The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been made aware of a broadcast by the Sri Lanka Rupawahini Corporation in their regular program Attha Nattha, (Truth and Falsehood) on the evening of June 6 and repeated on the morning of June 7, called Saukya Sewayata Sambanda Wurthikayange Wagakeema Niwaradi Paridi Ituweda (Do those who are responsible for health care carry out their duties properly?). Within this program, the case of alleged medical negligence of Sitti Naseera was discussed at great length. We understand that the moderator of this panel was Pathamasiri Gunawardene and the participants were Mr. Piyasiri Wijenayake (a JVP Member of Parliament), Nimal Sirapala Silva, (Minister of Healthcare) Jayalath Jayawardene (a UNP Member of Parliament), Dr. Anuradda Padeniya, (Secretary of the GMOA) and Athula Kahadawa Liyanage (Director Health Care).
Through the panel’s discussion, Sitti Naseera’s allegations were made to appear false and the publicity generated was attributed to ill-intentioned NGOs who were exploiting the situation for monetary gain or for purposes of their own. The organisers of the panel did not make any attempt to bring the victim herself, or a representative on her behalf, into the discussion. Nor was any invitation extended to those NGOs who have publicly campaigned on this issue. Thus, the program appears to be no more than a propaganda campaign against the victim and those who dared to assist her. It did not report on the full facts of the case, nor give an impartial view to the public about what occurred.
The organisers of the panel should have been aware that Sitti Naseera has already provided an affidavit detailing all of the facts of this case; the contents of which have been published in many newspapers. Her version of the incident has also been video taped both in Sinhala and English where she explained the negligent amputation in detail. She and her husband have further given the details of the incident by way of statements to the police who have been conducting inquiries into this matter. The organisers of the panel would have been aware that a police inquiry is going on into the matter and that the GMOA has threatened strike action if the criminal inquiry is continued. Thus, the GMOA representative in this panel was an interested party belonging to an association who is actively working to discredit the story and to obstruct the criminal investigation in this case. Thus, the organisers of the panel, who one would presume are well informed about this well-publicised case, have failed to act impartially and provide an objective overview of the facts.
During this panel, opportunity was also given to a JVP MP to lash out against the NGOs, which is an official line that the JVP has been following in recent months. The panel ought to have been aware that this policy line would be restated by such a panelist. Therefore it was the responsibility of the organisers of the panel to also provide the opportunity to the relevant NGOs to state their view and reply to public criticism.
The exclusion of the victim, her representatives and the NGOs amounts to the use of public media for the deliberate intention of false propaganda. This, however, could be corrected by hosting another panel with the inclusion of the victim and those who have supported her. The same panelists, who were trying to discredit the story, could also be invited so that through proper debate, the actual situation regarding this case can be made known to the public.
We also raise the issue of public interest in this matter. It is the right of everyone in Sri Lanka not to be misinformed by the media. This particularly applies to the state media. The only way the media can fulfill this obligation is by allowing various parties involved in an incident, or a controversy, to be given a hearing so that people themselves will be able to form their own opinion on the matter. Thus, engaging in bias and one sided coverage of an event is entirely unprofessional and unethical on the part of the media. The state media should set an example of providing balanced coverage on all issues. If media coverage is presented on the basis of one sided views of persons who have taken a particular position in a controversy, then the coverage itself will be incorrect and will not serve national interest.
The panel’s subjectivity and the propaganda it provided through such a powerful media source is further worsened by its targeting of an individual citizen who is poor. Sitti Naseera has spent her entire life working hard to support her family. This incident has virtually ruined her life as it has highly affected her ability to work. In such a position she can do no more than raise awareness about her plight and the negligence that caused it. The least the media can do, in such circumstances, is provide her with the respect she deserves and allow for her voice to be heard. Yet the Sri Lanka Rupawahini has done the opposite. They have attacked this woman and virtually labeled her a liar. They have attacked those who have supported her and the cause that she is trying to fight. And, they have given neither her nor her supporters the same platform as others to voice their concerns regarding this case. Is it a function of the Sri Lanka Rupawahini to engage in such attacks on the poor? Is it a function of the JVP to do likewise given that they attacked this poor woman without even having the courtesy to meet with her?
Such courtesy, at the very least, should have been afforded to Sitti Naseera. Therefore, we request the authorities of Sri Lanka Rupawahini and the particular officers who are in charge of the program at the Attha Nattha, to provide the victim the opportunity to express her version of the events.
