issued if its directions are not complied with.No notice is required,no procedural safeguards are specified, though the victim can go to the Court of Appeal.The mere right of appeal however is far from sufficient,it is essential that the right of removal be more jealously guarded.In the United States,both the issue and removal of licences is only after a public hearing.
The Minister retains the power to issue general or special directions to the Authority,in effect making the body his own and unique creature.It is mandatory that the Authority give effect to these directions.Moreover it is again the Minister who appoints the Appeals Tribunal which would look into complaints regarding issuing of licences,content of programmes and so on.
By the end of last week,twelve petitions had been filed in court under the ordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in deciding the constitutionality of bills.One trend of argument is that the bill is a step towards controlling public opinion and therefore violates the freedom to thought and conscience.It is interesting that last January the Supreme Court expressed similar thoughts in a fundamental rights case filed against the SLBC when its cotroversial Non Formal programme was abruptly stopped by orders from above.While the Court gave relief to a regular listener who also participated in the programme but made it plain that this was because there had also been participation.It was said that a mere listener's right to freedom of expression cannot be said to be violated because the right to information is not given in our Constitution,but his right to freedom of thought and conscience could be affected.
"Information is the staple food of thought and the right to information simpliciter is a corollary of the freedom of thought guaranteed by Article 10.Article 10 denies government the power to control men's minds while Article 14(1)(a) excludes the power to curb their tongues"said Justice Mark Fernando.
The furore over the Broadcasting Authority Bill raises fundamental questions of political accountability on an international level as well as a national level. In1995 the UN Human Rights Committee stressed that the Sri Lankan Government should" take the neccasary steps to prevent control and manipulation of the electronic media by the Government." "........ otherwise it might undermine the right of everyone to seek, recieve or impart information of all kinds"it added.
In 1995,we agreed to this.In 1996,we detailed specifics of how it could be done. In1997, we do something entirely different. Such bare faced hypocrisy has to stop somewhere.
Peace agreement has been signed. Not between Chandrika and Prabhakaran but between Chandrika and Ranil. According to the astrologers, the Sinhala Tamil New Year that has just dawned, was the most auspicious for a number of years. The auspicious times were quite convenient. Children were not inconvenienced. The Ganu Denu and the partaking of the meal was over in the morning.
Let us hope and pray that the two major parties realise that the real enemy of the whole nation is the LTTE. Let the President strive to achieve peace through negotiation. Let there be no secret talks. Let all parties take collective decisions about all matters including the package.
Let no one accuse each other of selling the country to the LTTE, by providing arms, providing cement and other banned goods. If one calls Prabhakaran a Nelson Mandela, let others approve it. When the initial euphoria has waned, then both parties will realise whether there is a Fox or a "Hivala", the Tiger will not change its spots.
They will realise that the real danger and the enemy of the Nation is a fascist named Prabhakaran. As long as Prabhakaran is living, peace is a myth.
We accused President Premadasa of providing arms to the terrorists. We publish the photograph of Premadasa and the hierarchy of the LTTE during the peace talks and accuse Premadasa of the most dastardly crime, providing the LTTE with arms.
Nontheless we negotiate peace with the very same terrorists and provide them with massive loads of cement for their bunkers.
The peace talks continued and the presidential candidate and the most virulent critic of the thenPrime Minister, Ossie Abey-gunasekera is blasted by a terrorist bomb. We want to have a negotiated settlement on the terms of the LTTE.
With the peace agreement if the vituperative politics comes to an end then every one including the peace mongers will realise that the true enemy is Prabhakaran.
Then they will realise that the best method of isolating Prabhakaran is not giving a political package to the south, but by the major parties uniting to develop the country. Take the country out of the abyss it had slid into.
Let us hope there will be national reconciliation and that the two major parties will not only get together to solve the ethnic crisis but the national crisis the country is facing today. We are very happy there is one man who is sincere in his attempt to bring about a reconciliation. If there is any politician of any repute who had not spoken ill of the party that he or she is opposed to, but has brought immense goodwill to the party he is serving, he is minister Lakshman Kadirgamar.
I know of a son of a rich family and with the demise of their father with all the assets frozen by the Tax Department, they were virtually penniless and had to retain a lawyer who was willing to tackle the matters relating to their estate and litigation without fees. At that time, even to think of a lawyer who would be willing to do that, was a mere impossibility.
