‘Sunday Times’ fails to tell the truth to its readers“The delegation members had two meetings with the High Commissioner and the other senior officials prior to their departure. Both meetings were very friendly and useful. We found the High Commissioner very accommodative and she did not refuse any of our requests for engagements. I wish to state the President, FM or even the High Commissioner did not influence us in any way to take a particular line of thought during our visit.”
_________________________________
by R. Jayadevan
(March 16, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) ‘Sunday Times’ (Sri Lanka) published news under ‘odds and ends’ titled ‘Asking for it’ on its March 9, 2008 edition, giving false and misleading story about a visit undertaken by a nine member delegation recently to Sri Lanka. The write up was a cocktail of personal vendetta against the Sri Lanka High Commissioner in the UK and negative and creative news reporting about the visit by the delegation. The news also had given false quotations of President’s conversations.
As the leader of the delegation, I wrote to the ‘Sunday Times’ on March 10, 2008 expecting my letter would be published to correct the frivolous, mischievous and nonsensical story printed without verifying the facts with me or any of the delegation members. My letter failed to find its way in its March 16, 2008 issue for reasons best known to the ‘Sunday Times’.
This confirms how media can play its role negatively to disseminate falsehood and concoctions. Friendly web media’s have agreed to publish my letter that ‘Sunday Times’ failed to publish. This confirm to the extent media like ‘Sunday Times’ can go on the rampage to prop up its prejudices against individuals. This attitude of the media undermines its basic role to be ‘free, fair and objective’ in reporting news.
Letter to the Sunday Times Editor dated 10 March 2008
Dear Sir
I wish to clarify a misleading news item in the column ‘odds and ends’ column in your March 9,2008 publication relating the Diaspora delegation visit to Sri Lanka. I was responsible for assembling together the Diaspora team, following a telephone conversation with the President. During the telephone conversation, the President requested me to travel to Colombo to meet him. I suggested to him that I would rather come with a group of ‘like minded people’ as it could prove more useful. My spontaneous suggestion received a spontaneous response from the President. He said he will be very happy to meet a group and asked me to identify a group of activists, and to contact the High Commissioner in London to make arrangements for the visit.
The suggestion of your article that the diaspora trip to Sri Lanka originated from the office of the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London is inaccurate and misleading. The High Commissioner was merely following instructions of the President, of a process that originated from a conversation between the President and myself, the roots of which are based on the governments decision to pursue the proposals of the 13th amendment, which we support as a first step towards addressing the issues of the Tamils.
The delegation members had two meetings with the High Commissioner and the other senior officials prior to their departure. Both meetings were very friendly and useful. We found the High Commissioner very accommodative and she did not refuse any of our requests for engagements. I wish to state the President, FM or even the High Commissioner did not influence us in any way to take a particular line of thought during our visit. The Diaspora's delegation had few meeting of their own and reached a consensus on the direction it will take up on issues during their visit. The British Foreign Office was kept informed of the initiative and took interest in our findings.
You have further stated ‘one of the participants had given evidence against the State at the Karuna trial in London’. Such, vague statement without pinpointing the person concerned is unfortunate. Being in the forefront of Tamil activities in the UK, let me assure you that none of the members had given evidence at Karuna’s trial. You can verify my assertion by obtaining copies of the verbatim of the hearing from the Court.
You have also taken comfort over the ‘intervention made by Douglas’ asserting there was ‘territorial dispute’ with the lot. One member of our team is a TMVP member and we did not hide this fact. On his part, he did not have any ‘territorial dispute’ and made a visit to the East on his own, while all the other members of the delegation were denied the visit over a misunderstanding which has since been resolved.
I regret that your news item failed to reveal the positives of our visit and the dire need for confidence building amongst the diaspora communities during an extremely challenging time, especially for Tamils. Instead, your reporting has reflected petty prejudicial thoughts against individuals. It seem clear that your informant also has some personal agenda against the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London as your entire piece seems to have been written to discredit her, inaccurately claiming that it was an initiative by her, which went pear shaped.
Regretfully, you also failed to approach us to clarify matters to publish an objective and balanced view.
