Samabima monthly magazine, published by Rights Now human rights advocacy group in Sri Lanka, has carried an interview with me in its December 2015 issue.
In this, I discuss the societal implications of a Right to Information law, which is to be adopted by Sri Lanka’s Parliament in early 2016. I reiterate that we need to see the new law as only the beginning of a long journey. Proper implementation will require adequate political will, administrative support and sufficient public funds. We would also need sustained monitoring by civil society groups and media to guard against the whole process becoming mired in too much red tape.
I also touch on serious inadequacies in our mainstream media that often fail to serve the public interest because of incompetence, arrogance or indifference. In this interview, I coin a phrase ‘Mass Media Brutality’ meted out to victims of crime or discrimination in Sri Lanka — when the media pack descends on an individual or family and unethical, sensational coverage follows.
Nalaka Gunawardene interview in Samabima magazine, Dec 2015 issue
After many years of advocacy by civil society groups and journalists, Sri Lanka is set to soon adopt a law guaranteeing citizens’ Right to Information (RTI, also known as freedom of information laws in some countries). With that, we will join over 100 other countries that have introduced such progressive laws.
The first step is already taken. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in Parliament in April 2015, made the right to information a fundamental right. The Right to Information Act is meant to institutionalize the arrangement – i.e. put in place the administrative arrangement where a citizen can seek and receive public information.
RTI signifies unleashing a new potential, and a major change in status quo. First, we need to shake off a long historical legacy of governments not being open or accountable to citizens.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 22 Nov 2015), I explore how RTI can gradually lead to open government. I also introduce the 9 key principles of RTI.
L to R – Wijayananda Jayaweera, Gamini Viyangoda, Nalaka Gunawardene, Shan Wijetunge. At Right to Information public forum on 17 Nov 2015 in Colombo. Photo by Sampath Samarakoon
“The key to successful foreign policy in today’s world is networked diplomacy. Managing international crises requires mobilizing international networks of public and private actors,” says Anne-Marie Slaughter, an international lawyer and political scientist who is a former Princeton academic and ex-Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department under U.S. Secretary of StateHillary Clinton.
Diplomacy then…and now
The nature of this ‘networked diplomacy’ is still being documented and studied. Some governments are not even convinced of its value, but meanwhile, others are encouraging it perhaps as a way of ‘exploiting the inevitable’.
I am neither diplomat nor scholar, but sometimes dabble as a writer and researcher on how new media – including social media – impact our society, economy and governance. So I welcomed an opportunity to engage a group of mid-career professionals on the topic Diplomacy & Foreign Relations in the Social Media Age.
I made this presentation on 14 November 2015 as part of the Certificate Course in Creative Diplomacy, conducted by the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Colombo, Sri Lanka – a think tank on international relations.
In this, I introduce and briefly explore the new kind of real-time, public diplomacy that is being ushered in with the spreading of social media. I show how diplomats and other government officials can no longer ignore this mass medium, but at the same time their traditional ways of communications need to be reoriented to suit the realities of this new information ecosystem that is informal, irreverent and fleeting.
As I spoke on the day after the ISIS terrorist attacks in France, I used (among others) the latest examples of how Gérard Araud, France’s Ambassador to the US, tweeted live as multiple terror attacks unfolded in Paris on Nov 13 night.
Real time tweeting by French Ambassador to the US while Paris attack was underway on 13 Nov 2015…More tweets from Ambassador Gérard Araud on 13 Nov 2015…
To see the bigger picture, I’ve distilled some wisdom of key researchers in this area including: Anne-Marie Slaughter, former Princeton Academic and ex-Director of Policy Planning, US State Department; Philip Seib, Professor of Journalism and Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California; and Ramesh Thakur, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University (ANU).
I also used the case study of Indian Ministry of External Affairs using social media for crisis management when 18,000 Indian nationals were stranded in Libya in Feb – March 2011 who had to be evacuated urgently.
As Ramesh Thakur has written, it is “a useful case study in the utility of social media tools in connecting the government with people who are normally well outside their range, but who can be a useful channel to send out time-urgent critical information and to receive equally valuable information from sources on the ground.”
Dedication to a remarkable diplomat-scholar who spent a few days in the Summer of 1995 mentoring a group of youth leaders from around the world, including myself, who were brought to the UN Headquarters in New York…
I dedicated this presentation to a diplomat and scholar whose mentoring I was privileged to receive 20 years ago: Dr Harlan Cleveland (1918 – 2008) who served as US Ambassador to NATO, 1965–1969 (Johnson Administration), and earlier as US Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1961–1965 (Kennedy Administration).
