Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at RTI Seminar for Sri Lanka Parliament staff, 16 Aug 2016
On 16 August 2016, I was invited to speak to the entire senior staff of the Parliament of Sri Lanka on Right to Information (RTI) – South Asian experiences.
Sri Lanka’s Parliament passed the Right to Information (RTI) law on 24 June 2016. Over 15 years in the making, the RTI law represents a potential transformation across the whole government by opening up hitherto closed public information (with certain clearly specified exceptions related to national security, trade secrets, privacy and intellectual property, etc.).
This presentation introduces the concept of citizens’ right to demand and access public information held by the government, and traces the evolution of the concept from historical time. In fact, Indian Emperor Ashoka (who reigned from c. 268 to 232 Before Christ) was the first to grant his subjects the Right to Information, according to Indian RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak, Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). Ashoka had inscribed on rocks all over the Indian subcontinent his government’s policies, development programmes and his ideas on various social, economic and political issues — including how religious co-existence.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at RTI Seminar for Parliament staff, Sri Lanka – 16 Aug 2016
Therefore, adopting an RTI law signifies upholding a great Ashokan tradition in Sri Lanka. The presentation looks at RTI good practices and implementation experiences in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Maldives – all these South Asian countries passed an RTI law before Sri Lanka, and there is much that Sri Lanka can learn from them.
The presentation ends acknowledging the big challenges in implementing RTI in Sri Lanka – reorienting the entire public sector to change its mindset and practices to promote a culture of information sharing and transparent government.
This column originally appeared in Echelon business magazine, March 2014 issue. It is being republished here (without change) as part of a process to archive all my recent writing in one place – on this blog.
Image courtesy Echelon magazine
Balancing Broadband and Narrow Minds
By Nalaka Gunawardene
Are we cyber-stunted?
I posed this question some weeks ago at Sri Lanka Innovation Summit 2013 organised by Echelon and News 1st. We were talking about how to harness the web’s potential for spurring innovation.
We cannot innovate much as a society when our broadband is stymied by narrow minds. How many among the (at least) 3.5 million Lankans who regularly access the web have the right mindset for making the best use of the medium, I asked.
We didn’t get to discuss it much there, but this bothers me. Sri Lanka has now had 19 years of commercial Internet connectivity (the first ISP, Lanka Internet Services, started in April 1995). That’s a long time online: we have gone past toddler years and childhood (remember dial-up, anyone?) and been through turbulent ‘teen years’ as well.
Technology and regulation have moved on, imperfect though the latter maybe. But psychologically, as a nation we have yet to find our comfort level with the not-so-new medium.
There are various indicators for this. Consider, for example, the widespread societal apprehensions about social media, frequent web-bashing by editorialists in the mainstream media, and the apparent lack of public trust in e-commerce services. These and other trends are worth further study by social scientists and anthropologists.
Another barometer of cyber maturity is how we engage each other online, i.e. the tone of comments and interactions. This phenomenon is increasingly common on news and commentary websites; it forms the very basis of social media.
Agree to disagree?
‘Facts are sacred, comment is free’ is a cherished tenet in journalism and public debates. But expressing unfashionable opinions or questioning the status quo in Lankan cyber discussions can attract unpleasant reactions. Agreeing to disagree rarely seems an option.
Over the years, I have had my share of online engagement – some rewarding, others neutral and a few decidedly depressing. These have come mostly at the multi-author opinion platforms where I contribute, but sometimes also through my own blogs and twitterfeed.
One trend seems clear. In many discussions, the ‘singer’ is probed more than the ‘song’. I have been called unkind names, my credentials and patriotism questioned, my publishers’ bona fides doubted, and my (usually moderate) positions attributed to personality disorders or genetic defects! There have been a few threats too (“You just wait – we’ll deal with traitors soon!”).
I know those who comment on mainstream political issues receive far more invective. Most of this is done under the cover of anonymity or pseudonymity. These useful web facilities – which protect those criticising the state or other powerful interests – are widely abused in Lankan cyberspace to malign individuals expressing uncommon views.
There are some practical reasons, too, why our readers may misunderstand what we write, or take offence needlessly.
Poor English comprehension must account for a good share of web arguments. Many fail to grasp (or appreciate) subtlety, intentional rhetoric and certain metaphors. Increasingly, readers react to a few key words or phrases in longer piece — without absorbing its totality.