Yours faithfully
R Jayadevan
c.c. HE President, Hon Foreign Minister, The Sri Lanka High Commissioner
Sunday Times news datelined March9, 2008
Odds and Ends
Asking for it
Since of late, our HC in London was coming into a great deal of criticism due to various issues. In the meantime, our Lady was getting roundly criticized by the Diaspora for continued British statements against SL. When she made a call to MR in late January, the Prez tore into her on this issue. She tried her best to wiggle out of it but when the Prez quipped, “Oya monawath karan na-ne?” she wanted to know what (else) she could do. MR had told her, ‘Ok. Start briefing the people [diaspora] there.” Since that was a task she found quite difficult to do to the satisfaction of the Prez, she inquired whether she could send some people to SL for such briefings. MR had given one of his customary nods before hanging up, “Hondai, hondai, ehema karannako…” She immediately got through to RB but with a version that sounded more like a ‘directive’ from MR. RB too had given his blessings saying to ‘go ahead.’
Then of course, the Lady wanted the MFA to foot the bill for the visit of the Diaspora team. The FM, in the absence of the Secy (who was away in Washington & NY), immediately authorized all payments for the visit to take place going by the ‘Presidential directive.’
Sources now inform that the rough sum incurred for the 10-member Diaspora team amounted to --- 10 return air tickets, 5-star accommodation for seven nights (incl. all meals), luxury bus for travel, a plane ride to Jaffna, security throughout the visit --- a minimum of Rs. 3 million. (With millions of Sri Lankans all over the world, many are now querying as to why they cannot be invited to SL for briefings at State cost!)
No sooner the defence establishment got wind of the visit, the higher ups blew a fuse as one of the participants had given evidence against the State at the Karuna trial in London recently. As a result, half of the itinerary got chopped off, also thanks to an intervention made by Douglas D, who was on a ‘territorial dispute’ with the lot.
When the entire thing blew up, poor MR and the country was left with the letter written by the group, published in a local newspaper. MR was naturally livid at how he was dragged into this without proper consultations at the level of high officials, especially of the defence establishment. How did our Prez react in the aftermath of the Diaspora Disaster? “Maywata thamai kiyanne, panala deela, illan kanawa kiyala.” And with both new nominations, i.e. London & NY, getting official sanction since then, things seem to have whittled down at the SLHC to the Court of St James.
by R. Jayadevan
(March 16, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) ‘Sunday Times’ (Sri Lanka) published news under ‘odds and ends’ titled ‘Asking for it’ on its March 9, 2008 edition, giving false and misleading story about a visit undertaken by a nine member delegation recently to Sri Lanka. The write up was a cocktail of personal vendetta against the Sri Lanka High Commissioner in the UK and negative and creative news reporting about the visit by the delegation. The news also had given false quotations of President’s conversations.
As the leader of the delegation, I wrote to the ‘Sunday Times’ on March 10, 2008 expecting my letter would be published to correct the frivolous, mischievous and nonsensical story printed without verifying the facts with me or any of the delegation members. My letter failed to find its way in its March 16, 2008 issue for reasons best known to the ‘Sunday Times’.
This confirms how media can play its role negatively to disseminate falsehood and concoctions. Friendly web media’s have agreed to publish my letter that ‘Sunday Times’ failed to publish. This confirm to the extent media like ‘Sunday Times’ can go on the rampage to prop up its prejudices against individuals. This attitude of the media undermines its basic role to be ‘free, fair and objective’ in reporting news.
Letter to the Sunday Times Editor dated 10 March 2008
Dear Sir
I wish to clarify a misleading news item in the column ‘odds and ends’ column in your March 9,2008 publication relating the Diaspora delegation visit to Sri Lanka. I was responsible for assembling together the Diaspora team, following a telephone conversation with the President. During the telephone conversation, the President requested me to travel to Colombo to meet him. I suggested to him that I would rather come with a group of ‘like minded people’ as it could prove more useful. My spontaneous suggestion received a spontaneous response from the President. He said he will be very happy to meet a group and asked me to identify a group of activists, and to contact the High Commissioner in London to make arrangements for the visit.
