Fleshing out a strong press complaints commission

The draft proposal for a Press Complaints Commission (PCC) succeed the first two reforms accepted by the United Front Government relating to the abolition of criminal defamation and the enacting of a Freedom of Information Law. While the latter reforms have been in the public realm for quite some time, the establishing of a self regulatory PCC has been far more mysterious, leading to speculation in recent months as to what kind of a body is contemplated.

The first question is, of course, whether the PCC would have the capacity and the strength to effectively demolish the unpleasant memory of the Press Council of Sri Lanka. 

Set up under Law No. 5 of 1973, the Press Council was a 7-member body appointed by the President. From its inception, concerns had been voiced by civil rights groups in Sri Lanka regarding the narrow composition of the Council, the privileging of the government in terms of appointments to the Council and the semi-judicial powers of Council members all of whom do not necessarily possess legal training. As the years progressed, the manner in which the Press Council evolved into a highly ineffective and unashamedly politicised institution that did precious little to uplift the standards of the Sri Lankan press, fully justified these initial concerns.

Lobbying for repeal of the Press Council law, quite apart from the nature of the Council itself, also focused on several of its provisions which were hopelessly obsolete. Thus, Section 16(1) of the Law prohibited the publication of Cabinet decisions, Cabinet documents and selected defence, fiscal and security matters in a manner that was arbitrary, restrictive and contrary to the public right to know. Section 16(2) made it an offence for any newspaper to publish an official secret as defined in the Official Secrets Act of 1955. Sections 14 and 15 of the Law also duplicated penal provisions relating to criminal defamation that were used with gusto by politicians in successive regimes to hold journalists strictly liable for a penal offence merely on the fact of the publication of an article adjudged to be defamatory and irrespective of the existence or not of the necessary mental element or a journalist's demonstrated belief in the non-defamatory nature of the impugned publication.

Given this obnoxious history, the jettisoning of the Press Council is a cause for congratulation. In its stead, the draft proposal for the establishment of a Sri Lankan Press Complaints Commission, which is presently before political parties and the public for discussion, envisages an eleven member Commission, comprising a chairperson and ten members. The ten members consist of five press representatives and interestingly enough, five public representatives, thus attempting to bring in, through the latter provision, individuals outside the media industry. The press and public representatives are to be selected by a panel of three persons, each panel member being a nominee of the Editors Guild, the Free Media Movement and the Publishers Association. All members of the PCC hold office for three years and cannot, in any event, serve for more than two consecutive three year terms.

As far as substantive powers are concerned, the PCC is mandated to receive complaints, institute inquiries and publish verdicts regarding alleged infringement of the Code of Ethics for Sri Lankan journalists already in force and which incidentally provides for a right to reply by persons aggrieved by publication. Hearings of the PCC will be public. The PCC will engage primarily in conciliation proceedings, having the power to dismiss the complaint, make an order for correction in a manner determined by the Commission, reconcile the parties without any further action, censure the complainant and/or respondent as per findings or make any other observation/verdict as may be determined by the Commission. Each investigation shall culminate in a written report which will be made public. The draft proposal also stipulates that verdicts/decisions should be delivered within two months of the receipt of the complaint. A power of general investigation is also given to the PCC where a committee will be constituted to undertake any investigation into any matter of public importance concerning the media or a matter on which the guidance of the PCC is required in regard to the interpretation or application of principles contained in the Code of Ethics.

The most vehement objection to a self regulatory body, remains of course, the problem of enforcement of its decisions and the fear that, being financed by the industry itself, would lead to a tamely acquiescent body. As far as the first objection is concerned, the draft proposal requires all members of the publishers associations and the editors' associations to sign a document in a form prescribed by the PCC, with a view to ensuring their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the PCC and ensuring the binding effect and enforcement of orders that may be delivered by the PCC. Significantly, the draft proposal contains an ouster clause in that any complainant whose complaint is adjudicated upon by the Commission, without prejudice to the recognised role of the courts of law, shall be obliged to sign a document drawn up by the PCC in which the complainant agrees not to proceed against the respondent by using the verdict of the PCC in any court of law or any other forum in which a sanction against the respondent is sought.

