PC system will have to remain - Minister Keheliya Rambukwella

By Dhaneshi Yatawara

In the light of facing issues with broader range of approach Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella insists that he is not disturbed with any of the discussions happening.

"I was disturbed when I was the Government Defence Spokesman, where I had to announce about fallbacks in the past war against terrorism, deaths of innocent civilians and when our soldiers were killed during that period. Those were the intense days. But not any more," Minister Rambukwella said.

Question: What is your point of view in implementing the thirteenth Amendment to the constitution? India is showing great interest in implementing the thirteenth amendment as well. Will the Government decision drift to another direction with all the pressures imposed on this decision?

Answer: A country's constitution is not a stone inscription. There is no rule to say that the constitution cannot change. How many times has India itself amended the constitution? We need to remember the back ground where the thirteenth amendment was brought in to our system.

I believe that the then President J.R. Jayewardene signed agreeing to the amendment with a pistol pointed at his head. One has to look in to the entire picture of the political world that existed then - we cannot entirely blame those leaders.

They had to take such decisions, if not we would have faced unbelievably devastating consequences.

But today that is not the same situation in Sri Lanka or either in India. But until now, we as a country did not have the time to rethink the entire background or what we experienced over those years. We were struggling to save the country and its citizens' lives.

Is it justifiable or not to re think about all that today when peace is restored in the country? We must keep in mind both countries, India and Sri Lanka, paid a heavy price in agreeing to these. We both have lost top most citizens of both countries. So when implementing these amendments today, isn't it important to readjust to today's changed environments? It needs changes.

Q: Do you agree on removing the Provincial Council system? Would you agree that it is just another 'white elephant'?

A: No, I would not agree. The Provincial Council system existed for nearly 25 years. Now it is embedded in the social structure. One cannot root out the system entirely. It will shake the social and economical structure of the country.

We cannot go for a 360 degrees turn. Certainly we can bring amendments to conditions that were designed to suit the occasion at the time the amendments were agreed by the two countries. We have to revisit the entire story. We have to re-look at the practical part of it. Devolution of power is a good tool.

There is nothing wrong in it. But we need to rethink based on the geographical nature of this country. What is applied to a large nation like India or Canada will definitely not suit us.

Q: You were much discussed in the news last week with regard to an incident related to your son. You sounded disturbed in your answers to the media. What is the present situation?

A: I never felt disturbed. There is an inquiry going on to the incident. So let the inquiry come to a conclusion. I can't comment too much as there is an ongoing inquiry.

I was disturbed when I was the Government Defence Spokesman, where I had to announce about fallbacks in the past war against terrorism, deaths of innocent civilians and when our soldiers were killed during that period.

Those were the intense days. But not any more. Whatever that is happening at present cannot disturb me.

Q: So what exactly happened with your son in the British Airway flight?

A: As I said the inquiry is going on. But according to what was published in the Daily Telegraph their news source was a 26 year old woman who was on board named Charlene Francis.

I believe that is the way those media gather information. Another person who was travelling named Gibson, mentioning all his flight details, have said that he was surprised to view so many news stories on so many websites on an incident that lasted less than a minute. The incident ended after my son apologised to the crew and the passengers. He has apparently reported the entire incident to the inquiry board. Even in the Telegraph it was reported that my son was either drunk or dazed.

When the story came to Sri Lanka the 'dazed' part was missing. There were several incidents with cricketers who played the Indian Premier League this time as well.

My son's was not the only incident. I have to wait until the end of the inquiry and really cannot comment much since I was not there in the plane. But as to what I see and hear in media many of those who report many have been on the flight. As a father what I can say to the authorities is that carry out a fair inquiry on the incident.

Q: As a father how do you feel? Apart from being the Media Minister.

A: if I was not a minister this incident would not have ever been reported.

Q: What is your son's response?

A: As the father I will be behind him. I will not let him fall back. I will be with him and make sure he will continue to be confident in being a professional cricket player. I have also played cricket. I received colours for five different sports at national level so I know what is the true situation a sportsman may have to face in the actual world.

I have played as an opening batsman and so did my son. He entered the national team. His dream was becoming a cricket player. So as the father it is my duty to support my son in his success.

Q: What is your comment about highlighting code of media ethics in the wake of incidents like these?

A: This was just to facilitate the media world on a requirement that they were highlighting for sometime. Though many highlight on 'responsible media' there are questionable instances that happened in the recent past in media reporting.

Particularly if we take the way certain media reported on the self-immolation incident of the monk that happened in Kandy in the recent past, one tend to question the ethical practices in reporting.

No one is an expert on many so it is best for the journalists if they refer to an expert in a particular field before writing. We see that some journalists write stories with technically erroneous facts.

Q: With regard to Code of Media ethics many argue that self regulation is more effective than imposed regulation. What is your point of view?

A: Ethics is something, the term itself means, more of a self regulatory. With ones own experience. Take time since independence, can we see those ethics being used properly? I leave that question with the journalists.

The journalists need to open a discussion about it. They need to engage in a dialogue. There's nothing wrong in that. Particularly the media. Media can really devastate a situation if improperly used.

A few years ago, one channel used (in Sinhala) the word curfew instead of emergency law. It was just one word but it created so much of panic. Media is one of the most powerful weapons in the world in the terms of public behaviour.

So it is very, very important that we take a stock of it or keep a track of how things were reported and open a discussion about it. My good friend Parliamentarian Karu Jayasuriya is talking about good governance for government media. But one cannot impose rules on one party alone. It has to be on general terms.

But when code of ethics is applied in general then they are not happy. Their argument is that it should only be applied to Government media because it depends on public funds. But in that sense a private sector man can do anything, publish anything, whatever he wants. How fair is that? How can that be justifiable? When we bring in code of ethics, yes, the Government media and Government supportive media should be looked in to but at the same time how can we forget about the private sector.

All are addressing the public and the effect of whatever they say has an impact on the public. So the code of ethics should be for everyone.

And on the other hand, when several sectors of media attack and vehemently criticise the Government, there should be at least few options for the Government also to convey its work and response. There is a political justification in that.