A friend of their father, a lawyer from Kurunegala was entrusted with the responsibility of finding a lawyer who was willing to do a lot of work for virtually nothing. This lawyer from Kurunegala had been retaining Mr. Kadir-gamar to whom this problem was related. He not only handled all my friend's litigation but handled with such consummate skill that the family still owes a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Kadirgamar. When Mr. Kadirgamar left Sri Lanka to take over some foreign appointment, this family felt that they lost their father for the second time.
Lakshman Kadirgamar was a lawyer immensely respected by his colleagues in the profession, and served as a member of a committee headed by Justice Mark Fernando and did yeoman service to the Bar Association.
Above all he is a man who can be trusted. We wish him well in his endeavours to bring peace between the major parties and the LTTE. If there is any hope for the future for this country on the basis of this agreement, then the reason for that hope is that both parties have as their 'Kapuwa' a person who has the well being of this country at heart.
Dr. G. L. Peiris is never at a loss for words. Many have complained that no one understands what he says when he speaks of the Package or pays homage to a dead politician. But I believe it is not the fault of the learned professor but the lack of learning of those who complain. Dr. G. L. Peiris in his new year message to the nation has said "The joyous moment when the New Year dawns is a hallowed time when the peoples who have safeguarded these sacred traditions over the centuries cast aside all rancour and differences and share a common aspiration for the noblest of all goals - peace.
This is their most fervent wish which reposes in the deepest recesses of their hearts''. The most fervent wish the members of the profession hold in the deepest recesses of their hearts is to share a common aspiration with the executive to achieve one of the noblest of all goals concerning the administration of justice - the independence of the judiciary.
Therefore let us share a common aspiration with the Professor, and wish that the new year which dawned on April 14 will be a new year which portends the strengthening of the independence of the judiciary. The judges will be treated by the executive and the Ministers with great honour and respect the judges of this country deserve.
The learned Professor who was a firm believer in an independent judiciary will continue to be a believer in a judiciary independent and free from the pressure of the Executive, and will put fresh impetus to the efforts to re-invigorate the basic foundation of a democratic society, which is an independent judiciary.
He will succeed in his endeavours to instil into the minds of lesser mortals like his M.P.'s and his Cabinet colleagues the importance of an independent judiciary and a non interfering Executive.
This will guarantee that judges will be promoted in time. Promotions will not be postponed for any reason. Appointments to the higher judiciary would be made in consultation with the Chief Justice.
If and when the new Constitution is promulgated the present judges of the Supreme Court will constitute the new Supreme Court. This will lessen the tensions and pressure placed upon the members of the Bar who have hitherto peacefully co-existed with the Government in power, unless the Government became the scourge and attacked the system of Justice remorselessly.
What is the value of a statement made by a lawyer from the bar? Are the days when lawyers who made statements about any matter from the bar table specially regarding their ill health or of any difficulty in appearing on personal grounds were taken as the gospel are over.
Have these traditions changed so much that these statements are scrutinised with a certain amount of suspicion. This was a matter that came before the Supreme Court, where a lawyer made a statement from the bar that his senior was unwell. The court refused the application and dismissed the suit for want of appearance.
Later when the matter was reviewed, the contentious matter was whether a medical certificate about the condition of the lawyer's health would not suffice to restore the case back to the roll, or whether an affidavit was necessary from the counsel reiterating that he was not well and that was the reason for his non appearance. The senior lawyer steadfastly refused to give an affidavit. It was the good fortune of the appellant that it went before a bench comprising Justice Dr. Shiranee Bandaranayake who quickly reminded every one that once a lawyer makes a statement from the bar it must be accepted unless it is rejected for a very good reason. In a world where traditions are looked at with suspicion, it is good for us to know Justice Shiranee Bandaranayake not only reposed the confidence of the Bench on the legal profession but seem to believe in good traditions and actively promotes them..
The Bar Association and its activities are so interwoven with the President that the work that is being done by the secretaries is often forgotten.
For a long time the secretary kept minutes and was a glorious clerk of the Executive Committee. W. P. Gunatilleke changed this. He worked very hard. It was during his term of office that the Code of Conduct & etiquette for lawyers was formulated and approved by the Bar Association. After him Upali Gooneratne started the modern trend of the Secretary virtually running the Association. The President was a mere figurehead. He came to office every day.
He even maintained an attendance register. He marked his attendance. He maintained a telephone register and entered the phone calls he took.
This was the beginning of the most difficult time the bar faced. He worked with dedication and achieved much for the members of the Bar.
When he mooted that every member should be issued with an identify card, there were members who laughed at the idea and said if you cannot properly identity yourself as a lawyer then you are not fit to be one.
