Beware the guardians!

Security personnel of the leaders of a nation such as the president, prime minister and cabinet ministers are usually the elite of the security forces and the police. They are expected to act with a high degree of responsibility. They have a tremendous responsibility cast on them – to protect the nation’s leaders and they cannot afford to be distracted by other duties.

In recent times, however, we are witnessing a tragi- comedy where the Presidential Security Division (PSD) is being accused of various crimes and this being followed by an open tug of war between Ministerial Security Division (MSD) and the PSD. We will not refer to any case in particular but point out that the PSD under President Chandrika Kumaratunga has been accused for sometime now of various illegal acts by the media and that there have been public demonstrations staged by the media against this organisation.

The latest development in this tragi-comedy is the internecine squabble going on between the PSD and the MSD about carrying of weapons at functions, which will be attended by President Kumaratunga. The MSD is reported to have rejected a directive issued by the PSD ordering them not to carry weapons when the president is in attendance.

Although there appears to be no confrontation between the PSD and the Prime Minister’s Security division (PMSD) the dispute commenced over the venue of cabinet meeting being shifted from President’s House to the old Senate building which is just a stone’s throw away. The PSD says the president’s security is involved but the MSD wants to take charge in providing security for cabinet meetings, which the PSD is resisting. The latest report is of two former cabinet ministers of the PA who crossed over to the UNP insisting that their bodyguards should carry weapons at functions attended by the president where armed PSD personnel will be present.

The Island yesterday reported that Defence Secretary Mr. Austin Fernando may preside over a meeting in a bid to settle the dispute.

In a previous editorial we pointed out that this issue reveals the immature state of politics in this country. Quite obviously the prime minister and the president will have to resolve this dispute together.

In recent years, because of the terrorist threat, there has been a proliferation of ‘security personnel’ from the president’s office downwards to MPs and even provincial ministers. These gentlemen in spotless white tunics and king-sized egos have misconceptions about their duties and functions and appear to be under the impression that they have to throw their weight about and harass the public. At public functions, where even a few minor politicians are in attendance, they at times, take over the venue and order the public about.

We are all aware that some powerful politicians have used their security personnel as their political goon squads and private armies. All of these security personnel should be firmly told that they are accountable for their actions and are bound by the normal laws of the land.

The lesser number of security personnel the better but it is time that they be brought under one authority such as the IGP and be given a training on the duties they are expected to perform.

Publish and be damned

Yesterday, we read in another newspaper of a visiting foreign journalist telling us Sri Lankan journalists of the need of ‘ peace correspondents’. Some of us who have been over three and a half decades in the profession had not heard of this new variety. Of course the journalistic profession has had new breeds of journalists appearing and many of them disappearing, but whatever the specialties involved are, the basic function of a journalist remains unchanged: Reporting the truth to the best of one’s ability. Thus, whether one is a war corespondent or a ‘peace correspondent’ the basic commitment is the same.

A major negative factor that comes into play in attempting to report the truth is the obsession with certain objectives, however morally laudable they may be, such as peace. Does commitment to peace justify reporting untruths or not reporting the truth?

The Island was recently faced with this conundrum and was accused of being warmongers because we opted to report the truth.

The issue was the abduction of children for conscription to the LTTE armed groups. Since the MoU had been signed, the guns gone silent and there were prospects of peace negotiations, adverse reports on the LTTE and criticising the MoU would wreck the peace process and that was what we were doing, some peace lobbyists told us.

We were of course not of the view that forcible conscription of children as soldiers of war would contribute to the peaceprocess. We wonder whether the children who were abducted and their parents also were of the view that silence for the sake of peace should be preferable over abduction of children ostensibly for war.

Whatever the new-fangled schools of journalism such as those of conflict resolution and ‘peace journalism’ may advocate, a journalist is not worth his salt if he cannot tell the truth as he perceives it to be.

Let politicians and generals decide between war and peace. A journalist’s duty is to present the facts to the readers.

It is dangerous to promote certain objectives with missionary zeal, however laudable they may be in journalism, when truth becomes the victim.

We still believe that the old school of journalism, ‘Publish and be Damned’ is far more preferable to the newfangled hypocritical schools that have emerged of late.

Your comments to the Editor