|
|
|
| Sunday, 10 July 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial |  |
| News Business Features Security
|
Please forward your comments to the
Editor, Sunday Observer. E-mail: [email protected] Snail mail : Sunday Observer, 35, D.R.Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone : 94 11 2429239 / 2331181 Fax : 94 11 2429230 Ethnic representation in P-TOMS There is a debate on the question of ethnic representation in P-TOMS. The JHU, JVP and the UNP claim the Sinhalese are not represented. Muslim parties on both sides of the political divide claim Muslims are not represented. They even call upon the Muslims to boycott it. Perhaps the Mullahs would issue fatwas against any Muslim representative nominated to it. The Government seems to be a bit shaken according to pronouncements of its various spokespersons. Incidentally all of them have misjudged the nature of P-TOMS. It is an administrative arrangement between two parties who control certain portions of the territory of Sri Lanka that was affected by the killer tsunami of December 26, 2004. The Ceasefire Agreement has recognised the existence of two de facto administrations despite whatever is written in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. According to the same agreement a single body dealing with relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction in the six tsunami affected districts in the Northeast must of necessity comprise representatives of both these administrations. Whether we like it or not the LTTE represents all people living in the territory under their control just as much as the GOSL represents all people living in the territory under its direct jurisdiction. Therefore, the question of separate Muslim or Sinhala representation does not come into the picture. To maintain that there should be separate Muslim and Sinhala representation in the P-TOMS is to maintain that the GOSL does not represent them anymore. Then, does it mean that it represents only the Tamils? Nothing fruitful will come out of such a discourse. The P-TOMS has, however, taken into consideration the fact that Muslims were the majority of the affected in the area under it and has made provision for Muslim representation at all levels of the P-TOM structure. At the High Level Committee they have been given special recognition, which even the Sinhala community has not received. This has been compensated by a greater representation to the LTTE at regional level. However, there are in-built guarantees to ensure that the Tigers do not walk rough shod over the interests of the minority communities in the region. At the district level all communities are represented. Actually a similar administrative structure has been functioning since the tsunami in December 2004. It is tragic that politicians are misguiding and inciting the people over P-TOMS for narrow personal and factional political interests instead of uniting them for the common good. Allegations that the P-TOMS is a threat to the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the country are unfounded. As the P-TOMS Agreement itself says the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) supersedes it. Under the CFA the task of ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty is vested in the armed forces of Sri Lanka. This is a mandatory Constitutional provision too. Judith Miller Judith Miller, our colleague from the New York Times has hit media headlines all over the world. She has earned a name in history by being true to her conscience in rejecting both threats and seduction to disclose the source that revealed the identity of a CIA operative two years ago. Federal Judge Thomas F. Hogan immediately ordered her to be jailed in the District of Columbia. The judge even refused to allow her serve the detention at home or in Connecticut. Standing before the hostile judge she bravely read out a statement: "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press." In fact, she did not write the story that revealed the name of the CIA operative. She did not reveal the name of the CIA operative. It was written by Matthew Cooper of the Time magazine, who agreed to testify about the confidential source after his source released him from obligations of keeping the promise of confidentiality. The principle Miller holds is crucial to the functioning of a free press and hence to the functioning of democracy itself. If reporters were seen to renege on promises of confidentiality given to sources of discreet information whistle-blowers and others in positions of authority would think twice before divulging any information in the public interest. This would thus undermine the public's right to information. Judith Miller has become a heroine of our age. Unfortunately this case highlights the threat journalists face even in the so-called democracies that claim to be above board. We hope other countries would not follow this notorious precedent. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security | Produced by Lake House |