Harlan Cleveland, among the first ‘philosophers’ of the Information Age
According to RCSS, their Course in Creative Diplomacy “provides theoretical and practical insights into the various facets of Creative Diplomacy. The course will expand participants’ understanding of the concept of diplomacy and expose them to new skills and alternative perspectives to engage with stakeholders. It is further envisioned that this post-disciplinary approach, which will be followed by the course, will explore a whole host of new mediums through which mediation, cooperation and negotiation can be carried out.”
Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) held a Public Forum on the Right to Information in Colombo on 17 November 2015. I was one of three panelists, along with Wijayananda Jayaweera and Gamini Viyangoda. The panel was moderated by TISL’s Shan Wijetunge.
RTI Public Forum on 17 Nov 2015
The meeting was conducted in Sinhala. After the event, a journalist from an English language newspaper asked for a summary of my remarks in English, so I wrote this up.
L to R – Wijayananda Jayaweera, Gamini Viyangoda, Nalaka Gunawardene, Shan Wijetunge. At Right to Information public forum on 17 Nov 2015 in Colombo. Photo by Sampath Samarakoon
Summary of remarks made at Right to Information Public Forum held in Colombo on 17 Nov 2015
By Nalaka Gunawardene
Science writer, columnist and new media researcher
After many years of advocacy by civil society groups and journalists, Sri Lanka is set to soon adopt a law guaranteeing citizens’ Right to Information (RTI, also known as freedom of information laws in some countries). With that, we will join over 100 other countries that have introduced such progressive laws.
The first step is already taken. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in Parliament in April 2015, made the right to information a fundamental right.
The Right to Information Act is meant to institutionalize the arrangement – i.e. put in place the administrative arrangement where a citizen can seek and receive public information.
Some have been critical of the current draft of the RTI Bill as it falls short of the ideal. But in my view, adopting even an imperfect RTI law would be progress.
But we need to see the law’s adoption as only the beginning of a long journey. Proper implementation will require adequate political will, administrative support and sufficient public funds. We would also need sustained monitoring by civil society groups and media to guard against the whole process becoming mired in too much red tape.
RTI signifies unleashing a new potential, and a major change in status quo. First, we need to shake off a long historical legacy of governments not being open or accountable to citizens.
For over 2,000 years of monarchy, over 400 years of colonial rule and 67 years of self-rule since independence, all our governments have restricted public information – even mundane ones unrelated to any security or sensitive issues.
Thus, the ‘default setting’ in most government agencies seems to be to deny and restrict information. When this finally changes, both public servants and citizens will need to adjust.
Information custodians can no longer release selectively, or demand petty bribes for doing so. Citizens, on their part, must find purpose and focus in information they can demand and receive. RTI is not a mere political slogan.
To draw an analogy from water management, opening sluice gates of a water reservoir can benefit only if the downstream systems are in place and the users are ready. With both water and information, recipients need to know how to make the best use of what comes through.
As long-standing champions of RTI, Lankan media and civil society must now switch roles. While benefiting from RTI themselves, they can nurture the newly promised openness in every sphere of public life. They can show, inspire and equip other citizens how best to make use of it.
However, RTI is not just a piece of law or changing how governments share public information. At its most basic, RTI is a collective state of mind. With its adoption, a society can start moving along a more open, informed and inquisitive pathway.
Better management of public information – which covers its proper gathering, storing, analysing and disseminating – should come into sharper focus with RTI.
In a related development, Sri Lanka has just joined an international, multilateral initiative called the Open Government Partnership (OGP). It is the first country in South Asia to do so.
OGP is a global effort “to make governments better”. It aims to secure firm commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. OGP was launched in September 2011, and since then, the partnership has grown to 69 countries representing over a third of the world’s population.
To join OGP, a country must meet minimum eligibility criteria. These cover the timely publication of essential budget documents forms the basic building blocks of budget accountability; RTI guaranteed by law; rules that require public disclosure of income and assets for elected and senior public officials; and openness to citizen participation and engagement in policymaking and governance, including basic protections for civil liberties.
