With media freedom and media ethics being a much-discussed topic over the past few days, The Morning spoke to Co-Cabinet Spokesman and Minister of Mass Media Keheliya Rambukwella about these issues, the general media landscape in Sri Lanka, and the changes that he plans to bring about as the Subject Minister.
The following are excerpts of the interview:
[caption id="attachment_125193" align="alignright" width="304"]
"We are also very conscious of what they telecast or broadcast or publish in the case of print media. We at least expect them to be close to the truth. You cannot fool the nation all the time. If we see that happening, I think we should be able to, as the Media Ministry, meet those media outlets and have a serious discussion" Co-Cabinet Spokesman and Minister of Mass Media Keheliya Rambukwella[/caption]
What is the current state of media regulations in Sri Lanka?
The existing regulations are now antiquated as they were introduced in the 1970s. The entire landscape of media has changed and it keeps on changing rapidly. So you cannot be working with obsolete regulations and systems. We feel that it is now time for a change. Perhaps it is already too late. Nevertheless, we thought we should take it up now and give full consideration and not leave out anything. We want to look forward to the next 10 years. The media landscape is rapidly moving forward and we want an inclusive discussion. I have invited all stakeholders and interested parties to bring their views and we will discuss. That’s where it is at the moment. We are also trying to give a time frame for this. Perhaps before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year we can have a decision that has the maximum possible consensus to move forward.
What are your main focus areas as Mass Media Minister?
I have two responsibilities as Mass Media Minister. One is to protect media freedom and freedom of speech and give the media a hearing. Media freedom, in a broad sense, involves around 7,000 people engaged in this field nationally. At the same time, there are 21.9 million people whom I still have the responsibility of safeguarding and I have to give them a hearing as well. It’s a two-pronged responsibility, which is a tough job to do. But I think I should be able to handle it because I’m considering a cross-section of views and making it very inclusive.
There are plans to amend the Press Council Act. What are the specific amendments that you have in mind?
Yes, it’s going to be amended, but I cannot tell you the specific changes. But there are going to be changes; I would say sweeping changes. But they will be for the benefit of the media personnel as well as the general public. It will be aimed at balancing the interests of both parties. It’s not an easy balance to strike, but I’m still confident that I can achieve it.
Is the Government treating all media equally or is it targeting and punishing media institutions that are not seen to be supporting the Government?
We have not picked on any individual media institutions or carried out a witch-hunt. At the same time, we are also very conscious of what they telecast or broadcast or publish in the case of print media. We at least expect them to be close to the truth. You cannot fool the nation all the time. If we see that happening, I think we should be able to, as the Media Ministry, meet those media outlets and have a serious discussion.
You have been the Media Minister for a long time. What are your achievements so far?
Well, I played a balanced role even during the war. We set up an institution called the Centre for National Security. In fact, I named it myself and I launched it at the beginning. It’s a total initiative. We were able to tell the truth to the rest of the world. LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) propaganda was very aggressive and they had a network in all 194 countries. They were very powerful, so to break that was a tough job but we did it somehow.
This time it’s nothing compared to what it was those days, but here also we have a challenge. You have the government policy on one hand and then you have certain opposition to it, which is to be expressed. I have no problem with that. But I do not expect the manipulation of stories or events. “We report, you decide” is not the case. It’s the responsibility of every media institution to report the truth and be balanced. If that’s not there, it’s a concern.
What is your vision for the media in Sri Lanka?
You shouldn’t have limitations but you shouldn’t let anybody run riot either. For example, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) talks about credible evidence after taking evidence from the same old thieves. Whatever they come out with must have credible evidence. Then we will also support it, whether it is pro-Government or anti-Government. It doesn’t matter as long as they have evidence.
There has been a lot of discussion about media ethics lately, following the media’s coverage of the dead body found stuffed inside a suitcase. Do you think the media covered that issue with sensitivity?
Certainly not. If you look at international media, certain incidents of this nature don’t get that kind of publicity. Media enthusiasm is okay, but if you are using the word “ethics”, you also have to follow the real meaning of ethics. If you are just going to claim you are ethical and show something like that, saying “you report, we decide”, that is not going to help. If you talk about ethics and ethical media, then these things have to be revisited and discussed at the highest forums in the media field itself, not outside. For example, in the Easter Sunday PCOI report, there are 22 volumes that relate to national security and those cannot be made public until investigations are conducted. If somebody is going to cry and shout and say that we have hidden 22 volumes and we are not giving it to the public, I don’t think that is democracy. You have to have your national security at its highest level. You cannot compromise your national security.
Does Sri Lankan media need a Code of Ethics?
We have been talking about a Code of Ethics, but it has never seriously been put into practice. If you cannot get people to reach a consensus, then you need to bring certain regulations and be bound by those. First you have to let the media function freely within those ethics. If they are not following those ethics, then we have to consider the interests of the general public and bring in certain conditions. It does not mean that we are controlling them. Party politics being criticised is fine, but I saw a lot of uncivilised jokes being made out of the incident you mentioned before. That should not be encouraged.
Is there any ongoing attempt to bring about such a Code of Ethics in the future?
If the necessity arises, we should all get together and talk about it.
Do you think the media could conduct themselves better when it comes to ethnic and religious issues?
Religious affairs are discussed widely today. Even countries like Australia, which are said to have five-star democracy, decided to not allow the practice of Sharia law. When you say “one law, one country”, we believe that everybody has to accept it. Religion is something completely private. As long as you keep it private and personal, we don’t see any issues.
20 years ago, we never had niqabs and burqas. Ladies would nicely cover their faces with a saree if needed. Today, we don’t know the people behind these covered clothes. This can be misused. France officially banned burqas. This trend happened within 15-20 years. We had good harmony and a close relationship, but this kind of behaviour started within the last two decades and led to a complete misunderstanding and disharmony. Anything that leads the country towards more violence must be stopped by bringing in laws. That’s what I believe.
What is your view on censorship?
We don’t believe in censorship.
What steps are you taking to protect press freedom?
As long as the press behaves the way they should, and ethically, there will be press freedom.
Is the Government planning to stifle the media which is not supporting it?
There is no monitoring and no control of the media by the Government and no pressure exerted to support the Government. There is space for opposition, but only as long as they are factual. They cannot be playing with any political party for the fancies of an owner of a media station. What media freedom are we talking about? Everything depends on the owner of the media house and his or her view, and that is the view expressed by everybody at that media institution. We don’t mind that as long as it doesn’t exceed the levels and stays within the parameters. But if they cross the parameters, we need to get involved.
Sri Lanka Broadcast Corporation (SLBC) Chairman Jagath Wickramasinghe was asked to resign. What was the reason?
He resigned, I think. I had a chat with them. I suppose they have taken the hint and resigned. That’s what I heard.
What was the reason?
A few things. When institutions don’t run right, you need to give it another try with another set of people. These are government institutions and it is my responsibility as a Minister. If I find someone who can run it better, I must have the liberty to make those changes. I have told the President and he has given me the complete okay to take those decisions.
Are Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and Independent Television Network (ITN) in financially bad positions? Do you have any plans to make them profitable again?
Yes, it’s due to the complete mismanagement over the past few years of the Yahapalana Government. I managed ITN from 2010 to 2014. I had a Rs. 2.5 billion fixed deposit and a net profit of Rs. 782 million in the final year. This is the only state institution that paid dividends to the Treasury. We paid Rs. 100,000 to every single person (694 people) on a flat basis as an ex gratia payment.
Rupavahini did not have that kind of income, but we never had financial issues as such. For all these institutions I’m now taking nearly Rs. 200 million from the Treasury to pay salaries. I have told the President to give me two years to bring them back to profitability.
"We are also very conscious of what they telecast or broadcast or publish in the case of print media. We at least expect them to be close to the truth. You cannot fool the nation all the time. If we see that happening, I think we should be able to, as the Media Ministry, meet those media outlets and have a serious discussion" Co-Cabinet Spokesman and Minister of Mass Media Keheliya Rambukwella[/caption]
What is the current state of media regulations in Sri Lanka?
The existing regulations are now antiquated as they were introduced in the 1970s. The entire landscape of media has changed and it keeps on changing rapidly. So you cannot be working with obsolete regulations and systems. We feel that it is now time for a change. Perhaps it is already too late. Nevertheless, we thought we should take it up now and give full consideration and not leave out anything. We want to look forward to the next 10 years. The media landscape is rapidly moving forward and we want an inclusive discussion. I have invited all stakeholders and interested parties to bring their views and we will discuss. That’s where it is at the moment. We are also trying to give a time frame for this. Perhaps before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year we can have a decision that has the maximum possible consensus to move forward.
What are your main focus areas as Mass Media Minister?
I have two responsibilities as Mass Media Minister. One is to protect media freedom and freedom of speech and give the media a hearing. Media freedom, in a broad sense, involves around 7,000 people engaged in this field nationally. At the same time, there are 21.9 million people whom I still have the responsibility of safeguarding and I have to give them a hearing as well. It’s a two-pronged responsibility, which is a tough job to do. But I think I should be able to handle it because I’m considering a cross-section of views and making it very inclusive.
There are plans to amend the Press Council Act. What are the specific amendments that you have in mind?
Yes, it’s going to be amended, but I cannot tell you the specific changes. But there are going to be changes; I would say sweeping changes. But they will be for the benefit of the media personnel as well as the general public. It will be aimed at balancing the interests of both parties. It’s not an easy balance to strike, but I’m still confident that I can achieve it.
Is the Government treating all media equally or is it targeting and punishing media institutions that are not seen to be supporting the Government?
We have not picked on any individual media institutions or carried out a witch-hunt. At the same time, we are also very conscious of what they telecast or broadcast or publish in the case of print media. We at least expect them to be close to the truth. You cannot fool the nation all the time. If we see that happening, I think we should be able to, as the Media Ministry, meet those media outlets and have a serious discussion.
You have been the Media Minister for a long time. What are your achievements so far?