The issue of an official identity card was such a success that today even a very senior and well known lawyer like Kumar Ponnambalam will not travel anywhere in Sri Lanka without the BASL identity card. There have been innumerable occasions where a police constable on a routine security check becomes very apologetic when the BASL identity card is produced by the lawyer. Mr. Gooneratne was an ideal man, he was always thinking of how to contribute something for the benefit of the legal community.
This year the Bar has elected Wagachige Dayaratne who hails from a rural hamlet near Tissamaharamaya. He had his primary education at Debarawewa Maha Vidyalaya and secondary education at St. Joseph's College Bandarawela.
He started his career as a science teacher at Tissamaharamaya.
There is a notion that the bar elects as their leaders members from elitist groups. One's family background, one's education and whether the contender apes the west and is a member of the anglicised community were considered sine qua non to become the President or Secretary of the Bar Association.
The election of Mr. Dayaratne with the highest majority obtained by any one in the history of the Bar Association proves that these notions are spread by some quarters in order to bring divisive politics and is far from the truth.
After the induction ceremony Mr. Dayaratne displayed the great traditions he nurtured as a villager in the deep south, the southern hospitality, and invited the entire membership to his house at Murugan Place for cocktails. This has been the tradition. Mr. Dayaratne having been a member of the Executive Committee and a long serving member of the Colombo Law Society knew the traditions of the Bar.
The tradition has it that for the cocktails you invite every single branch of the Bar Association. He was elected by the votes he received from the members of the entire country. He defeated a member of the S.S.C and the former treasurer of the BASL.
No doubt he is the most popular elected officer around. But if he does not deliver the goods he will see his popularity waning. The secretary's job is a full-time job.
Every member will be at his throat. But it must be said that at the end of the year if one performs well, they will always remember you with gratitude.
We hope that at the end of his term we might be in a position to write more about Mr. Dayaratna's achievements. We wish him success.
The first meeting of the Council was held in March. If the convocation was Romesh De Silva's day, the council meeting was Sarath N. Silva's day.
The Attorney-General presided over the meeting and was able to avoid an unnecessary contest between Faiz Musthapa P. C. and Mr. Mendis from Mt. Lavinia.
Mr. Musthapa was absent as he had to choose between being present at the first meeting of the Council, where Mr. R. De Silva and a large number of members wanted Mr. Musthapa to contest for the post of Deputy President, and attending his driver's wedding.
Attorney-General Sarath Silva was informed of this. He knew the heart beat of the members very well. He knew that some members might take objection to the election of Mr. Musthapa by proxy.
When.Romesh De Silva proposed the name of Mr. Musthapa from the chair, someone proposed the name of Mr. Mendis from Mt. Lavinia. AG Sarath Silva reminded the council of a tradition adhered to by even Nattamis at their trade union meetings.
When the President of an Association nominates some one from the chair it is the tradition that that person is elected without a contest.
Then he went on to say Mr. Musthapa is not present and was away to attend his driver's wedding where he is the attesting witness. Some one from the audience was heard to say that the driver of Mr. Musthapa was his age but the wife is young and beautiful.
Every one laughed and Mr. Mendis could not say "No" to the appeal made by the Attorney-General. He promptly withdrew and Mr. Musthapa was elected uncontested. Mr. Musthapa was elected the Deputy President for the second time.
The new Executive Committee is without "Ged" Gooneratne, the brother of Minister C. V. Gooneratne who had been elected as a member of the Executive Committee for a long time.
He always obtained the largest number of votes, whether he contested for the Executive Committee or the Colombo Law Society.
Some say, with all due respect to C. V. Gooneratne, "Ged" is a better politician and knows the pulse of the voters more than any one else. He has always backed the right candidate.
The candidates contact him the moment they decide to contest. This year his own amendments to the constitution of the BASL prevented him from contesting.
We have a new executive committee consisting of a large number of President's Counsels. It is unfortunate that Ranjith Silva who had done a lot of hard work could not get elected.
As the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee he virtually kept it afloat when the committee was in dire financial straits.
Mr. Romesh De Silva as expected did not mince his words at the convocation. In the presence of the Minister he said what had to be said for a long time. We sincerely congratulate him.
The Bar must be relieved that he is the President. As an able advocate we firmly believe he will take up matters on his own initiative in the interest of a large number of people who look at the BASL as the only organisation which will leave no stone unturned to protect their rights from Executive interference.
Continue to the News/Comment page 4
Return to the News/Comment contents page
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk