our rights to right to information (RTI)

attended the ‘right to information’ forum at the caring society complex, penang, yesterday. about 30 people were in attendance. it was organised by transparency international malaysia (TI) and centre for independent journalism. (CIJ)

usha from transparency international was at the registration desk. on registration, we were given some pamphlets and this cute badge:

the moment i saw the badge with the words ‘journos’ on it, i think of my fellow citizen journalists (CJ) comrades. (a group of us who were trained by malaysiakini to be citizen/video journalists). some of them had already been ‘on the job’ going around as citizen journalists interviewing people and making videos. as i thought each of us only get one badge, i ask usha if the badges are on sale as i thought of getting some for the penang CJ. usha said not on sale but was kind enough to give me more of the badges. well i hope the CJ will like it.

the forum, or rather the ‘dialogue on citizen’s rights to access public information’ as stated on the banner, carried the theme ‘transparency of information for government with integrity’. i could not really understand the theme at first but after the dialogue, i was very clear of the theme and fully agree with it.

gayathry, who is CIJ’s executive director (good to see her again) started off with a brief introduction. she informed that together with TI, they are planning a series of dialogue on the ‘right to information’ (RTI) nation-wide. one was held in KL already and last week they had one in ipoh an now they are in penang. next they’ll be at johor, and later on, i think moving to kelantan, negeri sembilian, even kota kinabalu and so on.

angeline loh (pic below), from aliran was the first speaker to speak on ‘right to information and public transport’. first she touched on the public transport in penang, especially the bus. how bad the bus system is, especially with the ‘pajak’ buses running along side rapid penang was revealed by her. interestingly she said the public transport (bus) is set up more for profit-making than for the public interest. this means, though i was not aware of it, but only aware of it when angeline revealed that rapid penang and the ‘pajak’ bus are under the control of the ministry of finance and the commercial vehicle licensing board (CVLB), i was not surprised as well.. it sort of figures! (and talking about public interest and profit reminds me of another forum i attended where one of the speaker kept repeating ‘whatever is done, must be done with the public interest, not profit interest’).

starting the public transport is consider launching a project. whenever the government launch a project, we have the right to know all the information about the project e.g. the what, who, how, where and so on. after all, the buses purchased were by our money as tax payers and we have the right to know how our money were spent in a particular project. when a project… especially a mega-project… was launched but we did not know anything about it, what happened?

i like these two phrases that angeline said “denial of information stunts our knowledge” and “denial of rights of information give full rein to corruption.” how true. well this is what happened when we are denied information on projects by the government!

gayathry (pic below),was next to speak and she started off by taking us into the current regime of information. as information is powerful, she said, authorities feel that they need to control information to feel powerful. things are usually done ad-hoc or at the whims and fancies of the authorities. information reveal are usually only on a ‘need to know-basis’. everything seems to be secret, secret, cannot tell, cannot tell or you have no right to know. however, accessing public information is our right and it is the government’s obligation to provide us with information. this will help in improving decision making and improve good governance.

it was then that she came out with a good quote (like the two good quotes angeline came out with) – “rights of information leads to good governance”. ahh… now i understand better the theme ‘transparency of information for government with integrity’.

gayathry continued to say that there should be one standard for accessing information, not biased or selective. she then listed out the existing legislation that suppress information, as follows:

– official secret act (OSA)
– internal security act (ISA)
– printing presses and publications act (PPPA)
– penal code
– communications and multimedia act

these are the 5 popular well-known ones. surprisingly, she said there are 26 sets of legislation that have an impact on the media and the citizen’s rights to know. yes, citizen’s rights to know is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) if you take a look at article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

gayathry wrapped up with a good thought for us to ponder when she said that the government is an extension of the political will of the people. therefore information provided to the government does not in any way belongs to the government; it belongs to the people that the government represent. you got it? so you see how important is the rights to information (RTI). one case example is the haze which first enveloped our country many years back. the government was reluctant to reveal the API haze reading until they were pressured and finally they revealed the API. the haze affect all of us, not only the government, so why should the government keep quiet about the readings!

that’s why, gayathry said, CIJ and TI are pushing for the RTI bill to be enacted in all states. she informed that selangor had already agree to enact the bill in july and she hope that penang will be the second state to do so. well, CM lim guan eng, what are you waiting for?

noel dass (pic below), senior research assistant from the centre for public policy studies then spoke on the basic principles of RTI, which are:

– maximum disclosures
– public bodies oblige to publish key information
– public bodies must actively promote open government
– exception should be clearly and narrowly drawn
– requests for information should be processed fairly and rapidly with independent review of any refusal made available.
– should not be cost-prohibitive
– meeting of public bodies should be open to public
– laws which are inconsistent with principle of max disclosure should be amended or repealed
– whistleblower protection

it’s good for all of us to remember this, have them on our mind always, especially when the RTI bill is tabled and running.

now what is meant by ‘maximum disclosures’ (the first principle – what is meant by ‘public bodies’ later)? when there is a presumption that a piece of information should be disclosed (eg the haze API readings) and when public interest is paramount. everyone… not only citizens… has the right to information. now, of course there are exceptions (ah when noel mentioned exceptions, the first thing that came to my mind is the government’s mumbling of ‘threat to national security’!). true enough, the exceptions that he listed out has ‘national security’ right on top.

– national security
– law enforcement
– personal privacy
– commercial secrecy
– public or individual privacy
– protecting the integrity of the government decision-making process
– legally privileged information
– public economy interests

all well and good for these exceptions to exist of course, especially for the government but then RTI also stated that these exceptions should be CLEARLY and NARROWLY drawn. the government cannot simply said “ahh this one ah cannot tell. if tell, it will jeopardise national security”. however, the government (or public body) MUST prove that releasing information will jeopardise national security. if the government keep on insisting that the information is sensitive, then the RTI bill will make sure that any information deem sensitive to past the 3-part test before it is classified as sensitive.

the 3-part test:

– does the information relate to a legitimate aim specified in the right to information law?
– would its disclosure do substantial harm to that aim?
– if so, would it nevertheless be in the public interest to disclose that information?

noel then stressed that if certain information within a specified document is deemed secret, only the exact information covered by the exception should be redacted and withheld, while the rest of the document should be made available.

now if RTI it tabled, you would want to know who is subjected to RTI, right? who? all public bodies. and who are ‘public bodies’? well, the council of europe define ‘public bodies’ as such:

– government and administration at a national, regional or local level
– natural or legal persons insofar as they perform public function or exersise administrative authority as provided for by national law
– private bodies if they hold information whose disclosure is likely to diminish the risk of harm to key public interests (public interests obligation)

there were some questions and comments from the floor after noel’s talk. gayathry also made some comments regarding the RTI law in other countries. she said that over 50 countries already has RTI and she informed that the best RTI enforcement is in mexico country. she said that in mexico even any form of police brutality will be disclosed to public for all to know.

to wrap up the session, usha came to thank everyone for their attendance and she also gave some background to how this road-show came about. it started in nov. last year when they invited 2 speakers from sweeden to train people about RTI, how to apply RTI in the malaysian context and so on. these people were from CIJ and TI of course and also from other NGO like amnestry, suaram, bar council. these trained people than go on the road-show to engage the public on the need for a RTI bill. coming up next, usha said, is a national conference in october this year of which they will invite speakers from the government.

i’m glad that i attended the forum as i learned how important it is that we should have the right to information. the government is our ‘public servant’. we, the rakyat are their ‘masters’ as we elected them and we pay taxes. ‘servants’ should disclose information to their ‘masters’ so that the ‘masters’ will know what’s going on with the ‘servants’, aware of what they are doing, how they are doing it and so on. when ‘servant’s feel obligated to disclose information, then they will also be obligated to perform better!

oops. hope my analogy is good enough… as good as the 3 quotes i like (highlighted) 😉

note:  for those who are interested to read the freedom of information bill 2008, please click here (bahasa version available too).