With its impending RTI law, Sri Lanka became eligible to join OGP. Its membership was confirmed at the recent OGP Conference held in Mexico City in late October 2015, where Sri Lanka endorsed the Open Government Declaration committing “to foster a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the ideals of open and participatory 21st century government.”
In his speech in Mexico City, Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe said: “Our people have proven that citizens will and should be at the heart of the destiny of any country. Importantly, the events this year reaffirm the resilience of our democracy and make it apparent that it is the people that demand an ‘open government’ for my country.”
Now the Yahapalana Government must walk this lofty talk.
OGP member countries are required to prepare a National Action Plan (NAP) which should be done collaboratively by the government and civil society. Such plans should cover a two-year period and consist of a set of commitments that advance transparency, accountability, participation and/or technological innovation.
The bottomline with Right to Information is this. RTI is not simply a legal or technocratic solution. It is not a quick fix to all problems that affect our society. But it heralds a new way of thinking – a paradigm shift, if you like – that would make our government more open, and our society more focused on using information and data to make our lives better.
Part of the audience at RTI Public Forum on 17 Nov 2015 in ColomboWriter and activist Gamini Viyangoda speaks at RTI Public Forum on 17 Nov 2015
In this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 15 Nov 2015), I pay tribute to Maduluwawe Sobitha thero (1942 – 2015), a Buddhist monk who led an extraordinarily political life.
The fearless and politically engaged Buddhist monk stood up to every Lankan head of state beginning with President J R Jayewardene (in office: 1977-1988). He never hesitated or minced his words when he sensed that elected leaders were overstepping their mandate.
For over four decades, Sobitha used his powerful oratorical and organisational skills to mobilise people into peaceful political resistance. He won some battles and lost others, but never stopped fighting for people’s rights. With every struggle, he became more resolute and resourceful.
At certain times, this monk was more formidable – and also more feared by rulers – than the divided and endlessly bickering opposition political parties of Sri Lanka.
To my mind, Sobitha was like a saffron version of Desmond Tutu, the Anglican cleric who became an unstoppable force for social justice, equality and political reforms in South Africa. Both used their oratory and sense of justice to fight for all oppressed people. Neither sought any personal gains from it.
See also my tribute in English, published by Groundviews.org
Former South African President Nelson Mandela, right, reacts with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, left, during the launch of a Walter and Albertina Sisulu exhibition, called, ‘Parenting a Nation’, at the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 12 March 2008 (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)
The architecture of the mainstream media, and increasingly, social media (even though distinct divisions between the two are increasingly blurred) to varying degrees reflects or contests the timbre of governance and the nature of government.
How can ‘acts of journalism’ by citizens revitalise democracy and how can journalism itself be revived to engage more fully with its central role as watchdog?
In a global contest around editorial independence stymied by economic interests within media institutions, how can Sri Lanka’s media best ensure it attracts, trains and importantly, retains a calibre of journalists who are able to take on the excesses of power, including the silencing of inconvenient truths by large corporations?
The panel, moderated by lawyer and political scientist Asoka Obeyesekere comprised freelance journalist Amantha Perera, Sunday Observer editor Lakshman Gunasekera, and myself.
Here are my opening remarks (including some remarks made during Q&A).
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks during media panel at Corridors of Power – Photo by Manisha Aryal
Panel on “Framing discourse: Media, Power and Democracy”
20 Sep 2015, Colombo
Remarks by Nalaka Gunawardene
Curator Sanjana has asked us to reflect on a key question: What is the role of media in securing democracy against its enemies, within the media itself and beyond?
I would argue that we are in the midst of multiple, overlapping deficits:
Democracy Deficit, a legacy of the past decade in particular, which is now recognised and being addressed (but we have a long way to go)
Public Trust Deficit in politicians and public institutions – not as widely recognised, but is just as pervasive and should be worrying us all.
Media Deficit, probably the least recognised deficit of all. This has nothing to do with media’s penetration or outreach. Rather, it concerns how our established (or mainstream) MEDIA FALLS SHORT IN PERFORMING the responsibilities of watchdog, public platform and the responsibility to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”.
In this context, can new media – citizens leveraging the web, mobile devices and the social media platforms – bridge this deficit?
My answer is both: YES and NO!
YES because new media opportunities can be seized – and are being seized — by our citizens to enhance a whole range of public interest purposes, including:
Political participation
Advocacy and activism
Transparency and accountability in public institutions
Peace-building and reconciliation
Monitoring and critiquing corporate conduct
All these trends are set to grow and involve more and more citizens in the coming years. Right now, one in four Lankans uses the web, mostly thru mobile devices.