The second objection relating to the financing of the PCC has resulted in some commentators, notably Neville de Silva writing in "Thoughts from London", to prefer a publicly funded body apropos a highly unflattering comparison to the British PCC. The draft Sri Lankan proposal provides for the sources of finances of the PCC to be annual subscriptions payable by constituent bodies and also provides that its finances may be supplemented through fund raising activities as well as by obtaining grants from other sources.

While there may be some who would see the prevalent proposal for a Press Complaints Commission (PCC) as a quid pro quo settlement by the media industry, the very fact that such a proposal is up for discussion at this moment in time is undoubtedly positive. And it is not unduly startling, given the historical context of government control of the media in Sri Lanka, that what has been put forward is self-regulation. What would matter above all, is the manner in which this proposed self-regulatory system is made to work as well as the vitality and independence of its members from both the pressures of the industry and other spheres of influence. This, of course, will be of the highest importance.

New US paper aims at Afghan war truth 

War Times, produced in San Francisco, will make its first bi-weekly appearance on April 12. It will be published in English and Spanish and will be distributed throughout the US. 

Its editors say it is a response to a demand for more information about what is happening in Afghanistan and the possibility of conflict elsewhere. 

The venture is supported by a number of academics, including Noam Chomsky, labour organisations and anti-war groups. 

Its managing editor, Bob Wing, said the response to the idea had been extraordinary. "We originally planned to print only 7,500 copies of the pilot," he said, "but the demand was so great that we printed and distributed 100,000." 

He said the aim was to bring more information about the war into the public debate and "to report hidden truths, to put a human face on events, and explore the real interests behind the 'permanent war'." 

The pilot issue carried an interview with the actor Danny Glover, who said: "Bombing Afghanistan and creating the idea that the US is the judge, the jury and the executioner is the wrong way to respond." 

"It's hard because of the anger, the pain and the humiliation we feel about September 11. But we have to understand that other people have faced the same kind of pain, the same kind of anger. 

"Their lives have been transformed by acts of terrorism and violence, often supported or perpetrated by the US." 

–The Guardian, London

What hallo, what about us aaah?

by Neville de Silva

Nevertheless for the sake of this narrative, if not for the edification of Velupillai P and his ilk who prefer the Dravidian to the Sanskritic, let me translate it literally into English: "Why, are we black?"

Those days when the white man treated everybody else who had a skin that was darker than the off-white pigmentation of his own, as though they were of a lower order, such a question would have been indicative of racial discrimination.

It was also a sarcastic way of asking why the hell a person was being treated so condescendingly.

Today, of course, such questions seem utterly redundant because the United Nations and the western countries that demand respect for human rights, tell us we are all equal and any reference to colour would be considered racist and any offender would be sent down the black hole of Calcutta (Kolkotta or some such silly thing as the Indians now call it) .

Just see how far the pendulum has swung the other way. Just last week Hollywood's cinema moguls and critics put their heads together and decided to award Oscars for the Best Actor and Best Actress to two black stars. Not to be outdone, they even gave a special award to Sydney Poitier.

Despite all the United Nations treaties and conventions on human rights and the political correctness that shun such epithets as "nigger" and "Paki"(which is meant to denigrate us South Asians), don't tell me they are not being used every day.

Well, even if you believe, like China's former leader Deng Xiaoping that colour does not matter if the cat catches rats, and we are all living happily in a world that is monochromatic, I cannot but help ask that question.

That question is addressed to this government. Had I wanted to come home to Sri Lanka, I would have had to enter the country through officially designated entry points. If I were flying in, then it would be Katunayake International Airport (or is it still Bandaranaike International Airport?). And if I were, for some unfathomable reason coming by ship, it would be Colombo Port, unless the ship docked in Galle or elsewhere.

Wherever it is, they would be officially recognised and acknowledged points of entry. Then I would have to queue up and perhaps suffer the slings and arrows of semi-awake Immigration officers (some quite awake to notes inside false passports) and Customs men determined to rid some poor maid or blue collar worker returning home from the Gulf, of any excess baggage they might have.

But apparently such arrangements are not good enough for Dr (of what pray?) Anton Balasingham.

Now what is it that Balasingham has got that I haven't, besides a British passport acquired no doubt after faithful service to the Crown by working at the British High Commission in Colombo, and an Australian-born wife?.

Admittedly he is the ideologue of the Tamil Tigers, the chief spokesman and the chief negotiator to judge by the LTTE spin doctors that fill the pages of some newspapers. 

Good heavens, if I were called all those things in one breath, I would have double epilepsy and neuralgia too. But then the LTTE always had a way of converting people to their cause, more painstaking-not to mention painful-than Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus which is worth recalling this Easter Sunday.

The good doctor (Balasingham, not the one I consulted) took a rather circuitous, and tortuous route to get to Sri Lanka. If news reports are to be believed he flew from London to Dubai (probably for some duty free shopping. But Scotch is no longer cheap there). Some say it was to consult a couple of Gulf Sheikhs on a quick loan in case V.P wanted some ready cash what with diplomats and others rushing to see him and he is running out of Marie biscuits.

From there he went on to the Maldives, apparently to pick up a few kilos of umbalakade as old Prabs has not had a good katta sambol for quite some time. What with Tamil New Year also round the corner, what is the earthly use of controlling the Wanni, if he can't have a katta sambol with the kiributh. 

Then what does our great ideologue do. Instead of landing at Katunayake like all other respectable travellers to Sri Lanka, he takes a seaplane and asks the blessed thing to land in the waters of the Iranamadu tank.

What bloody cheek. Bad enough he disturbs all the wild life (except of course the Tigers) for which he should be severely reprimanded by the World Wildlife Fund. Prince Charles should cancel his British passport as soon as he ascends the throne. Bad enough disturbing the birds, imagine marrying an Aussie!

Now why did Balasingham do this water-cutting ceremony at Iranamadu? I mean if he didn't want to pay the duty on the umbalakade and the Dubai goodies, he could have dropped a word in the ear of Minister Choksy or asked his old friends in India to drop it by air as they once did with the food parcels in the name of humanitarianism.

We know of course that umbalakade and good Scotch are expensive in the north, especially in jungle areas, what with the Tiger taxes people have to pay on top of the official ones.

But surely ideologue Balasingham must have a few thambies in the Customs left over from the old days and he could have got all those things cleared without paying a cent.

But some of those who have known him and now live here say that Dr Bala is finding it difficult to shed old habits. Remember how he got out of Sri Lanka- from the north by boat- no Immigration, no Customs and not even a by your leave.

And as for paying duty as others do, it is not a particular habit of people from Velvettithurai who in the years gone by used to do a roaring trade smuggling goods between Sri Lanka and India. Don't believe me, just ask VP.

On my next trip to Sri Lanka, I hope to stop over first in Diego Garcia. There maybe I can persuade the US base commander to get me a B-52 and parachute me over Bolgoda Lake, if he can't rustle up an old WW 2 Lysander to get into the cool waters. I doubt the government will allow me the pleasure of having my passport stamped by an immigration official waiting by the lakeside and a Customs officer ready to unload my duty-free goods from the water proof container.

Well, I can quite understand if they won't. Whenever I've left or come to Colombo I've done it legally. I have had nothing to declare, not even a suicide bomber. I admit I was a member of a terrorist group, but we only terrorised my immediate neighbours in Hong Kong- one insisted on playing a noisy game of mahjong until the break of dawn while the other practised his karaoke singing on a Saturday afternoon-and he was no Pavarotti.

But since I did not blast them into the hereafter or force cyanide pills down the throats of the mahjong players, I suppose I lack the experience to be declared a terrorist. 

But don't press your luck. One day I may land in the Parakrama Samudra with a few bags of karawadu. With the government's blessings too.