Note

on

SriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

September2007

ARTICLE19∙6‐8AmwellStreet∙LondonEC1R1UQ∙UnitedKingdomTel+442072789292∙Fax+442072787660∙info@article19.org∙http://www.article19.org

CentreforPolicyAlternatives∙24/2,28thLane,offFlowerRoad,Colombo7∙SriLankaTel+94112565304‐6∙Fax+94114714460∙info@cpalanka.org∙http://www.cpalanka.org

Introduction

On 22nd August 2007, the Sri LankanMinistry ofMassMedia and Information released aProposedNationalMediaPolicy (draft Policy)for consultation (seeAnnex 1). It isnotclearwhat,precisely, hasmotivated the idea ofa national media policy at this time. The draftPolicy notes that no media policy “to provide essential guidance for mediapractice” hasbeeninplacesinceindependencein1948,althoughbythesametokenitwouldappearthatsuchapolicy isnot,infact,essentialtoguidethemedia.Thereisnoformalmediapolicyinmostdemocracies,althoughthereisalsonoreasonwhysuchapolicy,ifdraftedconsistentlywiththerighttofreedomofexpression,shouldnotbeadopted.

ThedraftPolicy isextremelybrief– justone page in total.For themostpart it consistsofinstructionsto, or standardsfor,themediarather thanpolicy statementsassuch to guidegovernment action in this area.TheMission statement givesagood flavourof theoveralltenorofthepolicy,stating:

“Achievingexcellenceinthetotalpracticeofthemediabycreatingapeople‐centred, development oriented, free, and responsible media culture asrequiredbyawell‐informedanddemocraticsociety.”

‐1‐

Although theMissionreferstoa‘free’mediait failstomentionother key characteristicsofestablishedinternationalandconstitutionalstandardsregardingthemedia,inparticularthatthe media should be independent and pluralistic. Of greater concern are the numerousreferences to a directed role for the media which, according to the Mission statement,should be ‘excellent’, ‘people‐centred’, ‘development oriented’ and ‘responsible’, all inserviceofawell‐informedsociety.

The theme of amedia in service of various social goals is developed extensively in theObjectives. These refer to a media culture that ‘upholds national identity, unity andharmony’, that has ‘a clear understanding of its social responsibility’ and that is ‘sociallyresponsible [repeated] and ethical’. The Objectives call for the creation of an enablingenvironment,nottopromotemediafreedom,independenceandpluralismbutto ‘promoteprofessionalismamongmedia practitioners’. They also refer to an environment in keepingwith technologicaladvancesandbestmediapractices.In fact,mediafreedomismentionedonly once and even then as flowingfromamediathat is socially responsible rather thananythingincumbentupongovernment,suchaspassingandrespectinglawsthatconformtointernationalstandardsregardingfreedomofexpression.

While there is nothing wrong with a media policy referring to the idea of mediaresponsibility,wenotewithconcernthatthisisarefrainwhich, in themouthsofofficials,isalmostalwaysacallformediacontroltothedetrimentofafreeandindependentmedia.ThesubstanceofthedraftPolicyisveryunclearastohowmediaresponsibilitywillbepromoted.Wewishtobringattentiontothesignificantdifferencebetweenthemediaitselfundertakingmeasures to enhance its service to public goals and quiteanother for the governmentorofficialstodoso,particularlythroughlegislation.

Itmay be noted thata government media policy should focus primarily on official action.ManyofthestatementsinthedraftPolicyarelegitimateonly insofarastheyare leftto themediatoimplementonavoluntaryorself‐regulatorybasis.Thesemattershave,forthemostpart,noplaceinanofficialmediapolicy.Severalofthespecificresponsibilitiesmentioned–including upholding national identity, unity and harmony – are not, in democracies,recognisedasmediaroles,regardlessofhowtheyaresoughttobeimplemented.Rather,itistheresponsibilityofthemediatoserveasaforumforwide‐rangingpublicdebate,reflectingthefullgamutofviewsheldbydifferentmembersofsociety.

An equally serious and related problem is the almost complete failure of the Mission,ObjectivesorsubstanceofthedraftPolicy torecognisetheobligationofthegovernmenttotake measures to create an enabling environment in which a free, independent andpluralisticmediacanthrive.Thisobligationflowsfromconstitutional,aswellasinternational,guarantees of freedom of expression and entails a number of aspects. These includerefraining from interfering with media freedom, establishing a legal framework whichensures an appropriate balance between this freedom and competing interests such asreputationandsecurity,ensuringthatregulationofthemediaisindependentofgovernmentcontrolandpromotespluralismand puttingin place effective legislation to enablecitizens’right to information. The present legal and regulatory framework in Sri Lanka, aswell asgovernmentpractice, fails toconformtointernationaland constitutionalstandardsin alloftheseareas.Unsurprisingly,thereislittleornomentionofthisinthedraftPolicy.

In short, the whole thrust of the draft Policy, is that the media are under a set ofresponsibilities to society rather than the obligations of government to create a positiveenabling environment for themedia.Our primary recommendation to the government is

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 2 -

thatitdiscontinuesthedevelopmentofthisPolicyor,shoulditwishtocontinue,restarttheprocess from thebeginning through an openpublic consultation not basedon an alreadydevelopeddraft.

ThenextsectionanalysesthesubstantivepartofthedraftPolicy.ThisisfollowedbyashortoverviewofsomeofthepriorityissuesforthemediainSriLankawhichthedraftPolicyfailstoaddressandthebyasetofrecommendations.

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 3 -

AnalysisoftheSubstantivePartoftheDraftPolicy

Given that the fourteen substantive sectionsofthe draft Policy,asnoted, contain, for themostpart,standardsforthemediaratherthanpolicydirectionsassuch,itisverydifficulttodiscernwhatthegovernmentactuallyintendstodotobringabouttheresultsenumeratedinthe draft Policy.Thus, thesectionon the rightofreply stipulates that thosewhoconsiderthatareplyisneededshouldbegivenone,butitdoesnotindicatewhetherthegovernmentintendstopasslegislationtothiseffectortoleaveittothemediato implementavoluntaryright ofreply.Clearly, fromthe perspective ofmedia freedom, there is a great differencebetweenthesetwoapproaches.ItisthusdifficulttoassesstheappropriatenessorrelevanceofmanyofthestatementsinthedraftPolicy.

ThesubstantivepartofthedraftPolicy containsamixofstatementswhichrange fromtheveryprescriptive(“themediaareboundbyanobligation”,“mediashouldtotally refrain”)totheambiguous(“torespect…accuracy”,“tobringabout”)tothepromotional(“encourage”,“guide”).AsforewarnedintheMissionandObjectives,thesefocusalmostexclusivelyontheidea of directing the media – to bring about a well‐informed citizenry, to refrain frominvadingprivacy,tobeaccountabletosocietyandrelatedfoci–ratherthanontheobligationof the government to put inplaceapositive framework for respectingmedia freedom.Assuch and asnoted, the failureof the draft Policy to articulate this key objective severelyunderminesitssignificanceandraisesgraveconcernsontheunderstandingofandapproachtomediareformbythepresentgovernment.

1. MediaFreedomandRighttoAccessInformationThefirstsectionofthedraftPolicybringstogetheranumberofseparateideas.ThedraftPolicyreferstosafeguarding“therightofallcitizenstoexpresstheirviewsviaanyandallmedia”. This notion is misplaced. While the media as a whole will, in a healthydemocracy,reflecttherangeofviewsheld insociety,itisimpracticalandunworkabletoensure thatcitizens, as thedraft Policy suggests, havea right ofaccess to any and allmedia.

Further, the draft Policy refers to the right ofcitizens to “receive, provide and gatherinformation required fortheproperfunctioningofsociety”. Inmostdemocracies,thisisdeliveredin twokeyways.First,throughthecreationofanenvironmentinwhichafree,independent and pluralistic media can flourish, providing a range of views andperspectivestocitizens.Asnoted,thereisnothinginthedraftPolicy tosuggestthatthisiswhatthegovernmentintends.Second, thisisachievedthrough theadoptionofRightto information legislation (RTI), now universally recognised as central to democraticgovernance(within SouthAsia,India,NepalandPakistanhavealladoptedRTI lawsandthe Bangladeshi government is in the process of doing so). TheMedia Charter for ademocraticandpluralisticmediacultureandsocialandprofessionalrightsformediaandjournalismin Sri Lanka (Media Charter)1, adoptedby a September 2005conference ofleading journalist unions and organisations facilitated by the Centre for PolicyAlternativessupportsthisview,statingthat thelawmust“guaranteecitizen’saccesstoinformation andfreedomofinformationat all levelsofgovernment”(Section3.4).Anycommitment by the government of Sri Lanka to adopt such legislation would be verywelcome.However,giventhatitisnotclearlyenumeratedthisdoesnotappeartobetheintentionofthedraftPolicy.Whilethemediahaveaprofessionalresponsibilitytoinform

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 4 -

1AvailablefordownloadinEnglish,SinhalaandTamilfromhttp://www.cpalanka.org/media.html

thepublic,imposingalegalobligation todoso isunacceptableespecially sincethedraftPolicydoesnotmakeexplicithowitseesthisbeingachieved.