Well, I played a balanced role even during the war. We set up an institution called the Centre for National Security. In fact, I named it myself and I launched it at the beginning. It’s a total initiative. We were able to tell the truth to the rest of the world. LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) propaganda was very aggressive and they had a network in all 194 countries. They were very powerful, so to break that was a tough job but we did it somehow.
This time it’s nothing compared to what it was those days, but here also we have a challenge. You have the government policy on one hand and then you have certain opposition to it, which is to be expressed. I have no problem with that. But I do not expect the manipulation of stories or events. “We report, you decide” is not the case. It’s the responsibility of every media institution to report the truth and be balanced. If that’s not there, it’s a concern.
What is your vision for the media in Sri Lanka?
You shouldn’t have limitations but you shouldn’t let anybody run riot either. For example, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) talks about credible evidence after taking evidence from the same old thieves. Whatever they come out with must have credible evidence. Then we will also support it, whether it is pro-Government or anti-Government. It doesn’t matter as long as they have evidence.
There has been a lot of discussion about media ethics lately, following the media’s coverage of the dead body found stuffed inside a suitcase. Do you think the media covered that issue with sensitivity?
Certainly not. If you look at international media, certain incidents of this nature don’t get that kind of publicity. Media enthusiasm is okay, but if you are using the word “ethics”, you also have to follow the real meaning of ethics. If you are just going to claim you are ethical and show something like that, saying “you report, we decide”, that is not going to help. If you talk about ethics and ethical media, then these things have to be revisited and discussed at the highest forums in the media field itself, not outside. For example, in the Easter Sunday PCOI report, there are 22 volumes that relate to national security and those cannot be made public until investigations are conducted. If somebody is going to cry and shout and say that we have hidden 22 volumes and we are not giving it to the public, I don’t think that is democracy. You have to have your national security at its highest level. You cannot compromise your national security.
Does Sri Lankan media need a Code of Ethics?
We have been talking about a Code of Ethics, but it has never seriously been put into practice. If you cannot get people to reach a consensus, then you need to bring certain regulations and be bound by those. First you have to let the media function freely within those ethics. If they are not following those ethics, then we have to consider the interests of the general public and bring in certain conditions. It does not mean that we are controlling them. Party politics being criticised is fine, but I saw a lot of uncivilised jokes being made out of the incident you mentioned before. That should not be encouraged.
Is there any ongoing attempt to bring about such a Code of Ethics in the future?
If the necessity arises, we should all get together and talk about it.
Do you think the media could conduct themselves better when it comes to ethnic and religious issues?
Religious affairs are discussed widely today. Even countries like Australia, which are said to have five-star democracy, decided to not allow the practice of Sharia law. When you say “one law, one country”, we believe that everybody has to accept it. Religion is something completely private. As long as you keep it private and personal, we don’t see any issues.
20 years ago, we never had niqabs and burqas. Ladies would nicely cover their faces with a saree if needed. Today, we don’t know the people behind these covered clothes. This can be misused. France officially banned burqas. This trend happened within 15-20 years. We had good harmony and a close relationship, but this kind of behaviour started within the last two decades and led to a complete misunderstanding and disharmony. Anything that leads the country towards more violence must be stopped by bringing in laws. That’s what I believe.
What is your view on censorship?
We don’t believe in censorship.
What steps are you taking to protect press freedom?
As long as the press behaves the way they should, and ethically, there will be press freedom.
Is the Government planning to stifle the media which is not supporting it?
There is no monitoring and no control of the media by the Government and no pressure exerted to support the Government. There is space for opposition, but only as long as they are factual. They cannot be playing with any political party for the fancies of an owner of a media station. What media freedom are we talking about? Everything depends on the owner of the media house and his or her view, and that is the view expressed by everybody at that media institution. We don’t mind that as long as it doesn’t exceed the levels and stays within the parameters. But if they cross the parameters, we need to get involved.
Sri Lanka Broadcast Corporation (SLBC) Chairman Jagath Wickramasinghe was asked to resign. What was the reason?
He resigned, I think. I had a chat with them. I suppose they have taken the hint and resigned. That’s what I heard.
What was the reason?
A few things. When institutions don’t run right, you need to give it another try with another set of people. These are government institutions and it is my responsibility as a Minister. If I find someone who can run it better, I must have the liberty to make those changes. I have told the President and he has given me the complete okay to take those decisions.
Are Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and Independent Television Network (ITN) in financially bad positions? Do you have any plans to make them profitable again?
Yes, it’s due to the complete mismanagement over the past few years of the Yahapalana Government. I managed ITN from 2010 to 2014. I had a Rs. 2.5 billion fixed deposit and a net profit of Rs. 782 million in the final year. This is the only state institution that paid dividends to the Treasury. We paid Rs. 100,000 to every single person (694 people) on a flat basis as an ex gratia payment.
Rupavahini did not have that kind of income, but we never had financial issues as such. For all these institutions I’m now taking nearly Rs. 200 million from the Treasury to pay salaries. I have told the President to give me two years to bring them back to profitability.