Year on the Web
Year on the Web
| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
However, it says, up to now the Chandrika Kumaratunga govt. has not only failed to implement the many constructive reforms promised as part of its election campaign, but has also acted increasingly in a manner which directly threatens free expression.
The Sunday Times today publishes extracts from the ARTICLE 19 report, which has been titled, 'Reform at Risk? Continuing Censorship in Sri Lanka?'
As reports of an increasing number of incidents of political intimidation and thuggery rose during 1996, the Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka commented as follows:
"What is most horrifying is that these are not the actions of extremist terrorist groups, of which Sri Lanka has certainly had its fill. They are the result of clashes between supporters of the major parliamentary parties which claim to be wedded to democratic ideals, and which, it was hoped, whether in their role in govt. or in opposition, would now help restore that faith in the democratic process which had been seriously eroded in recent years.... Such events, as well as denying the very right to life itself, place in jeopardy the freedoms of association, assembly and expression, which are the bedrock of democracy."
These comments were made after a series of violent clashes between supporters of the PA and the UNP, including during elections to local co-operative societies and meetings and rallies of political parties, and attacks on political activists.
Incidents between the PA and the UNP were reported at Anamaduwa, Kuliyapitiya, Matale, Anuradhapura, Piliyandala and Matugama, as well as a clash between different sections of the UNP at Maligakanda.
Most seriously, in 1996, two people were killed in clashes between UNP and PA supporters near Negombo on August 31 , and that evening PA supporters invaded a church service in Negombo, which was being held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the UNP. A UNP provincial councillor and his bodyguard were remanded in connection with the killings, and after their case was taken up in the Negombo Magistrate's Court on September 20, UNP supporters who were returning from the court were attacked by a large number of supporters of the ruling party. Gunmen shot dead a UNP town councillor and president of a UNP affiliated taxi union and three other UNP activists, as well as a bystander. Although the President ordered an inquiry into these incidents, no progress has been reported.
The killing in February 1997 of Nalanda Ellawala, MP, and his bodyguard in the run-up to local govt. elections, described above, is a potent reminder of the urgent need for political violence and thuggery to be eradicated in all parties if democratic institutions are to be allowed to function and flourish in Sri Lanka.
The govt. and the leaders of other political parties have condemned the killings, and the govt. has promised to take firm action against those responsible. It is to be hoped that the killing of Nalanda Ellawala will not result in further violence but will provoke a constructive debate and a new determination to prevent political violence.
Moreover, the demand for justice must not be allowed to compromise fundamental human rights principles; it must not be allowed to degenerate into a process of summary justice, with new laws imposed retroactively.
The need to guard against such developments was raised by the response of the govt. to the killings. At a public meeting in Kalutara on February 17 , for example, the President was reported as saying that her govt. would enact tough laws to impose "the harshest punishment" on Ellawala's murderers and to disarm politicians who hold excess firearms. She was quoted as saying:
"I assure you that new laws will be passed to bring the culprits to justice if the present laws seem to be inadequate. They deserve, and will get, the maximum possible punishment for this dastardly crime."
The Ellawala killing also prompted the govt. to announce some positive action.
After it became known that one of the suspects had been released on bail several years before in a case involving the murder of three students in Ratnapura in 1988, the Minister for Law and Justice said he planned to tighten up the law on bail for suspects charged with use of unlicensed weapons and murder, and to speed up the criminal process. The govt. also offered an amnesty for the surrender of illegally-held weapons.
For its part, the UNP leadership expelled the suspects from the party, publicly condemned the killings and called for an end to violence. Various other initiatives to end political violence have been taken since, both within and outside Parliament and by both governmental bodies and non-governmental groups. Despite these, however, a large number of violent incidents were reported in the pre-election period.
At the end of 1995, the Media Minister had promised that 1996 would be the year of media reform. Yet, by March 1997 there had still been no progress in implementing most of the reforms that had been promised, and govt. statements on media freedom and, more generally about freedom of expression, had become increasingly ambivalent, reflecting the increased polarization of politics in the south.
Some developments, however, were evident in implementing recommendations made by the Committee on the Working Conditions of Journalists and the Committee on the Establishment of a National Media Institute. In May 1996, the Media Minister reportedly sent copies of the two reports to a range of editors and others for consultation on implementation. The following month, the President undertook to establish a pension scheme for journalists and to investigate the provision of housing and equipment for journalists, which were among the issues that had been covered in the report.