Third, thissection of thedraftPolicy states that the “mediawould not in anymannerharmtheSriLankanNational identity”and seekstopreventmediafromsubjectinganyperson or community to “contempt, insult, disgrace or hate”. The focus is on theresponsibility ofthemedia, rather than the ideaofbalancingmedia freedomwith theprotectionofothersocialinterests.Thequestionoflimitsonmediafreedomiscomplex.Thetermsusedhere–notharmingthenationalidentityorinsultinganypersonorgroup–areoverbroadandfailtopassmusterunderinternationalorconstitutionallawaslegalrestrictionson freedomofexpression.Itis,however,difficulttoassessthesestatementswithoutmoredetailasto howtheyare tobeachieved.Thereisnothingtopreventthemediafromadoptingethicalstandardsinthisareaand,onthis,theMediaCharterstates:

Responsibility for ethical conduct in journalism rests with mediaprofessionalswhoshouldbe responsiblefordrawingupcodesofethicalconduct andwho should establish credible and accountable systemsofself‐regulation.(Section2.4)

2. NationalandSocialResponsibilityThis section is cast more in termsof encouraging than requiring themedia to fostervarioussocialobjectives,includingtopromoteSriLanka’spluralisticidentityandtobringabout a well‐informed society. These are valid objectives for the media which arereflected intheMediaCharter(see,forexample,section 1.5).Onceagain,however, it isunclear what means the draft Policy intends should be used to achieve them. Inparticular, there is nomention of the two key meansof achieving these objectives indemocracies, namely, as noted above, by fostering an environment in which a free,independentandpluralisticmediacan flourishandby adoptingcomprehensiveRighttoinformationlegislation.

3. PrivacyThissectionstatesthattherighttoprivacy“shouldbescrupulouslyupheldbythemedia”.As a statement of policy, this is inconsistent with international and constitutionalstandardsonfreedomofexpression,aswellasthepracticeofdemocraticStates,bothofwhich recognise that privacy must be balanced against other social interests. Forexample,privacycannotbeheldupasabartoreportingoncorruption.Inotherwords,itislegitimatefor investigativejournaliststo intrudeonprivacywherethisisnecessary toexposecorruption.Inmanycountriesthisisreflectedinlegislationbyprotectingprivacy,butsubjectingsuchprotectiontoapublicinterestoverride.

4. RightofReplyThis section states that any person or organisation that “reasonably considers that areport[concerningthem]requirestobereplied”shouldbeprovidedwithanopportunitytomakeacorrectionorclarification inthemedia.Internationalstandardsontherightofreply recognisethe importanceofthismeansofredressinginaccuratemedia reporting.Atthesametime,itmustbesubjectedtocertainconstraintstoavoiditbeingabused.Inparticular, it should apply only where the media have published or broadcast aninaccurate statement which breaches a legal right of the claimant. The standard of“reasonably considersthata report requires” a reply isafar lower standard than this.Onceagain,asnoted,noindication isgivenasto theimportantmatterofhowthisistobeachieved. Inparticular,avoluntary systemoftherighttoreplyestablishedbymedia

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 5 -

outletsrequiresfarlessstringentscrutinyfromtheperspectiveoffreedomofexpressionthanamandatorysystem,providedforbylaw.

5. AccountabilityThis section suggeststhat themediaare accountable to society. This istrue in a verygeneralsense;theMediaCharterrecognisesasafundamentalprinciple:

That the creation of tolerant, peaceful and just society depends upon thefreedom of citizens to have access to quality media that respect theprinciples of pluralism, diversity and universal respect for human rights.(Section1.2)

Atthesametime,themodalitiesbywhich such accountability istobeachievedshouldalso be very general, for example throughmarket pressure and public respect, ratherthan anythingmore specific.Once again, the draft Policy issilent as to themanner ofimplementationofthisstatement.Any legalprovision thatseeks to coercively establishmediaaccountability to the general publicwill not passmuster in light of establishedinternational media freedom and Sri Lanka constitutional frameworks that would seesuchprovisionsasrestrictingthefreedomofexpression.

6. AdvertisingandPublicityThe draft Policy calls for high standards in advertising and all forms of publicity, inaccordancewithbestmediapracticesand relevantcodesofethics.Ifthismeans,asthelanguage suggests, that the media should adopt codes of ethics which call for highadvertisingstandards,itiswelcome.Ifitisacallforlegislativeintervention,moredetailisneeded to assess whether or not it is consistent with the guarantee of freedom ofexpression.

7. UseofLanguageThissectionsuggeststhatthemediashouldrespectestablishedconventionsoflanguageusageintheirreporting.Thisisnotsomethingthatshouldbethesubjectofgovernmentpolicy. It is up to the media to determine the best means of communicating theirmessages to the public. It is perfectly legitimate to achieve this by using slang,colloquialismsorotherinformallanguageformsthatdonotrespectestablishedlanguageusageconventions.

8. EditorialIndependenceThissection calls foreditorialindependenceto beguaranteed“toallmediapersonnel”.Editorialindependenceisnormallyassociatedwith therightofmediaoutlets,pursuantto internaldecisionsbyeditors,todeterminethecontentofthemedia, rather than,asthisphrasesuggests,somethingwhichrelatesto individualjournalists.Atthesametime,itisimportant thattherightsofindividualjournalistsberespectedbymediaoutlets, aswellasbyofficials,andthisisreflectedintheMediaCharter,whichcallsfortheadoptionof “internal editorial statutes and other provisions safeguarding the independence ofjournalists” (Section 2.6). Once again, the means by which this is to be achieved iscrucially important. Legal provisions protecting against interference by officials witheditorialdecisionswouldbewelcome.Ontheotherhand,themannerinwhicheditorialdecisionsaretakeninternally isamatterforjournalistsandeditors,ratherthanofficials,toestablish.

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 6 -

9. RightsofMediaPersonnelThissectioncallsfor‘action’tobetakentoguaranteetheprofessionalandemploymentrights of media personnel. TheMedia Charter recognises the right to media staff offreedomofassociation and to collectivebargaining(Section 1.3), rightswhich arealsorecognised under international and constitutional law. It also calls for mediarepresentativesandtheworkforcetoworktogethertopromote‘theeconomicandsocialdevelopment’ofthemedia,includingvariousemploymentissues.Onceagain, thedraftPolicy issilentastowhat ‘action’means.Ifthisreferstoputtinginplaceanappropriatelabour law framework in which the collaboration just noted can happen, it is to bewelcomed. If ‘action’, however, means official interference in the labour relations ofparticularmediaoutsideofthislegalframework,itisinappropriate.

10. Research,Training&DevelopmentThissectioncallsforresearchasameanstoensuringgoodqualitymediacontent,aswellas for providing adequate training opportunities for media personnel. It is up toindividual media outlets to determine their approach to reporting. While research,particularly intheformofinvestigative journalism, isalwaysuseful, itdependsonmanyfactors, including the resources available to media outlets. As a result, this is notsomethingwhich isappropriate for inclusion in an officialmedia policy. However, thecommitmentinthedraftPolicytoprovidingtrainingopportunitiesiswelcome.

11. InternationalRelationsThis section refers to the idea of maintaining dialogue with international mediaorganisations and mediapractitionersto enrich localmediapractices. Such dialogue iswelcome and necessary. However, its goals should not only be to enrich local mediapractices,butalsotoensureanenablinglegalandregulatoryenvironmentforthemedia.Onceagain,thedraftPolicyfocusesexclusivelyonthemediaand ignorestheobligationsoftheState.

12. CrimeandViolenceThis section calls on the media to “totally refrain from encouraging and or glorifyingcrimeandviolence.”Aswiththestatementsregardingnationalsecurity,hatespeechandprivacy,thisfailstoreflectthecarefulbalanceestablishedbyinternationalstandardsandconstitutional guarantees between varioussocial interests and freedomof expression.Internationallaw,forexample,recognisesthatitislegitimatetobanincitementtocrime,butnotsimplytheglorificationofcrime,sincethisisfarbroaderandcouldbeabusedtoprevent themedia fromdiscussingdifficult topics. For example, State authoritiesmayconsiderthatpresentingthedemandsofopposingpartiesinvolvedintheinternalconflictin Sri Lanka in a sympathetic light constitutes glorification of their (illegal) activities,whereas in fact, open discussion about the underlying interests and demands of allpartiestotheconflictisimportant.