BUT CAN IT REPLACE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?
NO, not in the near term. For now, these counter-media efforts are not sufficient by themselves to bridge the three deficits I have listed above. The mainstream media’s products have far more outreach and and the institutions, far more resources.
Also, the rise of citizen-driven new media does NOT – and should NOT — allow mainstream media to abdicate its social responsibilities.
This is why we urgently need MEDIA SECTOR REFORMS in Sri Lanka – to enhance editorial independence AND professionalism.
The debate is no longer about who is better – Mainstream media (MSM) or citizen driven civic media.
WE NEED BOTH.
So let us accept and celebrate our increasingly HYBRID MEDIA REALITY (‘hybrid’ seems to be currently popular!). This involves, among other things:
MSM drawing on Civic Media content; and
Civic Media spreading MSM content even as they critique MSM
To me, what really matters are the ACTS OF JOURNALISM – whether they are RANDOM acts or DELIBERATE acts of journalism.
Let me end by drawing on my own experience. Trained and experienced in mainstream print and broadcast media, I took to web-based social media 8 years ago when I started blogging (for fun). I started tweeting five years ago, and am about to cross 5,000 followers.
It’s been an interesting journey – and nowhere near finished yet.
Rational demarcation of Ministry subject areas (a lost cause now)
Implications of XXL Cabinet of the National/Consensus Govt
Questionable role of our Attorney General in certain prosecutions
Report on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Session
Is Death Penalty the right response to rise of brutal murders?
Can our media be more restrained and balanced in covering sexual crimes involving minors?
How to cope with Hate Speech on ethnic or religious grounds
What kind of Smart Cities or MegaCity do we really need?
How to hold CocaCola LK responsible for polluting Kelani waters?
Yes, many of these are fleeting and incomplete conversations. So what?
And also, there’s a lot of noise in social media: it’s what I call the Global Cacophony.
BUT these conversations and cross-talk often enrich my own understanding — and hopefully help other participants too.
Self-promotional as this might sound, how many Newspaper Editors in Sri Lanka can claim to have as many public conversations as I am having using social media?
Let me end with the closing para in a chapter on social media and governance I recently wrote for Transparency International’s Sri Lanka Governance Report 2014 (currently in print):
“Although there have been serious levels of malgovernance in Sri Lanka in recent years, the build up on social media platforms to the Presidential Election 2015 showed that Lankan citizens have sufficient maturity to use ICTs and other forms of social mobilisation for a more peaceful call for regime change. Channelling this civic energy into governance reform is the next challenge.”
“What role (if any) did social media play in the recently concluded General Election on 17 August 2015?
“Many are asking this question – and coming up with different answers. That is characteristic of the cyber realm: there is no single right answer when it comes to a multi-faceted and fast-evolving phenomenon like social media.
“Shortly after the Presidential Election of 8 January 2015 ended, I called it Sri Lanka’s first cyber election. That was based on my insights from over 20 years of watching and chronicling the gradual spread of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in Sri Lanka and the resulting rise of an information society.
“That was not the first time social media had figured in Lankan election campaigns. The trend started slowly some years ago, with a few tech-aware politicians and advertising agencies using websites, Facebook pages and twitter accounts for political outreach. However, such uses did not reach a ‘critical mass’ in the general and presidential elections held in 2010, or in the provincial and local government elections held thereafter.
“By late 2014, that changed significantly but this time the frontrunners were politically charged and digitally empowered citizens, not politicians or their support teams.”
The above is an extract from an op-ed I have just written and published in Daily Mirror broadsheet national newspaper in Sri Lanka (3 Sep 2015).
More hands make better democracy – but it can also lead to chaos, unless we’re careful…
Regular elections are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a vibrant democracy. There is much more to democracy than holding free and fair elections.
The ‘sufficient conditions’ include having public institutions that allow citizens the chance to participate in political process on an on-going basis; a guarantee that all people are equal before the law (independent and apolitical judiciary); respect for cultural, ethnic and religious diversity; and freedom of opinion without fearing any repercussions. Sri Lanka has much work to do on all these fronts.
Democracy itself, as practised for centuries, can do with some ‘upgrading’ to catch up with modern information societies.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (in Sinhala, appearing in issue of 23 August 2015), I discuss methodologies that enable citizens as well as civil society organisations (CSOs) to engage with policymakers and citizen service providers on an on-going basis.
