|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 26 May 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
In the early 1960s, British Minister John Profumo resigned his Cabinet portfolio, when the media exposed sordid details of his private sex life scandal with a woman, who was not his wife. In the US, it was the media that relentlessly pursued former US President Bill Clinton inch by inch through the explosive details of another sex scandal that rocked the American political scene for well over three years. While, no doubt the private life of any individual cannot be of general public concern, except in certain special circumstances, the private life of a person who is holding public office can become a matter of general interest as well as concern to the public, particularly when the circumstances disclose a threat to the security interest of the people or when favours are granted in violation of accepted norms, in exchange, for instance, for sexual favours. There are also other circumstances in which the private sex life of a public figure can become a matter of general concern of the entire country. Recently, the High Court of Colombo convicted a young graduate, a PRO in a state institution for soliciting and accepting sexual favours from a candidate of the opposite sex as a consideration for recommending the latter for employment. In the case of Rauff Hakeem, it was the Sunday Leader of 16th May 2004 which initially dished out to the public, a two full page spread claiming to expose the details of this alleged scandal involving Hakeem and a woman, who claims to have befriended Hakeem for 2 1/2 years, ostensibly looking for a job. Interestingly, this lady, hails from a well-known family with powerful political connections to the UNP. What emerges clearly from the Sunday Leader's exposures is that firstly, for 2 1/2 years, commencing from about the December 2001 General Elections till the defeat of the UNF at the 2nd April 2004 General Elections, the lady, if in fact she was looking for a job at all, (she) never got it! Secondly, for the third time since Hakeem taking over the SLMC Leadership, there was a revolt from within the SLMC itself. First round, it was Mrs Ferial Ashraff and Hisbullah who had to leave the SLMC. In the second round, it was Athaullah cum Zubairdeen who broke away from the party, with cases still pending in Courts. Now, for the third time, there was another revolt from within the party, by its elected MPs led by Rishard Badurdeen, Najeeb Majeed, Ameer Ali and Cassim. The third round of revolt, according to the disclosure in the Leader had all started when this lady called at Hakeem's official residence at Stanmore Crescent, on April 13, where Hakeem was still overstaying, notwithstanding that he was no longer the Minister and she reportedly spilled the beans to the SLMC, MPs, who quickly took her away to another destination. Subsequent reports show that MP Badurdeen and MP Najeeb were very angry with their leader Hakeem when they heard the whole story from the lady. Appraised that the disclosures of April 13, would damage him, beyond redemption, Hakeem moved quickly to make a pre-emptive strike by foreclosing through the Sunday Leader of April 16 and a Tamil weekly 'Nawamaney' of April 16, that there was a conspiracy to shame and blackmail him into joining the government, a stand which he took when he became aware that top people in the new government had been appraised of the Hakeem happenings by the angry SLMC MPs. The Leader of April 16 did the worst damage to Hakeem by publishing the pictures of four Ministers, imputing that they were involved in a conspiracy against Hakeem, which the concerned Ministers immediately refuted. But of significance to the future turn of events was that the defence the Leader sought to put up on behalf of Hakeem accusing the Ministers of the UPFA, compelled those who had taped the lady's disclosures, to put them out, the same night, through Rupavahini and ITN. The SLMC MPs said, that if not for the Sunday Leader's misconceived exposures implicating Rishard Badurdeen and Najeeb Majeed, there was absolutely no plans to telecast the video tapes. Minister Reginald Cooray, who saw the unfolding story on his home set, phoned Rupavahini Chairman M. M. Zuhair to ascertain who approved the telecast. Zuhair reported to the Minister that he was totally unaware of the telecast and it had gone, in the normal course of news coverage. Meanwhile, pro-Hakeem groups traced the lady and reportedly prevailed upon her, to go back on her own words, already telecast, with an exculpatory story, telecast subsequently through a private TV channel. The circumstances, under which the lady attempted to mitigate the damage already done by her in her own voice, is yet to be ascertained. Interestingly, the Leader's attempt to white-wash this sordid story as yet another UPFA conspiracy, having failed, the Leader of 23rd May, toned down the issue accusing the two SLMC MPs Badurdeen and Majeed. But, not to be left out, the Sunday Times of 23rd May, jumped into the fray from which the Leader was struggling to wriggle out. Instead of urging Hakeem to follow the example set by John Profumo 40 years ago, the Times accused the state media of telecasting the version of the woman in the centre of the scandal. Shockingly, the Times story was begging the question as to why ITN and Rupavahini failed to suppress the Hakeem story! The Times also failed to raise a single question against the Leader which started the whole issue or the private media channels which telecast Part 2 of the same episode in full. In this era of the freedom of information, the Times was implying that the state media should have suppressed the story and rolled it under the carpet, while private electronic media's exposures did not come up for any condemnation. The Times report descended to such low levels, that those who wrote the story, had to strengthen it with comments from two well-known UNPers. The Times sought to justify the criticism of Rupavahini saying that it was public-funded and therefore must behave itself, whilst seeming to imply that the private media had no public responsibility. Perhaps the Times is still living in the times gone by when Rupavahini was collecting the licence revenues from the public, which is no longer the case. In addition, Rupavahini is no longer state-funded or state-aided. It is today, a profit making public venture, equally accountable to the public, as the private media. The Sentinel |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
