A question of bias?

The government, its spokesmen and supporters regularly accuse a variety of actors: INGO's, the press, sometimes foreign diplomats of being biased in their assessments of Sri Lanka.

The latest missive comes from Keheliya Rambukwella, reported here. he is quoted as saying "They are acting in total bias on a different agenda . . . may be on various considerations . . . to bring the country into disrepute."

He was referring to criticism of alleged human right violations by the security forces.

What strikes me as odd is that the primary charge is almost inevitably that of bias. Rarely or never are the charges refuted by provision of evidence to the contrary.

The Minster does go on to say that "they have been trying to accuse the government for things that have not been proved or things that are being investigated,"

If so, Honourable Minister, would'nt the best response be to set up a credible mechanism to investigate the allegations, thus clearing up the matter? Why the knee-jerk resort to the subjective charge of bias, when facts would have been far more effective?

Those who make the charge of bias are seemingly oblivious to the fact they represent the government view and can hardly be judged to be impartial or disinterested in these matters.

To be sure, committees and other bodies have been set up from time to time by the government, usually with much reluctance and are inevitably toothless so the government is never in a position to present an independent, credible report to counter the allegations.

The Government is long on rhetoric but seems rather short on facts.