Civilian Censor as a Trojan Horse

A 'Civil Censor' has been appointed for censorship of military news instead of a military censor, the government announced last week. To those boys and girls of the Kept Press who go into whoops of joy and dance for whatever new that the government announces, this would be cheerful news. This move to have a civilian censor could be an insidious move not only against independent reportage of the North-East Conflict but also reportage of the forthcoming provincial councils election campaigns. Although the military censorship was imposed for for prohibiting transfer of sensitive military information, the emergency regulations that come under the purview of the civilian censor is not clear. Nor are reasons given why suddenly a civilian censor has been brought in.

Whether censors can be 'civil' in mannerisms or while wielding the red pencil is doubtful because in Sri Lanka the experience has been that civilian censors often pass reports concerning military matters to the military boys in uniform in the back rooms for approval. Civilian censors are mere rubber stamps of the khaki clad boys. The only exception was the first censor appointed after the 1983 riots, the all powerful Mr. Douglas Liyanage, who was also Secretary to the Information Minister Mr. Anandatissa De Alwis. Mr. Liyanage a former civil servant was indeed an enlightened censor who got along fairly well with the media but he too was compelled to suppress certain information and cross swords with the media. Thus, the appointment of the genial Director of Information Mr. Ariya Rubasinghe, we sadly say, will make no difference in reportage of military matters, even if the the parameters of censorship hitherto enforced remained the same.

Mr. Rubasinghe has been presented with a broad canvass to wield the red pencil. Among the subjects that come under censorship is one which states: 'Any statement pertaining to the official conduct or the performance of the head or any member of any armed force or the police force'.

This blanket provision provides a legal cover to all members of the services and police for whatever misdemeanour, crime or stupidity that they commit.

This provision is the last in the list of subjects that media personnel are proscribed from reporting. This sting in the tail of the government gazette should awaken all citizens of this country and the media to the intentions of the armed services and the government. It will stiffle to a very great extent the reportage of the most vital issue this country is facing and provide a free run for service personnel.

We certainly appreciate the duties and responsibilities of service personnel and the sacrifices they make at the battle front. We do realise that there has to be self restraint, that journalists should impose upon themselves in reporting this conflict. But this blanket censorship of the conduct of service and police personnel has been unprecedented even in the worst of times.

What this amounts to is that even criticism of the conduct of a traffic policemen is forbiddenand journalists who criticise even the conduct of a trafic cop will be violating the Public Security Act! It could prevented us from commenting on the stupidity of service chiefs and their political commander collectively risking their lives in war torn areas for no logical purpose.

Besides we are told that the government is 'winning the war'. Does the government want to censor news about the victories of the services ?

The Civil Censor it appears is a a Trojan Horse that has been brought into strangle the media further.

The Opposition and all concerned should call for the total removal of censorship the objective of which is apparently not so much to protect the soldier at the front but the top brass being exposed from the stupidities they commit.

Judges and commissions

The observations made by former Supreme Court judge A. C. Alles about the 'unhealthy practice' of the appointment of superior court judges to Commissions of Inquiry, we hope will be taken cognizance of, even now, by the government.

Mr. Alles, President of the Retired Judges Association in his address at the Annual General Meeting of the association has said : 'It's embarrassing for an appellate court judge to hear writs in which a brother judge is cited as a respondent.'

The public is well aware that there had been such instances. Why the government packed with lawyers Ð as all governments have been Ð did not realise this predicament of superior court judges would be placed in at the commencement of the tenure of office of the present government when such commissions were appointed is hard to understand..

The appointment of such judges to commissions of inquiry ' The Island' understands' puts on severe strains on other judges because with judges away at commissions of inquiry, the backlog of cases builds up because supreme court judges cannot be substituted.

With four of the six years of the lifespan of the government having been expended, it is unlikely that additional commissions will be appointed. But we do hope that the legal fraternity will at least remember the observation of Mr. Alles in the future.