A recent example is my reflective essay ‘Who Really Killed Mel Gunasekera?’. I wrote it in early February shortly after a highly respected journalist friend was murdered in her suburban home by a burglar.
I argued that we were all responsible, collectively, for this and other rising incidents of violence. I saw it as the residual product of Lankan society’s brutalisation during war years, made worse by economic marginalisation. Rather than barricading ourselves and living in constant fear, we should tackle the root causes of this decay, I urged.
The plea resonated well beyond Mel’s many friends and admirers. But some readers were more than miffed. They (wrongly) reduced my 1,100 words to a mere comparison of crime statistics among nations.
I aim to write clearly, and also probe beyond headlines and statistics. But is such nuance a lost art when many online readers merely scan or speed-read what we labour on? In today’s fast-tracked world, can reflective writing draw discerning readers and thoughtful engagement any longer? I wonder.
Too serious
Then there is the humour factor – or the lack of it. Many among us don’t get textual satire, as Groundviews.org discovered with its sub-brand called Banyan News Reporters (BNR). Their mock news items and spoofs were frequently taken literally – and roundly condemned.
The web is a noisy place, but some stand out in that cacophony because of their one-tracked minds. They are those who perceive and react to everything through a pet topic or peeve. That ‘lens’ may be girls vs boys, or lions vs tigers, or capitalism vs socialism or something else. No matter what the topic, such people will always sing same old tune!
Tribal divisions are among the most entrenched positions, and questioning matters of faith assures a backlash. It seems impossible to discuss secularism in Sri Lanka without seemingly offending all competing brands of salvation! (The last time I tried, they were bickering among themselves long after I quietly left the platform…)
Oh sure, everybody is entitled to a bee or two in her bonnet. But what to do with those harbouring an entire bee colony — which they unleash at the slightest provocation?
I just let them be (well, most of the time). I used to get affected by online abuse from cloaked detractors but have learnt to take it with equanimity. This is what economist and public intellectual W A Wijewardena also recommends.
“You must treat commentators as your own teachers; some make even the most stupid comment in the eyes of an intelligent person, but that comment teaches us more than anything else,” he wrote in a recent Facebook discussion.
He added: “Individual wisdom and opinions are varied and one cannot expect the same type of intervention by all. I always respect even the most damaging comment made by some on what I have written!”
Moderating extreme comments is a thankless and challenging job for those operating opinion platforms. If they are too strict or cautious, they risk diluting worthwhile public debates for which space is shrinking in the mainstream media. At the same time, hate speech peddlers cannot be allowed free license in the name of free speech.
Where to draw the line? Each publisher must evolve own guidelines.
Groundviews.org, whose vision is to “enable civil, progressive and inclusive discussions on democracy, rights, governance and peace in Sri Lanka” encourages “a collegial, non-insulting tone” in all contributors. It also reminds readers that “comments containing hate speech, obscenity and personal attacks will not be approved.”
Colombo Telegraph, another popular opinion and reporting website, “offers a right to reply for any individual or organisation who feels they have been misreported”. Sadly, this courtesy is not available in many online news and commentary websites carrying Lankan content.
In the end, even the most discerning publishers and editors can do only so much. As more Lankans get online and cyber chatter increases, we have to evolve more tolerant and pluralistic ways of engagement.
An example of cyber intolerance and name-calling from December 2014, during the campaign for Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election (when Bollywood’s Salman Khan was brought to Sri Lanka to promote then incumbent Mahinda Rajapalksa’s election campaign)
Citizen resistance to Turkey coup on 16 July 2016 – wire service photos
As Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina School of Information and Library Science, described in a New York Times op-ed on 20 July 2016: “In the confusing hours after the coup attempt began, the country had heard from President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — and even learned that he was alive — when he called a television station via FaceTime, an easy-to-use video chat app. As the camera focused on the iPhone in the anchor’s hand, the president called on the people of Turkey to take to the streets and guard the airports. But this couldn’t happen by itself. People would need WhatsApp, Twitter and other tools on their phones to mobilize. The president also tweeted out the call to his more than eight million followers to resist the coup.”
She added: “The journalist Erhan Celik later tweeted that the public’s response had deterred potential coup supporters, especially within the military, from taking a side…Meanwhile, the immediacy of the president’s on-air appeal via FaceTime was an impetus for people to take to the streets. The video link protected the government from charges that it was using fraud or doctoring — both common in the Turkish news media — to assure the public that the president was safe. A phone call would not have worked the same way.”
I discuss the irony of a leader like Erdogan, who has been cracking down on independent media practitioners and social media users, had to rely on these very outlets in his crucial hour of need.
I echo the views of Zeynep Tufekci for not just Turkey but other countries where autocratic rulers are trying to censor the web and control the media: “The role of internet and press freedoms in defeating the coup presents a significant opportunity. Rather than further polarization and painting of all dissent as illegitimate, the government should embrace real reforms and reverse its censorship policies.”
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 17 July 2016), I discuss Sri Lanka govermment’s recently announced plans to introduce an electronic National Identity Card (e-NIC) replacing the current, mandatory NIC based on a system that was launched in 1971.
The Department of Registration of Persons (the ID card office) is to start collecting fingerprints to issue 16.5 million electronic identity cards (eNICs) in 2016 that will contain biometric security features such as fingerprints. According to media reports, fingerprints are to be collected manually at 331 district and divisional level units and scanned and entered into a national register.
But we should be asking some critical questions about this initiative that collects biometric data of all citizens. Is the government capable of ensuring data security of this massive database? Can it be misused for citizen surveillance in the hands of an authoritarian regime?
Deploying modern technology is fine, but that must be accompanied by adequate human rights safeguards and a political culture that treats citizen data with respect. And there needs to be judicial oversight.
What about a similar, but much larger scale, biometrics-driven ID project in neighbouring India? In recent years, India’s unique identification number project (Aadhaar) has been criticised by privacy activists for its inadequate safeguards. Considered to be the world’s largest national identification number project, it aims to collect biometric and demographic data of all residents, store them in a centralised database and issue a 12-digit unique number.
As SciDev.Net reported on 3 June 2016: “Aadhaar…received statutory backing in March 2016 after five years of political wrangling. Finally the present government moved it as a money bill to prevent it being stopped in the Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament). Opposition leaders have challenged the move as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.
“The court’s existing view on Aadhaar is that biometric identification should be voluntary. On 23 September 2013, the court ordered that ‘no person should suffer for not getting Aadhaar’. Yet, since introduction, Aadhaar has been creeping up on India’s 1.3 billion population with service after service being made unavailable to citizens who are not enrolled.”
SciDev.Net added that the main objections to Aadhaar are no different from objections that have come up in other countries and they have to do with privacy. In the UK, plans to issue biometric national identity cards were dropped in January 2011 and there has been opposition enough in the US to slow down implementation of the ‘Real ID’ scheme.
Nalaka Gunawardene (left) & Ajith Perakum Jayasinghe at Nelum Yaya Blog awards for 2015, held on 26 March 2016
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 3 April 2016), I probe why the blogosphere and other social media platforms are vital for public discourse in the Lankan context.
Sri Lanka’s mainstream media does not serve as an adequate platform for wide-ranging public discussion and debate. Besides being divided along ethnic and political lines, the media is also burdened by self-imposed restrictions where most don’t critique certain social institutions. Among the top-ranked ‘sacred cows’ are the armed forces and clergy (especially Buddhist clergy).
No such “no-go areas” for bloggers, tweeps and Facebookers. New media platforms have provided a space where irreverence can thrive: a healthy democracy badly needs such expression. I base this column partly on my remarks at the second Nelum Yaya Blog Awards ceremony held on 26 March 2016.
I also refer to a landmark ruling in March 2015, where the Supreme Court of India struck down a “draconian” law that allowed police to arrest people for comments on social media networks and other websites.
India’s apex court ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional in its entirety, and the definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”.
The provision carried a punishment of up to three years in jail. Since its adoption in 2008, several people have been arrested for their comments on Facebook or Twitter. The law was challenged in a public interest litigation case by a law student after two young women were arrested in November 2012 in Mumbai for comments on Facebook following the death of a politician.
Speaker Karu Janasuriya presents Lifetime Award to Nalaka Gunawardene at Nelum Yaya Blog Awards on 26 March 2016 – Photo by Pasan B Weerasinghe
Nalaka Gunawardene (extreme right) received Lifetime Achievement Award for Blogging and New Media Promotion in Sri Lanka from Karu Jayasuriya, Speaker of Parliament, in Colombo 26 March 2016. Nelum Yaya Blog Awards organiser Ajith Dharmakeerthi looks on. Photo by Manori Wijesekera
At the second Nelum Yaya Blogger Awards ceremony held at the Media Ministry Hall last afternoon, the organisers presented me with a Lifetime Achievement Award in New Media.
The award was presented by Karu Jayasuriya, Speaker of the Lankan Parliament and a champion of the right to information. As he presented the trophy, he told me that he is a regular reader of mine!
The citation (in Sinhala, trying to obtain exact text) said that it was to recognise and salute my long-standing efforts to promote blogging and social media use in Sri Lanka.
I didn’t get to say any words of acceptance, so this is what I would like to have said…
Yashoda Sammani Premaratne (left), Sri Lanka’s Blogger of the Year 2015, with Nalaka Gunawardene who received a Lifetime Award at Nelum Yaya Blog Awards ceremony held in Colombo on 26 March 2016. Photo by Manori Wijesekera
It’s always nice to be recognised by peers — and I do count myself as part Sri Lanka’s diverse and informal blogging community.
However, to use a cricketing metaphor, I am more like a cricket commentator than a star cricketer. I do know the craft but my most useful contributions have been as a cheerleader and populariser of blogging and social media in Sri Lanka.
My own blogging, started in early 2007, was entirely in English for the first few years until I started republishing my weekly Sinhala columns (Sivu Mansala Kolu Getaya) written for Ravaya newspaper from 2011. That made my blog bilingual, albeit a low intensity one: I don’t get the kind of visitors or comments like leading Lankan bloggers do. But I’m contented with that.
Where I have contributed more, I believe, is in documenting, trend-spotting and demystifying the Lankan blogosphere in Sinhala and English (sadly, I don’t have Tamil proficiency to do the same). Over the years I’ve addressed many and varied audiences – from university dons/students and govt officials to civil society groups and journalists – on the public interest potential of social media including (but not limited to) blogging.
Parallel to this, and sometimes in collaboration with my friend Chanuka Wattegama, I’ve been a chronicler and commentator on the social, cultural and political impacts of new media in Sri Lanka. A simple Google search would bring up many of my op-ed articles, book chapters and speeches on Sri Lanka’s emerging information society.
I’m encouraged and honoured by this award, but I have no intention of quitting. Using my blog as well as Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, I will continue to ask inconvenient questions, express unpopular opinions and kick-ass when I need to.
One day, I hope, I’ll finally be able to figure out the demarcation between playing and working in this realm. Does it matter?
Nalaka Gunawardene (left) with Ajith Dharmakeerthi, chief organiser of Nelum Yaya Blog Awards Sri Lanka
* * * * *
One other Lifetime Award was presented at yesterday’s event – to Rasika Suriyaarachchi, engineer turned blogger who has been a pioneering and popular personality in the Sinhala language blogosphere for many years.
Creative and perceptive young writer Yashoda Sammani Premaratne, who blogs as Bassi, was honoured as the Blogger of the Year 2015.
Over three dozen other category winners and commended bloggers were also saluted at the informal, privately organised blogging awards ceremony.
Rasika Suriyaarachchi (left) and Nalaka Gunawardene with their Lifetime Awards presented at Nelum Yaya Sri Lanka Blogging Awards ceremony in Colombo, 26 March 2016. Photo by Manori Wijesekera
Can newspapers survive the challenge from digital and online media?
Plenty of printer’s ink has been spent reflecting on this question. I once again addressed it when moderating a panel at the D R Wijewardene commemorative event held on 26 February 2016 at Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute, Colombo.
Wijewardene was Sri Lanka’s first Press Baron. About a century ago, he laid the foundation for his publishing house, Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, which still remains a dominant player.
Many like me, of a certain age and above, seem to have a nostalgic attachment to newspapers. One key question for the print industry: beyond tapping such sentimental appeal (which diminishes over time), can newspapers stay relevant and viable? How can they adapt and evolve to keep serving the public interest?
Perhaps the more pertinent question to ask is: where are the budding D R Wijewardenes of the 21st Century? What are their start-ups and how are their dreams unfolding? Are they trying to balance reasonable profits with public interest journalism?
I discuss these in my Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 13 March 2016).
Broadcasting uses the electro-magnetic spectrum, a public resource. It is also a finite resource: there is only so much of the spectrum available for broadcasting and other uses such as telecommunications, emergency communications and military uses. And because it is a scarce resource, it is valuable.
In a landmark 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that the airwaves or frequencies in the electro-magnetic spectrum are a public property. Thus, their use had to be controlled and regulated by a public authority in the interests of the public and to prevent the invasion of their rights. Since the broadcast media involves the use of the airwaves, this factor creates an inbuilt restriction on its use, as in the case of any other public property.
Sri Lanka’s broadcast sector, which was a state monopoly for decades, was finally opened up for private sector participation in 1992. However, this decision was not accompanied by any specific laws or regulations; it has been an ad hoc process ever since. There are no clear rules nor any independent enforcement or regulatory mechanism. The broadcast licensing process remains undefined, opaque and discretionary on the part of the minister and officials in charge of media.
There are no published guidelines or criteria. In their absence, there is no legal provision to support public service media or community media through licensing. Licence issuing practices so far do not indicate any such interest. The private sector participation in broadcasting has been open only to business confidantes of various ruling parties that have been in office since 1990.
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in issue of 28 February 2016), I discuss the plundering of the electromagnetic spectrum in Sri Lanka and the resulting chaos in the broadcast sector. I quote former Media Ministry secretary Dr Charitha Herath and Colombo University mass media academic Dr Pradeep Nishantha Weerasinghe whose masters degree thesis analysed the early years of broadcast sector ‘liberalization’ in Sri Lanka during the 1990s.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at D R Wijewardene memorial event on 26 February 2016 – Photo by Sam de Silva
This week, I was asked by Sri Lanka’s oldest newspaper publishing house — Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, or Lake House — to chair a panel discussion on ‘Survival and Evolution of Newspapers in the Digital Age’.
The event marked the 130th birth anniversary of Lake House founder and Sri Lanka’s first press baron, D R Wijewardene (1886 – 1950). It was held at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute in Colombo.
My panel comprised: communications scholar and former telecom regulator Prof Rohan Samarajiva; senior journalist Hana Ibrahim; Sri Lanka Press Institute’s CEO Kumar Lopez, and political scientist Sumith Chaaminda of Verite Research.
We had a lively discussion exploring the challenges faced by print publishers everywhere, and what solutions are relevant, viable and affordable for a majority of small scale publishers without deep pockets.
Here is an excerpt from my opening remarks (full text to be published soon as an op-ed article):
In the absence of independently audited circulation figures, we cannot be certain how well – or poorly – our newspapers are selling today. But indications are not promising. I have been involved in a state of the media study for the past year (due to be released in May 2016), and there is evidence that market survival is a big struggle for many smaller publishers.
More and more Lankan newspapers are being kept alive not to make any profit, but for influence peddling and political purposes. And in at least one case, the co-operatively owned Ravaya, reader donations were actively solicited recently to keep the paper alive.
Worldwide, print journalism’s established business models are crumbling, with decades-old publications closing down or going entirely online (The Independent newspaper in the UK is the latest to do the latter). Advertisers usually follow where the eyeballs are moving.
So what would D R Wijewardene do if he confronted today’s realities of gradually declining print advertising share and readers migrating to online media consumption? How might he respond by going back to his founding goals of political action and social change through the 3 Ps – the Press, Parliament and Platform – as important instruments of political action?
My guess is that he would invest in radio and/or television, with a strong digital integration. He might even find a viable income stream from digital and online publishing without locking up public interest content behind pay-walls.
We can only speculate, of course. Perhaps the more pertinent question to ask is: where are the budding D R Wijewardenes of the 21st Century? What are their start-ups and how are their dreams unfolding? Are they trying to balance reasonable profits with public interest journalism?
In my view, the biggest decider of success or failure – today, as it was a century ago – is not the medium, but the message. To put it more bluntly, it’s credibility, stupid!
Prof Rohan Samarajiva speaks at D R Wijewardene memorial event, 26 Feb 2016
Social media bashing is a popular sport among media critics and others in Sri Lanka. Sadly, some have no clear idea what social media is (and isn’t), thus conflating this category of web content with others like news websitea and gossip websites.
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in issue of 21 February 2016), I try to explain this basic categorization along with a brief history of the web and web 2.0. I also reiterate the basic user precautions for social media users where the motto us: user beware!
Open Minds! 