SRI LANKA
External Affairs Minister Hon. Prof. G.L. Peiris, MP, (second left) and Mass Media and Information Minister, Hon. Keheliya Rambuk- wella, MP, (third left) at the launch of the 2013 CHOGM host government website.
groups doing this in a highly militarized Kilinochchi without the knowledge of the government. Carrying out such attacks by armed thugs and not to get caught shows the involvement of the government,” he argued. Hon. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, MP, (DNA) stated that the influence of the media was vast. In addition to the state media, there were some media organizations owned by fractions of the government. The conduct of the state media could not be accepted,
but “the government was not taking any measures to correct them. No suspects involved in the attack on the ‘Siyatha’ had been arrested and a number of journalists had been abducted and some killed”. He added that “investigations had not been carried out successfully and journalists have been intimidated. Today, alternative media practices had collapsed due to threats, and it was only through websites that the alternative media had recently emerged, but the government was intent to cripple them”.
Mr Rambukwella stated
that the Press Council Law had been amended to revise the registration and renewal fees. The Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Mass Media expressed that justice should be attributed to users of the media. While the media had the freedom to express itself and reveal facts, on the other hand the affected parties had to be allowed o take action if the information was misleading or malicious. State television channels amounted to six but there were 18 private
channels. He added that excessive freedom was not going to benefit the country, and there had to be a degree of control over the negative aspects of society from the media
At the conclusion of the debate Chief Opposition Whip Hon. John Amaratunga (UNP) informed the House that they opposed this Bill, but did not ask for a division. Thereafter the regulations
were approved and the opposition disagreement was recorded.
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue Two | 155
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76