13. Children’sRightThissectioncallsforguidancetobeprovidedto themediasoastopromotebestmediapracticesregardingchildren.Itisobviouslypositivetopromotebestpracticesinthisarea,depending on what form the ‘guidance’ takes and what are considered to be bestpractices.Aswithmanysectionsinthepolicy,atthesubstantivelevel,abalanceneedstobeachievedbetweenfreedomofexpressionandreportinginthepublicinterest,andtheneed to protect children. Furthermore, it is unclear why the draft Policy proposes toprovideofficialguidanceto themedia in thisareaand,in particular,why thismight beneededoutsideof legal restrictions, towhich the section doesnotappear to refer. In

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 7 -

termsofimplementation,guidancecouldtakemanyforms,someofwhichwouldnotbecompatiblewithmediafreedom.

14. GenderThissectioncallsformediapracticesthatensurefair treatment intheareaofgendertobe pursued. As with the previous section of the draft Policy, whether or not this isappropriatedependsonwhichmediapracticesarebeingpromotedandhow.

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 8 -

KeyPolicyDirectionsAbsentfromtheDraftPolicy

ThedraftPolicy,asnoted, focusesalmostexclusivelyonresponsibilitiesofthemediato theexclusionofStateresponsibilities. It isnot intended heretoengage inacomprehensiveordetaileddiscussionofwhatamediapolicy forSriLankashouldseektoachieve.Rather,onlysomeofthemostimportantmissingprioritiesareoutlined.

First, as noted above, a key part of the framework for ensuringawell‐informed citizenrycapableofengagingindemocraticdebateisRighttoinformationlegislation.ThedraftPolicyiscompletelysilentonthisimportantmatter.

Second,SriLankanlawcontainsmany restrictionsonthecontentofwhatmaybepublishedorbroadcastthatgobeyondwhatareacceptablelimitationsonfreedomofexpression.Areasof law which are particularly problematical are civil defamation law, the law regardingcontemptofcourt,secrecyandnationalsecurityrules,emergencyregulations,anti‐terrorismregulations and the law on parliamentary privilege. Instead of making a commitment toreview these problematical restrictions, the draft Policy calls for the media to respect anumberofvaguecontentlimitations.

Third, theSriLankan governmentcontinuestoexerciseextensivecontroloverStatemedia,contrary to clear international and constitutional standardswhich call for publicly ownedmediatobeprotectedagainstpoliticalinterference.

Fourth,broadcastregulationinSriLankanatpresentsignallyfailstoconformtointernationaland constitutional standards. In particular, there is no independent body to overseebroadcastregulation,which isinsteadconducteddirectlybythegovernment,insomecaseswith the involvement of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Authority, itself not independent ofgovernment.Thereareanumberofotherproblemswiththecurrentapproachtobroadcastregulationthatresultinitsfailuretopromotediversityandthepublicinterestinthissector2.These include the lack of clear rules on content and the absence of an appropriateframeworkforlicensingcommunitybroadcasters.

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 9 -

2Foradetailednoteontheestablishmentofsuchameansofregulation,readAnIndependentBroadcastingAuthoritybyDr.PaikiasothySaravanamuttu,http://www.ifj‐asia.org/page/misc/Sri_Lanka_‐_CPA.pdf

Recommendations

PrimaryRecommendationThe whole idea of introducing aMedia Policy should be reconsidered. If the governmentwishes to proceed with this, it should restart the process by holding wide‐rangingconsultationswithinterestedstakeholdersastothedirectionsuchapolicyshouldtake.

RecommendationsRegardingtheProposedDraftPolicyShould the government decide to proceed with developing the draft Policy, the followingrecommendationsarerelevant: ThedraftPolicyshouldmakeitveryclearhowthoseprovisionswhichrefertothecontent

ofthemedia–namelysections1(inpart),2,3,6,7,12,13and14–aretobeimplemented.Wherelegislation isproposed,thesubstanceoftheprovisionshouldberevisedtoensurean appropriate balance between freedom of expression/of the media and the socialinterest beingprotected, in linewith international and constitutional standards.Wherelegislation isnot beingproposed, the relevanceof including the provision in an officialmediapolicyshouldbereviewedand,inparticular,any roleoftheStateshouldbemadeexplicit.

Certain provisions– such as that part of section 1 suggesting that allmediashould beaccessibletoeveryone–aresimplyimpracticalandunworkableandshouldberemoved.

