No sense in censorship

This week, it came to light that the State Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a circular gagging public servants from criticising the Government on social media.

The move seemingly follows complaints that Divisional Secretaries, Grama Niladharis, Development officers and others were using social media to criticise the Government and its policies. The circular goes on to warn of penalties, while IT experts are said to be already scouring social media to unearth public servants who may have run afoul of the guidelines.

The move has unsurprisingly drawn widespread condemnation on social media over what is being viewed as undue censorship.

While the Government concerns over the sharing of incorrect information and criticisms that may serve as barrier to public trust and efficiency, do hold some weight, the silencing of officials is unquestionably a very bad look.

If a government is serious about combating corruption, then one of the most effective ways is to encourage whistleblowing and implementing a policy that protects whistle-blowers, particularly in the public sector. 

Average public servants in Sri Lanka are usually a beleaguered lot. They are often under-resourced, lack authority, and criticised for not doing their work; but when they step up in the public’s interest, they should not run afoul of their employer. 

The Government though is seemingly more focused on creating a group of people who unquestioningly follow its orders, with increasingly limited space for public officials to dissent and engage in inclusive policymaking. Prolonged shrinking of such space arguably worsens governance and is against public interest. 

Most State or Government-linked organisations in Sri Lanka attempt to muzzle their employees, particularly when they attempt to engage with media, even though whistle-blowers are a powerful weapon against corruption. 

In fact, in 2016, a schoolteacher, who was penalised for speaking to the media, won her case at the Supreme Court and received compensation from the school principal who attempted to fire her for her perceived ‘disloyalty’. The case underscores the need for public servants to be allowed to play the role of whistle-blower without being penalised, as it is an essential function of good governance.

Governments have a responsibility to facilitate whistleblowing, and in so doing, protect public servants who become whistle-blowers for public interest. Laws which recognise the rights of those who act in the public interest not to suffer harm or threats of harm, and which build on the democratic principles of free speech and freedom of information, are critical. They provide individuals a safe alternative to the silence that allows negligence and wrongdoing to take root.

Punishing whistle-blowers will only protect those responsible from being held accountable. A Government that wishes to view itself as genuinely accountable needs to stop crushing its dissenters. In Sri Lanka’s deeply politicised public sector, top posts are often decided by politicians. Ministry secretaries, for example, are an important part of ensuring transparency and accountability, but could be appointed through political influence. 

Many other public servants, especially those engaged in procurement and tender proceedings, hold just as high if not higher positions of responsibility. Reducing corruption means giving these honest people a chance to speak in an environment of safety and acceptance. Public servants should be allowed to stand for public interest.