Government authorities censor live TV discussion on media freedom

 

FMM express its shock and disbelief that government authorities shamelessly   ordered state controlled TV station SLRC to stop a live TV programme related to freedom of expression in Sri Lanka. On 4th November State controlled SLRC abruptly stopped a live TV discussion on recently imposed Private Television Broadcasting Station Regulations without giving any reasons to the audience. 

The SLRC had invited FMM convener Uvindu Kurululasuriya to participate in the discussion to represent media organisations. Other two panelists were Mr. Chritha Harath, adviser to the media minister and Mr. Damma Disanayaka, a university lecturer. After 45 minutes  the discussion was stopped suddenly,  a commercial break was announced and stations started to play songs continuously discontinuing the live discussion.

FMM condemns this direct censorship by state authorities in strongest terms. This is a clear violation of peoples’ right to know. Further it shows the government’s negative and shameless attitude towards peoples’ right to know. This authoritarian and arrogant attitude of government authorities of ordering to stop a live TV discussion is an irony which shows real intentions of the government in bringing new laws to control TV broadcasting. The discussion itself was on the same subject of state regulation of media.

This act of censorship again reinforces our position that government should not be allowed to regulate media either print or electronic.  If a minister who act unethically and unscrupulously   to censor a live TV debate on regulations imposed by himself becomes the regulator of all privately own TV stations as envisaged by the  regulations FMM fears that all TV stations will have be his masters voice.

FMM hopes that there will not be any which hunt against he FMM convener Uvindu Kurululasuriya who expressed FMM poison at the discussion strongly criticizing the new regulations.  It is very clear that the programme was stopped mainly to censor FMM convener criticizing the authoritarian intentions of the government in imposing these regulations.   

Once again FMM requests the government to withdraw these obnoxious relegations immediately.  FMM reiterates its  position that if the aim is to establish a legitimate regime of fair, transparent and accountable regulation, to enter into open consultations with those directly affected, the media profession and broader civil society, so that a proper legal framework in this regard may be developed.

Live censorship on government TV station amid criticism of new broadcasting law – RSF

 

Reporters Without Borders condemns the government pressure that led to the debate programme “Ira Anduru Pata” being cut short as it was being broadcast live on the evening of 4 November on state TV station Rupavahini. It ended a discussion of a new broadcasting law by three guests, including Free Media Movement convener Uvindu Kurukulasuriya.

The presenter announced a break for advertisements after 45 minutes, but the rest of the programme, which normally lasts two hours, was suppressed. Kurukulasuriya had been criticising the government’s media policies before he was censored. It was the first time in nine years that this press freedom activist was invited to speak on Rupavahini.

This censorship came as widespread criticism forced the government to retreat on its newly-introduced Private Television Broadcasting Station Regulations. After receiving representatives of journalists’ organisations and media owners, media and information minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa announced that implementation of the new regulations would be suspended for a month, and he gave the media two weeks to submit their proposals for amendments.

Four people, including Kurukulasuriya as FMM representative, filed a petition before the supreme court challenging the regulations, which were published in the official gazette on 10 October without any form of prior consultation. The new rules would restrict development of privately-owned TV by increasing the government’s control over the issuing and withdrawal of broadcasting licences, which would have to be renewed annually.

Noting the government’s decision to suspend the regulations, Reporters Without Borders said: “This law is extremely dangerous for media freedom. Delaying its implementation is not enough. Its content needs to be changed radically.”

   
  Reporters Without Borders defends imprisoned journalists and press freedom throughout the world. It has nine national sections (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). It has representatives in Bangkok, London, New York, Tokyo and Washington. And it has more than 120 correspondents worldwide.

“I was harrassed by TID”-Tissainayagam

  
By T. Farook Thajudeen
Senior Journalist Jeyaprakash Sittampalam Tissainayagam testified before  Colombo High Court Judge Ms. Deepali Wijesundera in the inquiry to ascertain whether the confession made by him to the  Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) was a voluntarily one or made under pressure and threat.