ThedraftPolicyshouldmakeexplicithowtheremainingprovisions–includingtherightofreply, accountability of the media, editorial independence, rights of media personnel,researchandinternationalrelations–aretobeimplemented.Wherethisisviainternalorself‐regulatory approaches, as we recommend in many cases, the relevance of theprovisioninanofficialmediapolicyshouldbereviewed.Wherethegovernmentismakingacommitmenttodosomething,aswithprovidingtrainingormaintainingadialoguewiththemedia,theprecisenatureoftheproposedcourseofactionshouldbeclarified.

RecommendationsonMatterstobeAddedtoanyMediaPolicy ThegovernmentshouldcommittoadoptingaprogressiveRighttoinformationlaw.

Acommitmentshouldbemadetoreviewallcurrentrestrictionsoncontent and amendthemasnecessarytobringthemintolinewithinternationalandconstitutionalstandardsofrespectforfreedomofexpression.

Legislation should be introduced to transform all Statemedia into independent publicservicemedia.

Legislationshould be introduced to establish an independentbroadcastregulator,alongwith clear rulesregarding licensingand regulation of contentwhich areconsistentwithinternationalandconstitutionalstandards.

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 10 -

AbouttheARTICLE19LawProgramme

The ARTICLE 19 Law Programme advocates for the development of progressive standards on freedom ofexpression and access to information at the international level, and their implementation in domestic legalsystems. The Law Programme has produced a number of standard‐setting publications which outlineinternationalandcomparativelawandbestpracticeinareassuchasdefamationlaw,accesstoinformationandbroadcast regulation.These publications are available on theARTICLE19website: http://www.article19.org/publications/law/standard‐setting.html.

OnthebasisofthesepublicationsandARTICLE19’soveralllegalexpertise,theLawProgramme'soperatestheMedia Law Analysis Unit which publishes around 50 legal analyses each year, commenting on legislativeproposals aswellasexisting laws thataffect the right to freedomofexpression.TheUnit wasestablishedin1998asameansofsupportingpositive legalreformeffortsworldwide,andourlegalanalysesfrequentlyleadto substantial improvements in proposed or existing domestic legislation. All of our analyses are availableonlineathttp://www.article19.org/publications/law/legal‐analyses.html.

Ifyouwould liketodiscussthisNotefurther, orifyouhaveamatteryouwouldliketobringtotheattentionoftheARTICLE19 Law Programme,you cancontact usat the address listed on the frontcover or bye‐mail tolaw@article19.org

AbouttheCentreforPolicyAlternatives

TheCentreforPolicyAlternatives(CPA)‐http://www.cpalanka.org‐wasformedinthefirmbeliefthatthereisan urgent need to strengthen institution‐ and capacity‐building for good governance and conflicttransformation in Sri Lanka and that non‐partisan civil society groups have an important and constructivecontributiontomaketothisprocess.

Theprimaryroleenvisagedfor theCentrein thefield ofpublicpolicyisapro‐activeandinterventionaryone,aimed at the dissemination and advocacy of policy alternatives for non‐violent conflict resolution anddemocratic governance.Accordingly, the workof theCentre involves amajor research component throughwhichthepolicyalternativesadvocatedareidentifiedanddeveloped.

TheobjectivesoftheCentreare:

• Tocontributetopublicaccountabilityingovernancethroughthestrengtheningoftheawarenessinsocietyofallaspectsofpublicpolicyandpolicyimplementation.

• Tomakeinputsinto thepublicpolicy‐makingand implementationprocessintheconstitutional,legislativeandadministrativespherestoensureresponsibleandgoodgovernance.

• To propose to the government and parliament and all other policy‐making bodies and institutions,constructivepolicyalternativesaimedatstrengtheningandsafeguardingdemocracy,pluralism,theRuleofLaw,humanrightsandsocialjustice.

• Tofocusattentiononthesocialandpoliticalconsequencesofdevelopment.• To contribute towards the conflict resolution process in Sri Lankaand the South Asian region, so as to

strengthen institution and capacity – building for democratic governance in multi‐ethnic and pluralistsocieties.

Ifyouwould liketodiscussthisNotefurther, orifyouhaveamatteryouwouldliketobringtotheattentionoftheCentrefor PolicyAlternatives,you cancontactus at theaddresslistedon thefront cover or bye‐mailtoinfo@cpalanka.org

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 11 -

Annex1

ArticleXIXandCentreforPolicyAlternatives NoteonSriLanka’sProposedNationalMediaPolicy

- 12 -