|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 1 September 2002 |
 |
|
 |
Letters |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Please forward your letters to [email protected] in plain text format within the e-mail message, since as a policy we do not open any attachments.
The present day student or even those who pursue university studies are extremely poor in general knowledge especially pertaining to their own country. Knowledge is power, and it could be amassed by self-study. Credit should be given to the last of the colonial rulers who keep authentic records of all historical, political, commercial and development projects to open up the land during the 19th century and up to the mid 20th century till we gained independence. In this context I draw the attention of the reader to the Englishmen. Alistair Mackenzie Ferguson, CMG, co-editor of the 'Observer' and subsequently editor and proprietor of the same paper, and also the founder of the 'Sri Lanka Ferguson's Directory'. The 127th edition of it is in current use. I urge all persons who thirst for knowledge, regarding information of our country to refer to as many old copies of the Ferguson's Directory which may be available at the public library in Colombo or in the Department of National Archives. Earle R. de Zoysa , We all are happy that legislation was recently enacted to abolish the law relating to criminal defamation in our country. The statutory provisions in this regard were contained in the Penal Code in section 479 and in a subsequent enactment namely, the Sri Lanka Press Council Act No. 5 of 1973 in sections 14 and 15 thereof. If you peep into the background of these developments, you will find that the Penal Code has had these provisions ever since its enactment in our country in 1883 during the British rule. Most of the politicians in the recent past including even Premier Dudley Senanayake have resorted to these laws in order to harass the media. It is noteworthy that although the law was applicable to all persons without exception, it was only the politicians who have had recourse to it over this long period. It is even more amusing to note that it has always been the politicians of the ruling party only. In other words, no private individual or even a politician of the Opposition has ever attempted to have recourse to them. There has been a clamour in the country over the decades that these laws should be done away with. Thus, being conscious of this state of affairs and its potential electoral value, prior to the 1994 general elections, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga made a huge hue and cry that once she would be in power, these laws would be abolished, as you will recall. Media swallowed this dead rope, line sinker and hook, and in fact played a major role in placing her in seats of power in that year. Minister Dharmasiri Senanayake media Minister at that time appointed a one-man committee comprising the legal luminary R. K. W. Goonasekare to go into the matter and report. The committee after having extensively studied the diverse aspects of the matter such as the history of criminal defamation laws in the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries and how they are operating in those countries as well as in Sri Lanka and noting that in most of those countries, they are either done away with or fallen into desuetude, recommended in its report the total abolition of these provisions in our country. But this report was never made available to the members of the public and it was with the utmost difficulty with some clues provided by that committee that I was able to obtain an unofficial copy of this report. Be that as it may, instead of abolishing these laws as promised during her election campaign and notwithstanding the recommendations of that committee, Chandrika government made the fullest use of these laws in order to curtail our democratic right of freedom of expression. Many were the prosecutory court cases initiated by the Attorney General's Department under her directions during her governance and pending at the time of their recent abolition. The United National Front in its election manifesto in 2001 then once again vigorously promised to do away with these provisions of law. It is indeed exhilarating to note that it has been accomplished now at long last. When I was giving a lecture on media and law at an educational course for mediamen the other day, some uninformed students were at pains to contradict my point of view that doing away with these draconian provisions was a blessing that we are now endowed with after decades of struggling. But that did not surprise me because they were students and uninformed. What surprises me on the other hand is that even some of 'learned' friends of the legal profession are of the same view as those students. Should we leave a wild ass freedom with mediamen to defame anyone at their will and pleasure? Should there not be some legal restriction? has been their query. It may be mentioned in reply to them and others holding a similar view that most of the commonwealth countries have long ago removed the provisions relating criminal defamation by legislative amendments. In the United Kingdom, they no doubt still remain in the statute book but have not been resorted to either by politicians or any other one for the last century or so and so they remain a dead letter. But are the media, either print or electronic, enjoying a wild ass freedom under the present set up? The obvious answer is in the negative. The law is intact and clear. The victim of such defamation can fall back on civil and recover damages, perhaps in millions! For, the civil law on defamation still remains unchanged and unaltered. Dharmapala Senaratne, I am a patient who has been attending hospital clinics for the past four months and I have faced many problems in attending them. On every occasion a patient has to stand in four queues before he can obtain medicine, whereas there is a counter which serves only the hospital staff. Recently, (after being in the queue for more than one hour) I had to report about these shortcomings to the security supervisor and according to his advice I met the Administrative Officer and reported the matter to him. While admitting that what they do is wrong he says that the hospital staff must be given preference. I also completely agree with him. If the employees are sick they must be given preference instead they are coming there while on duty. It is better to open a dispensary somewhere inside a ward or elsewhere without keeping the suffering patients in the queue for hours, and leave those counters only for the clinic patients. M. S. Mohamed Farook , |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