Some call it social accountability (or SAcc), and others refer to it as participatory democracy. Whatever the label, the idea is to ensure greater accountability in how the public sector manages public funds and responds to citizens’ needs.
Text of my column written for Echelon monthly business magazine, Sri Lanka, August 2015 issue
Cartoon by Awantha Artigala, Sri Lanka Cartoonist of the Year 2014
Media Reforms: The Unfinished Agenda
By Nalaka Gunawardene
When I was growing up in the 1970s, Sri Lanka’s media landscape was very different. We had only one radio station (state-owned SLBC) and three newspaper houses (Lake House, Times of Ceylon and Independent Newspapers). There was no TV, and the web wasn’t even invented.
At that time, most discussions on media freedom and reforms centred around how to contain the overbearing state – which was a key publisher, as well as the sole broadcaster, dominant advertiser and media regulator, all rolled into one.
Four decades on, the state still looms large on our media landscape, but there are many more players. The number of media companies, organisations and products has steadily increased, especially after private sector participation in broadcasting was allowed in 1992.
More does not necessarily mean better, however. Media researchers and advocacy groups lament that broadcast diversification has not led to a corresponding rise in media pluralism – not just in terms of media ownership and content, but also in how the media reflects diversity of public opinion, particularly of those living on the margins of society.
As the late Tilak Jayaratne and Sarath Kellapotha, two experienced broadcasters, noted in a recent book, “There exists a huge imbalance in both media coverage and media education as regards minorities and the marginalised. This does not come as a surprise, as it is known that media in Sri Lanka, both print and broadcast, cater mainly to the elite, irrespective of racial differences.”
Media under pressure
The multi-author book, titled Embattled Media: Democracy, Governance and Reform in Sri Lanka(Sage Publications, Feb 2015), was compiled during 2012-14 by a group of researchers and activists who aspired for a freer and more responsible media. It came out just weeks after the last Presidential Election, where media freedom and reforms were a key campaigning issue.
In their preface, co-editors William Crawley, David Page and Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena say: “Media liberalisation from the 1990s onwards had extended the range of choice for viewers and listeners and created a more diverse media landscape. But the war in the north and insurrections in the south had taken their toll of media freedoms. The island had lived under a permanent state of emergency for nearly three decades. The balance of power between government, judiciary, the media and the public had been put under immense strain.”
Embattled Media – Democracy, Governance and Reform in Sri Lanka
The book, to which I have contributed a chapter on new media, traces the evolution mass media in post-colonial Sri Lanka, with focus on the relevant policies and laws, and on journalism education. It discusses how the civil war continues to cast “a long shadow” on our media. Breaking free from that legacy is one of many challenges confronting the media industry today.
Some progress has been made since the Presidential election. The new government has taken steps to end threats against media organisations and journalists, and started or resumed criminal investigations on some past atrocities. Political websites that were arbitrarily blocked from are once again accessible. Journalists who went into exile to save their lives have started returning.
On the law-making front, meanwhile, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution recognized the right to information as a fundamental right. But the long-awaited Right to Information Bill could not be adopted before Parliament’s dissolution.
Thus much more remains to be done. For this, a clear set of priorities has been identified through recent consultative processes that involved media owners, practitioners, researchers, advocacy groups and trainers. These discussions culminated with the National Summit on Media Reforms organised by the Ministry of Media, the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI) and International Media Support (IMS), and held in Colombo on 13 and 14 May.
We can only hope that the next Parliament, to be elected at the August 17 general election, would take up the policy and law related aspects of the media reform agenda (while the media industry and profession tackles issues like capacity building and greater professionalism, and the education system works to enhance media literacy of everyone).
Pursuing these reforms needs both political commitment and persistent advocacy efforts.
Right to Information: The new Parliament should pass, on a priority basis, the Right to Information Bill that was finalised in May 2015 with inputs from media and civil society groups.
Media Self-Regulation: The Press Council Act 5 of 1973, which created a quasi-judicial entity called the Press Council with draconian powers to punish journalists, should be abolished. Instead, the self-regulatory body established in 2003, known as the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka (PCCSL), should be strengthened. Ideally its scope should expand to cover the broadcast media as well.