 The witness examined by his counsel Anil Silva said on Wednesday (5), said that he arrived at the TID on the March 7 to visit his friend Jasiharan and his wife, who had been taken into custody the previous day.

He was allowed inside after having waited for around an hour. Once he got inside the TID premises, a police officer had grabbed the mobile phone he was carrying. When Tissainayagam had asked for the mobile phone back he was told ‘you are now inside the TID, it is not for you to ask for your phone back, but your job instead should be to get out of this place’

 Later he was taken to the section head Inspector Janakantha’s room at which time he was questioned on how he knew Jasiharan.

Tissainayagam had at this point requested for a lawyer at which Janakantha had laughed. Afterwards OIC Prasanna De Alwis questioned him. Once again, he (Tissainayagam) had requested to have a lawyer to be present to which the OIC had replied ‘we are showing you respect by offering you a chair to sit on. Don’t take advantage of this treatment’.

 Director TID Nandana Munasinghe, while talking to Tissainayagam, referred to his friendship with the journalist Sivaram. Mr. Munasinghe specifically reminded of the way that Sivaram met his death – his body was later discovered in some bushes in close proximity to the Parliament premises. He had been alarmed at this line of questioning, as he did not understand what was meant by it.

Further questioning was carried out by OIC Prasanna De Alwis and Zubair of the TID. At one point, Tissainayagam said Zubair had walked in while the questioning was going on and had stated that if he (Tissainayagam) continues to lie in this manner he would slap him across the face so that one ear would come out of the other side.

Tissainayagam said on May 9th he was threatened by Sergeant Razik, telling him that what happened to Jasiharan that morning would happen to him.  He said that he had seen Jasiharan crying in the OIC’s room that morning and later seen him with a swollen face and bloodshot eyes. Razik then dictated a statement that Tissainayagam wrote in his own handwriting.

He said  he was examined by several JMOs in their offices and he never mentioned to them about the assaults or the mental  stress he underwent because during  the medical examinations by the JMOs the TID officers  used to wait out side the  JMO’s office and the office had swing doors.

He said he was unaware of certain clauses in the affidavit signed by him, which was submitted to Supreme Court with his FR petition.

Counsel Anil Silva with M.A. Sumanthiran Nalin Ladduwahetti and Ms. Sharmaine Gunaratne  appeared for Journalist Tissainayagam. State Counsel Sudarshana de Silva with  Miss. Samalka  Samarasinghe appeared for the TID.

Further hearing was put off  for today.

“Defence Watch” explained

 
(lanka dissent)Thursday, 06 November 2008 19:29
 
Spokesman of ‘Defence Watch’, Mangala Samaraweera has issued a press release explaining reasons for setting up an alternative defence information centre.
The absence of an extensive public dialogue on the war and the lack of information for such a discussion have been the main reasons for the establishment of an alternative defence information centre, he said.

It is widely believed in society that such a dialogue could have serious repercussions, the press release says, noting that the state media and government politicians brand attempts at such a dialogue as discouragement of morale of armed forces members.

This belief is also having a psychological effect on society due to the violent methods being used to silence voices questioning the state’s war policy, it adds.

War is the means to the state’s largest financial investment. Therefore, the public has the right to know how the investment is made. Sadly, this is rather lacking in the country and the situation has intensified to lengths where falsehoods and distortions of the truth are given to the public, the press release further says.

There is a saying that ‘When war is declared, truth is the first casualty’. This saying has become a reality in the ethnic war in Sri Lanka. Under such a backdrop, ‘’Defence Watch’ was set up to ensure the public of their right to information and to initiate a public dialogue, Mr. Samaraweera says.

We believe that Sri Lanka should remain strong as a multi-opinioned country based on ethnic harmony as well as strong economic and international relations, he adds.

The political independence and right for political equality of minorities are being challenged. All masses should be treated equally. We are of the opinion that attempts of the LTTE to create a separate state can only be defeated by such a practical political solution, he further says.

The ‘Defence Watch’ would act in a responsible manner on the following matters:

01.    Reveal the government’s attempts to create a police state under the pretense of defeating terrorism.

02.    Reveal the true nature of the war.

03.    Reveal hardships of the security forces and the police in the battlefront.

04.    Reveal details of the war affected

05.    Expose scams and the fraudulent activities committed under the pretense of war.

06.    Terrorist activities of the LTTE as well as state terrorism and human rights violations.

07.    Violent unleashed on dissenters and media suppression conducted on the façade of war.

We welcome your support for these measures taken with the hope of creating a better social environment that ensures democratic and human rights, the press release adds.

Death threats to Mangala over ‘Defence Watch’

(lankaenews) Wednesday, 05 November 2008 18:46
 
MP Mangala Samaraweera has been receiving telephone calls threatening him with death since the setting up an alternative defence information centre with him as its coordinator. The SLFP Mahajana Wing leader has been told to immediately halt press briefings and other activities of ‘Defence Watch’ which he had initiated yesterday (Nov. 04th). When contacted, he told ‘Lanka Dissent’ he had the telephone numbers of the callers, about whom he would complain to the IGP.
The callers appeared to be linked to the military, as most of them had warned him that traitors had no punishment other than death for having abused the Army Chief and the Defence Secretary, he said.

Mr. Samaraweera added that despite a request for more security and a backup vehicle, he still had two police officers only.

Placing media at the mercy of idiot ministers

By Namini Wijedasa ( Lakbima News 9th Nov)
The government has slapped a new gazette on private electronic media, curbing their freedom on loosely defined terms and causing shockwaves throughout the industry.
The gazette assigns considerable powers to the minister of mass media and information and has raised fears that controls on print media are next.
The new rules are dated 10 October 2008 but are cryptically cited as the Private Television Broadcasting Station Regulations of 2007. They cover all private television broadcasting stations including terrestrial TV, cable TV, satellite TV, internet TV and mobile telephony platform based TV.
Problematic

Industry players, media representatives and rights advocates emphasise that the new regulations are objectionable on many fronts. They assign wide-ranging powers to the minister of mass media and information. Such ministers in President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s or in anybody else’s regimes have rarely – if ever – been fair, independent and devoid of political bias or favour. The manner in which the state media has been controlled and exploited is a case in point. With the threat of a licence cancellation or non-renewal dangling over their heads, private television stations may be forced to self-censor so that they are in the government’s good books. This is not always possible. Nor will it contribute towards open, independent and vibrant media in Sri Lanka.
Meanwhile, the conditions that would lead to a licence cancellation are causing disquiet in both print and electronic media circles. “Among the many highly problematic aspects of these regulations is that the conditions under which licences may be cancelled relate to programme content and are demonstrably overbroad,” reflected Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena, lawyer and rights advocate. “They include that old suspect, ‘national security’- but who is to define what national security means?”
“Cancellation may also be on grounds of infringement of ‘decency’ and being ‘morally offensive’ which are equally imprecise,” she explains. “Meanwhile, the suspension of a licence to operate a particular channel is on even worse grounds – not only is ‘national security’ again repeated here but the minister may act ‘in the public interest’. This is a vague and general terminology which should not be used.”
Pinto-Jayawardena says Sri Lanka needs an independent broadcasting authority and not partisan arrangements of this nature. “Sri Lanka’s broadcasting regime must be made free from governmental control and consequent interference for party-political purposes,” she insisted. “However, where such tremendous shrinking of our basic freedoms has become commonplace, such expectations seem quite naive now.”
Legislation by gazette

Because the regulations cover all forms of TV broadcasting, they are broad in scope. “This is not a legitimate subject to be decided upon by regulations that are gazetted,” said Professor Rohan Samarajiva, former chairman of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL).
When the government of Chandrika Kumaratunga introduced a draft Broadcast Authority Bill in 1997, the Supreme Court struck it down with a strong judgement. Justices A R B Amerasinghe, G P S de Silva and P Ramanathan said the authority envisaged by the bill was not independent enough, called for an authority comprising of multiple members and held the bill to be unconstitutional.
“Now, 11 years later, a simple gazette is being used to override a Supreme Court ruling and to do what parliament should be doing,” Samarajiva criticised. “The constitution clearly states that the passing of law is within the purview of parliament.”
“Even if this were legal, an incredible amount of discretion is given to the minister,” he continued. “The grounds on which a licence may be cancelled are not defined. It talks of a code of ethics, standards and practices of television broadcasting. Does that actually exist?”
The minister has the right to suspend a licence in the interest of national security. “We know how this minister will use his discretion on this count,” Samarajiva said. “In the ABC Radio case, one radio station in the group carried a report and the entire organisation was shut down. Permission was given to operate only when the managing director and his brother left the opposition political party they were connected to and joined the government. It was done by this same minister under this same government… a clear example of what is come.”
Dialog TV

Prof Samarajiva raised another point: “Thousands of people who have currently subscribed to Dialog TV can expect their screens to go blank within a month because the regulation does not allow a company with less than 50 per cent Sri Lankan shareholding to apply for a licence. This is retroactive expropriation of investment made in good faith.” The parent company of Dialog Telekom, Malaysia’s TM International (L) Limited, holds 83.15 per cent of total ordinary shares. The gazette says an application for a licence may be made to the minister only by a company in which the majority of shareholders are Sri Lankan citizens.
“However, there is the possibility that others who have licences can negotiate with a company like Dialog,” Samarajiva said. “This means Dialog can run their programmes on other people’s networks. They can’t do anything that looks like mobile based television but somebody can negotiate with Dialog to run the satellite business on Dialog’s existing infrastructure.”
Meanwhile, private television stations are in a quandary. “There is already a Supreme Court judgement saying that only courts, and not a minister, can cancel a licence,” said Sudath Jayasundara, general manger of Telshan Networks Ltd. “Even then, it is done through a proper process of investigation to establish whether we are guilty.” The new regulations permit a minister to act arbitrarily.
Under the gazette, all existing private broadcasters with valid licences have to apply to the minister for a fresh licence within thirty days of the regulations coming into effect. The minister shall inform the broadcaster of his decision within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application.
“We will be held in abeyance for a further 60 days, not knowing whether we will get a licence or not,” Jayasundara noted. “We have spent so much money and we employ a large number of people. TNL has been in operation for 15 years and we don’t know what will happen after the application is sent.”
Provisions

Among other alarming provisions, the gazette gives the minister of mass media and information discretion to grant, withhold, suspend or cancel private TV licences. It states that recognized political parties shall not be eligible to a licence for the establishment or maintenance of a private TV broadcasting station or network. And, if a person to whom a licence is issued becomes a member of a recognized political party during the period of the validity of the licence, he shall be required to immediately surrender the licence.
Significantly, a licence may be cancelled for broadcasting programmes that are detrimental to the interests of national security; incite breakdown of public order; incite ethnic, religious or cultural hatred; in violation of any laws of the country; are morally offensive or indecent; detrimental to the rights and privileges of children; and in violation of the code of ethics, standards and practices of television broadcasting. All of these are elastic, undefined parameters.
Section 19 states that: “The Minister shall have the right to suspend the permission granted to a licensee to operate any channel for a specified period, in the interest of the public or in the interest of National Security, in order to prevent the misuse of such channel.” What constitutes a matter of public interest or that of national security is not explained.
Licences will be valid for a period of just one year after which a fresh application has to be submitted to the minister of mass media and information. An application for a broadcasting licence may be made to the minister by a citizen of Sri Lanka; a partnership, where all the partners are citizens of Sri Lanka; a company in which the majority of the shareholding is held by citizens of Sri Lanka; or a statutory body establishes by law.
Ironically, private broadcasters in Sri Lanka were not officially informed of the new regulations. Nor have they been told when they will come into force. “We have not been notified,” said Sudath Jayasundara, general manger of Telshan Networks Ltd. “We learnt about this from the papers.”