Media exposés that irk our

government greater leverage in media manipulation.

While this Macbethian broth is being fired up readers were regaled last Sunday with the futile efforts of Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrema trying to wriggle out of an awkward situation as he hurriedly sought to lock the stable after the horse had cantered away.

This is not the first time that the aforesaid Minister Samarawickrema has tried to deny news reports in the Sunday Times as this newspaper made clear last week. His efforts at denial are neatly complemented by a colleague with a name somewhat similar to his- Mangala Samaraweera- reminding one of Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum.

While Samarawickrema is in denial mode Samaraweera is pursuing a creative career perhaps picking up from his early days when he learnt to be a fashion designer.

Last week Samaraweera told the media that some 200 LTTE cadres had secretly left Sri Lanka during the final stages of the war with a help of a defence ministry official. He did not say when he came to learn of it or when the government knew of it. But Samaraweera does have a habit of dropping explosive stories in the lap of the media.

Readers will recall that immediately after the presidential election the same Mangala Samaraweera exploded an incendiary device accusing the defeated president and some acolytes of plotting a coupsomething to do with attempts to annul the election result and remain in power. Some 20 months later nary a word is said about it. It seems to have been interred with other promises such as an unfettered media.

Some say such tales from beyond the Bentara Ganga should be taken with a pinch of salt. One would have thought that a bottle of Epsom salt is more appropriate. Anyway it might be unethical to advertise brand names.

Samarawickrema’s denials are no better. Having failed to raise the flag with his criticism of the Sunday Times he turned to the parliamentary floor where he felt safest and had a bigger audience including the media.

But those who read this newspaper last Sunday would have found that its diplomatic correspondent had done a commendable demolition job that the minister is unlikely to forget for a long time.

Still some comments seem appropriate. Samarawickrema said that the “mere intention” was to “unjustifiably” make a comparison with some of the sordid deals made during the Rajapaksa with US lobbying firms. I cannot be certain what the minister means by “mere intention” but if he had the faintest idea of news reporting he would know that the most important and news worthy parts are in the opening paragraphs.

It is best that he re-reads that opening paragraph which says he has retained a lobbying form “to educate officials on a non-existent peace process, increase economic ties and market access.”

If anybody is doling out misleading information it is the minister. In quoting those words from the news story the minister deliberately omits the words after process and attaches the words “part of the deal”. Who is providing “incorrect and misleading information” minister?

In the months following the election victories last year the world was told that peace has returned to Sri Lanka. If that is so there is no need for a peace process. And where is this “process” to be found and who is spearheading it?

Admittedly steps need to be taken to achieve reconciliation which could take a generation or two to solidify. But if there is a peace process in motion it must be proceeding in utmost secrecy with a foreign lobbying firm one of the few privy to it.

Minister Samarawickrema states that the contract had been entered into in the “fullest transparency manner”. If what the minister is struggling to say is what I think he means then that agreement is no secret. So how was it done in the “fullest transparency manner”?

Why that is simple. The Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington evaluated it, the Economic Management sub Committee approved it, the cabinet said okay and even the Attorney-General weighed in obviously only with legal advice and nothing more.

Therefore it was done with the fullest transparency. So that is what transparency means. Now did the public know about it? Did parliament where representatives of the people sit, know about it? Did that loquacious cabinet spokesman who briefs the media after cabinet meetings announce it? After all by the minister’s own admission the cabinet approved it on June 14th?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. Where then is the transparency unless transparency means something different to the minister. I thought that the openness and transparency that the advocates of yahapalanaya professed to pursue meant that the actions and decisions of government would be made known to the public by the various means of mass communication.

But the culture of secrecy prevalent in corporate activities and dealings seem to have been transposed to the affairs of state. Consider for instance the remark made by the chairman of SriLankan Airlines Ajith Dias that discussions/disputes between the management and its employees are an internal matter. Perhaps he has forgotten that he is head of the state-owned enterprise.

Some of the functions allocated to this lobbying firm are matters that should be handled by our Washington embassy. Expanding the Sri Lanka caucus and building a “friends of Sri Lanka” caucus is what embassy officials should be doing. The UK has these. But I doubt they came into existence with the assistance of lobbying firms.

Another function of the lobbyists is “promptly notifying of any Congressional or Administrative action of importance to Sri Lanka.” For heaven sake this is what every diplomatic mission should be doing. It is part of the job just as writing regular political and economic reports are traditional functions.

The normal practice is that when other ministries or departments wish to obtain the assistance of a diplomatic mission such requests are channelled through the Foreign Ministry. Even such simple things as arranging meetings for visiting delegations should go through the foreign ministry. But this does not appear to have been done in this instance. Whether our Washington embassy informed the foreign ministry about the evaluating request from Samarawickrema’s ministry is also not disclosed.

All that is said is that the foreign ministry was aware of the agreement. How? Because, according to the minister, the “decision approving the recommendation of the Cabinet Memorandum had been sent to relevant Secretaries.”

So it is only the decision that had been sent to the foreign ministry, a post facto act. If this is not bypassing settled conventions what is!

If the Sunday Times had not made this deal public-as it did other lobby deals during the Rajapaksa days- would the Sri Lankan people have ever known of it? When history comes to be written perhaps! Maybe further excavation might reveal hitherto unknown connections. Who knows!