Law Review and Revision: Some civil and criminal laws pose various restrictions to media freedom. These include the Official Secrets Act and sedition laws (both relics of the colonial era) and the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act that has outlived the civil war. There are also needlessly rigid laws covering contempt of court and Parliamentary privileges, which don’t suit a mature democracy. All these need review and revision to bring them into line with international standards regarding freedom of expression.
Broadcast regulation: Our radio and TV industries have expanded many times during the past quarter century within an ad hoc legal framework. This has led to various anomalies and the gross mismanagement of the electromagnetic spectrum, a finite public property. Sri Lanka urgently needs a comprehensive law on broadcasting. Among other things, it should provide for an independent body to regulate broadcasting in the public interest, more equitable and efficient allocation of frequencies, and a three-tier system of broadcasting which recognises public, commercial and community broadcasters. All broadcasters – riding on the public owned airwaves — should have a legal obligation be balanced and impartial in coverage of politics and other matters of public concern.
Restructuring State Broadcasters: The three state broadcasters – the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC), the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) and the Independent Television Network (ITN) – should be transformed into independent public service broadcasters. There should be legal provisions to ensure their editorial independence, and a clear mandate to serve the public (and not the political parties in office). To make them less dependent on the market, they should be given some public funding but in ways that don’t make them beholden to politicians or officials.
Reforming Lake House: Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited or Lake House was nationalised in 1973 to ‘broadbase’ its ownership. Instead, it has remained as a propaganda mill of successive ruling parties. Democratic governments committed to good governance should not be running newspaper houses. To redeem Lake House after more than four decades of state abuse, it needs to operate independently of government and regain editorial freedom. A public consultation should determine the most appropriate way forward and the best business model.
Preventing Censorship: No prior censorship should be imposed on the media. Where necessary, courts may review media content for their legality after publication (on an urgent basis). Laws and regulations that permit censorship should be reviewed and amended. We must revisit the Public Performance Ordinance, which empowers a state body to pre-approve all feature films and drama productions.
Blocking of Websites: Ensuring internet freedoms is far more important than setting up free public WiFi services. There should be no attempts to limit online content and social media activities contravening fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions. Restrictions on any illegal content may be imposed only through the courts (and not via unwritten orders given by the telecom regulator). There should be a public list of all websites blocked through such judicial sanction.
Privacy and Surveillance: The state should protect the privacy of all citizens. There should be strict limits to the state’s surveillance of private individuals’ and private entities’ telephone conversations, emails and other electronic communications. In exceptional situations (e.g. crime investigations), such surveillance should only be permitted with judicial oversight and according to a clear set of guidelines.
Cartoon by Awantha Artigala, Sri Lanka Cartoonist of the Year 2014
Dealing with Past Demons
While all these are forward looking steps, the media industry as a whole also needs state assistance to exorcise demons of the recent past — when against journalists and ‘censorship by murder’ reached unprecedented levels. Not a single perpetrator has been punished by law todate.
This is why media rights groups advocate an independent Commission of Inquiry should be created with a mandate and adequate powers to investigate killings and disappearances of journalists and attacks on media organisations. Ideally, it should cover the entire duration of the war, as well as the post-war years.
March 12 Movement for Cleaner election candidates in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka will hold a general election on 17 August 2015 to elect a new Parliament. It has been preceded by a high level of citizen and civil society advocacy for raising the standard for who should be elected to represent the people as their Members of Parliament.
Public concerns about deteriorating Parliamentary debate and the overall decline and degradation in representative politics were captured by the ‘March 12 Movement’, a mission to elect clean and corruption-free politicians to Parliament.
The Movement was initiated by People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) and supported by Transparency International, Sarvodaya Movement, Sri Lanka Chamber of Commerce, Sri Lanka Administrative Officers’ Association and trade unions.
Parallel to this advocacy, data analysis tools have been used by citizens to probe the conduct of MPs in the last Parliament, which was dissolved on 26 June 2015.
Manthri.lk is a trilingual website that tracks the performance of the 225 Members of Parliament in Sri Lanka. It goes by the official record (Hansard), analysing and coding each statement which is fed into a customised system developed by the website owner and operator – Verite Research, a thinktank that provides strategic analysis and advice for decision-makers and opinion-formers.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (in Sinhala, appearing in issue of 16 August 2015), I share some of the key findings by Manthri.lk website on the conduct of 225 MPs in the last Parliament – 202 of whom are seeking re-election.
Open Minds! 