The suggestion of your article that the diaspora trip to Sri Lanka originated from the office of the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London is inaccurate and misleading. The High Commissioner was merely following instructions of the President, of a process that originated from a conversation between the President and myself, the roots of which are based on the governments decision to pursue the proposals of the 13th amendment, which we support as a first step towards addressing the issues of the Tamils.
The delegation members had two meetings with the High Commissioner and the other senior officials prior to their departure. Both meetings were very friendly and useful. We found the High Commissioner very accommodative and she did not refuse any of our requests for engagements. I wish to state the President, FM or even the High Commissioner did not influence us in any way to take a particular line of thought during our visit. The Diaspora's delegation had few meeting of their own and reached a consensus on the direction it will take up on issues during their visit. The British Foreign Office was kept informed of the initiative and took interest in our findings.
You have further stated ‘one of the participants had given evidence against the State at the Karuna trial in London’. Such, vague statement without pinpointing the person concerned is unfortunate. Being in the forefront of Tamil activities in the UK, let me assure you that none of the members had given evidence at Karuna’s trial. You can verify my assertion by obtaining copies of the verbatim of the hearing from the Court.
You have also taken comfort over the ‘intervention made by Douglas’ asserting there was ‘territorial dispute’ with the lot. One member of our team is a TMVP member and we did not hide this fact. On his part, he did not have any ‘territorial dispute’ and made a visit to the East on his own, while all the other members of the delegation were denied the visit over a misunderstanding which has since been resolved.
I regret that your news item failed to reveal the positives of our visit and the dire need for confidence building amongst the diaspora communities during an extremely challenging time, especially for Tamils. Instead, your reporting has reflected petty prejudicial thoughts against individuals. It seem clear that your informant also has some personal agenda against the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London as your entire piece seems to have been written to discredit her, inaccurately claiming that it was an initiative by her, which went pear shaped.
Regretfully, you also failed to approach us to clarify matters to publish an objective and balanced view.
Yours faithfully
R Jayadevan
c.c. HE President, Hon Foreign Minister, The Sri Lanka High Commissioner
Sunday Times news datelined March9, 2008
Odds and Ends
Asking for it
Since of late, our HC in London was coming into a great deal of criticism due to various issues. In the meantime, our Lady was getting roundly criticized by the Diaspora for continued British statements against SL. When she made a call to MR in late January, the Prez tore into her on this issue. She tried her best to wiggle out of it but when the Prez quipped, “Oya monawath karan na-ne?” she wanted to know what (else) she could do. MR had told her, ‘Ok. Start briefing the people [diaspora] there.” Since that was a task she found quite difficult to do to the satisfaction of the Prez, she inquired whether she could send some people to SL for such briefings. MR had given one of his customary nods before hanging up, “Hondai, hondai, ehema karannako…” She immediately got through to RB but with a version that sounded more like a ‘directive’ from MR. RB too had given his blessings saying to ‘go ahead.’
Then of course, the Lady wanted the MFA to foot the bill for the visit of the Diaspora team. The FM, in the absence of the Secy (who was away in Washington & NY), immediately authorized all payments for the visit to take place going by the ‘Presidential directive.’
Sources now inform that the rough sum incurred for the 10-member Diaspora team amounted to --- 10 return air tickets, 5-star accommodation for seven nights (incl. all meals), luxury bus for travel, a plane ride to Jaffna, security throughout the visit --- a minimum of Rs. 3 million. (With millions of Sri Lankans all over the world, many are now querying as to why they cannot be invited to SL for briefings at State cost!)
No sooner the defence establishment got wind of the visit, the higher ups blew a fuse as one of the participants had given evidence against the State at the Karuna trial in London recently. As a result, half of the itinerary got chopped off, also thanks to an intervention made by Douglas D, who was on a ‘territorial dispute’ with the lot.
When the entire thing blew up, poor MR and the country was left with the letter written by the group, published in a local newspaper. MR was naturally livid at how he was dragged into this without proper consultations at the level of high officials, especially of the defence establishment. How did our Prez react in the aftermath of the Diaspora Disaster? “Maywata thamai kiyanne, panala deela, illan kanawa kiyala.” And with both new nominations, i.e. London & NY, getting official sanction since then, things seem to have whittled down at the SLHC to the Court of St James.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment