Early this morning (January 6, 2009), a group of armed men forcibly entered, attacked and caused serious damage to the MBC-MTV Transmission Station at Pannipitiya. This TV station is popularly known as Sirasa TV and transmits its programmes across the country. In the attack, which took place at around 2a.m., the intruders set the main control room on fire and then vandalized the entire complex. According to a report published in LankaDissent,
The heavily armed group of men who had come with their faces masked, had fired into the complex, assaulted the staff they came upon, while smashing up everything in their way.
Some employees had been badly assaulted while another had been dragged with a pistol held to the head to find where the MCR is, say insiders.
Subsequently a grenade was also found in the premises. The fire brigade engaged in trying to put out the blaze and the transmissions of the station have been temporarily suspended.
A few days earlier, firebombs were thrown at the station. Sirasa TV station is known to be independent and critical of the government.
Although the government has promised inquiries and the president himself has spoken about the matter, it is most unlikely that any successful inquiry resulting in the apprehension of the culprits will be made. It is a common feature for the government to make statements and promises of enquiries immediately after attacks which are shocking and then gradually to let the matter die quietly. None of the major attacks on journalists, on premises belonging to press organisations which have happened frequently, have been successfully investigated in recent years.
Attacks on the freedom of expression are very much an integral part of the policy and tactics of the present regime. The list of attacks on individual journalists and even assassinations is a long one. Death threats, threatening telephone calls and many other forms of harassment are part of the daily diet of the journalists who are opposed to the government.
The policy of attacking journalists and the premises of TV and print operations is aimed at imposing censorship on discussions relating to matters of public interest. The sole aim of such censorship is to allow only the governments point of view to be aired through the media. This is aimed at controlling the whole population by a single voice which is the voice of the government. The purpose of single voice propaganda is to be able to manipulate the minds of the electorate and also to be able to manipulate the electoral process itself. It is now an established practice within Sri Lanka to come to power through manipulation of the electoral process and to remain in power by the suppression of the expressions of public opinion.
While the present regime has used this form of attack on the freedom of expression more cruelly and extensively than any former regime, all political regimes since the adoption of the 1978 Constitution have tried to impose extraordinary restrictions on the media.
It has been pointed out that the executive presidency created under the 1978 Constitution is a one-man show. To that extent it is also an extremely inefficient and chaotic form of governance as has been pointed out by many. This form of governance also allows for the spread of corruption at all levels and corruption in recent years has exceeded all limits.
All these developments make the government intolerant towards freedom of expression and public debate. The attempt to rule the country without public debate has generated enormous frustration among all groups in society who find that they have no way to air their grievances or hear the responses of their compatriots on the issues affecting everyone. The brutal suppression of public expression remains one of the causes of violence in Sri Lanka.
What makes the situation worse is that there is no effective mode of redress against such attacks. The countrys policing system is so completely controlled and politicised that investigations into such attacks are virtually impossible. In fact, the public has lost the expectation that criminal investigations will be conducted into matters in which the government has a direct or indirect hand. Even in normal crime issues, the investigating capacity of the police, who are the legitimate investigators under the Criminal Procedure Code of Sri Lanka, is no longer trusted.
Thus, there is no functioning protection mechanism with any credibility in existence regarding violence and human rights abuse in the country.
Of course there are all sorts of bogus titles such as the Ministry of Human Rights with its minister and secretary and the commission of human rights. Despite of such titles the holders of these posts are part of the present regime and therefore they support the policies of the suppression of public debate and attacks on freedom of expression. No one expects that any of the holders of these positions would care to resign in protest against such attacks on the media.
Attacks on the media are not attacks on particular journalists or particular media institutions; they are an attack on the entire population and, in fact, on mankind. We might perhaps recall the words of John Stuart Mill in his book, On Liberty:
…..and speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended, that the government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It is quite legitimate for a people to demand the government to quit when it fails to protect the freedom of expression and obstructs the public debate on matters of public interest.