The matter of improved insurance cover for journalists was apparently addressed in November, when the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation launched a new scheme for journalists. With respect to the establishment of an autonomous National Media Institute (NMI) by Act of Parliament, in order to help enhance professional standards and provide training facilities for journalists, the Cabinet was reported to have approved this proposal in August 1996. It was announced that until such time as the legislation was passed, the govt. would set up a media training institute under the existing Press Council Act. This would then be converted to the NMI when the legislation was enacted.
These initiatives to improve journalists' working conditions and to establish an institute to improve journalists' professional skills would be welcome. But, as ARTICLE 19 has noted previously, [such] measures in themselves would [not] have much impact on the creation of the new, democratic media that the govt. claims is its goal. Without reform of the constitutional, legal and institutional frameworks within which the media operate, even better-trained and better-paid journalists will continue to find themselves subject to political interference and control. It is, therefore, of crucial importance that the govt. gives proper attention to these vital reforms and does not concentrate all of its energies on less fundamental aspects of its policy.
The govt. has given no indication of how it will implement the reports of the two committees which examined the fundamental issues of constitutional, legal and institutional frameworks of media freedom, the Committee to Advise on the Reform of Laws Affecting Media Freedom and Freedom of Expression and the Committee on "Broadbasing" Ownership of Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
The Committee advising on legal reform submitted its final report to the Media Minister in May 1996. It has not been published in full, but a summary of its conclusions and recommendations was published in the journal Pravada. The report contained a comprehensive set of proposals covering constitutional and legislative reform relating to freedom of expression and freedom of information in general, as well as others addressing specific issues relating to freedom of the press and the electronic media.
Although the govt. has continued to maintain its stated intention to implement reforms of this nature, up to now it has not made known what its precise plans are in this regard. No action has yet been taken to amend or repeal the specific pieces of legislation which the govt. had said it would address, and no known detailed response has been made to the Committee's report. ARTICLE 19 wrote to the Media Minister in September 1996 asking for information about the government's reform programme on media freedom, but to date has received no reply.
The govt. has taken two other steps relating to human rights protection more generally which could have a bearing on the protection of freedom of expression. In July 1996 legislation was passed to establish a National Human Rights Commission, which would have broad-ranging powers to investigate complaints of violations of the rights protected by the Sri Lankan Constitution (which would include complaints alleging breaches of freedom of expression) and, amongst other things, to advise the govt. on means to promote and protect these rights.
However, by March 1997 no members had yet been appointed to the Commission.
The second initiative was the government's decision in September 1996 to ratify the (first) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This enables individuals who claim that their rights have been violated, and who have exhausted local remedies, to appeal to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, an independent international tribunal established under the Covenant to monitor its implementation.
Human rights organizations in Sri Lanka have long campaigned for this step to be taken and it was one of the specific recommendations made by ARTICLE 19 in An Agenda for Change.
Statements by various members of the govt. on media freedom over the past months reflect an increased sense of polarization in the country.
Fears of a worsening military situation, and public criticism of the government's policies in the North East, seem to have provoked these statements by senior govt. figures. They have caused media organizations within Sri Lanka to express fears of increased censorship.
In the wake of the military defeat at Mullaitivu, the President was widely reported as saying at a public meeting that "certain newspapers may have to be closed down on the advice of the military". At a subsequent meeting, she named two newspapers Island and Divaina which both belong to the same publishing group, and which, she reportedly said,
" had been slinging mud at the government.... These newspapers were using their columns to sabotage the war effort of the govt. and the peace formula of the government.... Those who try to sabotage the war effort will be dealt with under the law and not beaten up or threatened with abusive language like the UNP had done."
The freedom of the press which her govt. had restored, she reportedly said, was "for some newspapers..... the freedom of the wild ass". She said that these newspapers were owned by arms dealers connected with the previous government, whose deals her govt. had stopped.
The Media Minister, too, has made statements in support of the censorship of news relating to the conflict, and the denial of access by journalists to these areas. When asked in an interview whether these matters did not conflict with the PA's election manifesto, he was reported as saying:
"Forget about the manifesto. To that extent we can tell the country forget the manifesto as far as the problems are concerned.... We promised peace to the people. That is our genuine desire to bring peace to the people..... but if there's belligerence in the midst of a peace process, certainly you can't have media freedom."
And, on the apparent conflict between the President being Head of the National Security Council which recommended imposition of censorship, and also leader of the party which promised media freedom, he responded as follows:
"Media freedom is one thing. But when it comes to national interest, the latter takes precedence and should be given priority. Because, first we have to get the country on a democratic path to get the media freedom through."
The implication here, that media freedom is secondary to democracy and can be suppressed in the name of democratic ideals, is particularly worrying. Media freedom is inherent to, and is an essential component of, any democratic process; it cannot be considered a "luxury" to be granted later.
Another govt. minister the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications wrote a letter to the Free Media Movement (which had supported the PA when it came to power). The letter was reproduced in the government-owned Daily News in November.
This letter ended with a call for a national debate on true media freedom, and promised the Minister's continuing assistance "towards creating a free and civilised media tradition in this country". But there were numerous references in the text which suggested that he did not believe in free expression for all. In particular, he contended that only those who had fought against the repression of the previous UNP govt. now had the right to criticize the present government; those who had supported the UNP, or remained silent amid gross abuse and corruption, had thereby lost their right to criticize now. For example, he wrote:
"We who joined hands with you for the cause of media freedom had to wipe out the politics of terror [from the UNP era] in order to ensure some sort of freedom to the people..... Journalists like you who assisted in that task have the sacred right to question and launch struggles as before if terror and corruption are raising their ugly heads under the present govt. and if there is a Press censorship.
"But are those who undertook pilgrimages to India with authorities responsible for terror to invoke blessings on them when lives of our village youths were reduced to ashes during the barbaric period of terror entitled for that right?... Do the Bookie owners and heirs of Media Institutions involved in Armament rackets who served those blood thirsty oppressors then have a right to speak a word about it? What did these newspaper men do when journalists like Richard de Zoysa and H.E. Dayananda were tragically murdered, six hundred odd members of the Sangha and thousands of youth were killed and burnt on roads?.... What moral right do such persons have to question about media freedom prevailing today?"
The Minister complained that it was often difficult for the govt. to have its views represented in certain sections of the media, or to have misrepresentations corrected. The only recourse he and other members of the govt. have, he said, is to use Parliament to respond to allegations made about them or to use the state media to answer criticism and misrepresentation.
There is a clear need for a new commitment to freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, backed by implementation of the reform programme which the govt. promised in its election manifesto.
The govt. has at its disposal the recommendations of the four committees which reported on media reform. It now needs to move ahead urgently to implement them. The proposals on constitutional and legal reform are broadly consistent with the recommendations which ARTICLE 19 put forward in October 1994 in An Agenda for Change and in March 1995 in Words into Action. ARTICLE 19 believes that this area of reform is particularly important, and should be implemented without delay.
Lack of media freedom, and an apparent trend towards increasing political interference and harassment, are likely to have serious consequences for the democratic process in Sri Lanka. Important constitutional issues are at stake in the coming year, and the climate must be created for them to be freely and openly discussed and debated without fear of intimidation or violence.
The risk of political violence escalating is very real, and decisive action needs to be taken to curb this. Leaders of the main political parties have spoken out against violence, and the govt. has taken steps to confiscate illegal weapons held by politicians. Yet, numerous violent incidents involving members of both main political parties had been reported by the end of February 1997 in the run-up to the local govt. elections in March, involving members of both main political parties. It is important that, in tackling the violence, the govt. is seen to be even-handed, treating all offenders alike regardless of political affiliation. Otherwise its actions may be perceived as a political vendetta against the opposition, as another form of suppression.
ARTICLE 19 has made a series of recommendations for the protection and promotion of freedom of expression since the present govt. took office, amid much optimism for reform, in August 1994.
It continues to hope that such reforms, which it considers vital to future peace and harmony in Sri Lanka, will yet be implemented. Indeed, the measures proposed by ARTICLE 19, which are set out in the Appendix to this report, are consistent both with the government's own stated policy on freedom of expression and with Sri Lanka's international treaty obligations.
If implemented, they would go a long way towards helping address, and prevent, the continuing human rights violations documented in this report.
With regard to the immediate situation prevailing in Sri Lanka. ARTICLE 19 also urges the govt. to:
Continue to the News/Comment page 5 - * Media reform: coming, coming, not coming, * Taking turns: two brave mavericks
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