Media culture needs change

Media freedom and the legitimate role of the media in the national interest sans personal agendas turned into a hot topic on the floor of the House during the debate on the regulations introduced by Mass Media and Information Minister Keheliya Rambukwella to the Sri Lanka Press Council Law. Both Government and Opposition members who expressed their views drew the attention of the House on a number of issues relating to media personnel and their conduct.

Some of the Government legislators stressed the need for the reintroduction of Criminal Defamation Law which was repealed by former UNP Government in early part of 2000. External Affairs Ministry Monitoring MP Sajin de Vaas Gunawardena who was critical of the irresponsible reporting by some privately owned newspapers was fully in favour of the reintroduction of criminal defamation to prevent the heads of some private media institutions from acting like underworld thugs. Citing one of his personal experiences, Gunawardena told the House how editors and owners of certain media publications demanded money by threatening that they would publish stories of a derogatory nature in their publications if he failed to comply.

The MP said that he was subjected to malicious and baseless criticism by the media ever since Mihin Lanka was launched, but he could not do anything as there is no law to tackle such derogatory reporting. He also recalled how when he worked at a private company in 1995 while his father was in the BOI, the then Chief Editor of the Sunday Leader called upon the owner of that company and demanded Rs 10 million lest he would write against him and his father.

Ownership

He also referred to allegations leveled by the Opposition on the lack of press freedom in the country. Commenting on the ownership of private media institutions, he pointed out that even in this Parliament, there are owners of media institutions such as MPs Thilanga Sumathipala, Ruwan Wijewardena, Tiran Alles and the comrades of the JVP Anura Kumara Dissanayaka. He said 85 per cent of media institutions in the country are owned by people with political connections and the majority of them are affiliated to the Opposition.

Ninety percent of Sunday newspapers are against this Government. He asked how one can say that there is no media freedom in the country? He said that the media personnel have lost their freedom due to their employers, who are obsessed with toppling this Government. Gunawardene stressed the need to change the media culture and the extortions by certain media elements. When UNP MP Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe asked whether Gunawardena would bring laws to prevent such activities, the latter said that he was acting on it.

TNA Parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran who followed Gunawardena, said that he was astonished to hear the revelations Made by the latter that 95 percent articles in Sunday newspapers are anti-government. He asked Gunawardene whether he was sure that he was talking about Sri Lanka or some other country which he has got mixed up as he travels all over the world as the Monitoring MP of External Affairs Ministry.

He said how can one say that the Government does not harass the media since many journalists and media institutions have come under attack? Citing an example, he said that how the Udayan Newspaper alone came under attack more than 30 times.

The issue relating to journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda who is said to have disappeared caused a controversy during the debate due to revelations made by UPFA MP Arundhika Fernando that Ekneligoda is living in France. MP Fernando said that Ekneligoda is living in disguise in France though the UNP and the Opposition make a big hue and cry about his disappearance. He said that several persons living in France have confirmed to him that Ekneligoda is living in France.

The MP told the House that he met several media personnel in France who are said to have gone missing. He alleged that these media personnel had left the country with the support of certain foreign embassies. The wife of Prageeth Ekneligoda is crying before the media while he is living in France, he said.

Self-exile

MP Fernando who also raised a privilege issue in Parliament on Friday also said that journalist Manjula Wediwardena who lives in self-exile had introduced journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda to him in France. The MP said that Ekneligoda had shaved his head and was in disguise, but others had recognised him.

Ekneligoda had also participated in an anti-Lankan protest in Geneva with Sunanda Deshapriya, Fernando said following his statement in Parliament on Wednesday. The print and electronic media including several websites have criticized him and levelled accusations against him and the Government.

The MP said that he really regretted the statement made by Ekneligoda's wife following his revelations in Parliament. If she had been a woman who really loved her husband and respected the values of Asian women, she should have met him following his revelation and asked further details about her husband without merely becoming a tool of various vested interests.

UNP MP Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe who joined the debate raised serious doubt on the true ethical conduct of the media. He told the House that the media did not have the courage to run the news that the milk powder imported from New Zealand were contaminated.

He said if Agriculture Minister Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena had the courage to said in Parliament recently that milk powder imported from New Zealand was not suitable for human consumption. Most of the media organizations did not highlight this as they receive huge amounts of money from these milk powder companies for their newspaper advertisements .

When the Government moved the Registration of Electors (Special Provisions) Bill as an urgent Bill before Parliament, its debate was postponed indefinitely due to the request made by the Opposition. Leader of the House and Irrigation and Water Management Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva told the House that the Bill would be referred to the Consultative Committee where the Opposition members would be given the opportunity to clarify any doubts pertaining to the provisions in the Bill, with the Elections Commissioner and thereafter it would be taken up for debate again.

The Bill was presented in the House by Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem. When the motion was presented, DNA MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake who raised a point of order said queried as to how a debate is conducted on a draft Bill which they have not even seen so far.

The Opposition members wished to have an opportunity to meet Elections Commissioner at the Consultative Committee and get their doubts clear. Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody told the Opposition MP that a bill had to be presented to the House and then only it could be referred to the Consultative Committee. Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe proposed that the Consultative Committee could meet in the meantime when the debate was in progress. Minister Hakeem told the House that the Supreme Court had made a determination on the constitutionality of the Bill. During the debate Minister de Silva told the House that the Bill had been referred to the Consultative Committee and the debate would be conducted while the vote would be taken another day as requested by the Opposition.