It is most unlikely that Sri Lanka, despite the efforts of liberal politicians like UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya and former Justice Minister Milinda Moragoda, will in the short term be blessed with a Right to Information law (RTI) that has strengthened democracy not only in the more developed countries of the West but also in India where it is playing a very useful role in the fight against corruption and governmental excesses. We’ve had a lot of talk about such a law and pressure from various civil society and public interest groups and Jayasuriya, in September last year, presented a Private Member’s Bill to Parliament to make this a reality. The government was hostile to this effort saying it would bring the required legislation itself. But nothing happened for eight months and Jayasuriya re-presented his Bill which was recently roundly defeated in Parliament. The temper manifested at the party leaders meeting at which this matter was broached was an index of government’s attitude to such legislation.

Moragoda, during his short tenure at the justice ministry, engaged in consultations with stakeholders and provided the assistance of the legal draftsman’s department, to get a draft Bill ready. A great deal of work in this connection has already been completed and there is no reason to re-invent the wheel. The kind of legislation in force elsewhere, particularly India, is available. The government has tried to say that the Jayasuriya draft lacks the protection of immunity from the proposed Right to Information legislation of matters relating to national security. These are issues that can easily be dealt with although the defining line between national security and political perpetuity is almost invisibly thin. In fact, this question was raised at last week regular meeting between the president and editors. President Rajapapaksa passed the ball on to Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella who didn’t say much beyond assuring that the matter was under discussion. No time-frame for completing such discussions was presented.

The president, of course, laid on his customary charm saying that if there were matters that needed elucidation, they could certainly be raised with him during his meetings with the media. He promised that he will get down the files and provide answers. Yet, having said at that meeting (in connection with the ongoing salary agitation of university academics) that a demonstrator on a campus would get a bigger salary increase than his secretary, Mr. Lalith Weeratunga, who is head of the public service, he laughingly declined to reveal how much Weeratunga is paid saying ``you’ll better find out.’’ The pay of any public servant is not classified information. Once upon a time the Civil List gave the service records and salary details of public service executives on a regular basis. But whether such a list exists now is moot. The fact is that even parliamentary questions are frequently dodged. The speaker has had occasion to fault ministers not present in the House to answer oral questions directed at them at the beginning of proceedings. Skills at eliciting embarrassing information through supplementary question, a fine art in parliamentary practice, are also woefully absent. Ministers also like to throw back ``you did worse’’ at their interlocutors. That’s often true but what the country needs is not trading of accusations but ending of bad practices.

As a recent article of the Moragoda-initiated Pathfinder Foundation pointed out, a Supreme Court judgment not long ago held that while the right to freedom of speech and expression, including publication, is guaranteed by the Constitution, if that is to be meaningful and effective, it should carry within its scope an implicit right of a person to obtain information from a public authority of any matter that should be in the public domain. The point the judgment made was that where the public interest outweighs the confidentiality that attaches to the affairs of the state and official communication, then the public interest must prevail. But here in this country, officials and their political bosses are secretive about many matters of public interest and regard probing questions as much more than an irritant. The media is familiar with frequent edicts from various senior officials that giving information to the press is the prerogative of some named functionaries and nobody else. While leaks are not uncommon, many officials take the path of least resistance and mum’s the word as far as they are concerned even on the most mundane of matters. It is only when the smelly stuff hits the fan, as in the case of recent vehicle failures and damage to petrol pumps as a result of what appears to be sub-standard fuel that has been supplied, that those responsible are forced to speak out. But the excuses that have been offered are pathetic, to say the least.

RTI laws as well as whistle blowing elsewhere have served democracy well in many countries. Wikileaks have proved to be major embarrassment to world powers but strengthened democratic fabric. There are new examples by the day of how vigorous investigative journalism going back to Watergate during Richard Nixon’s tenure in Washington to the more recent events about the lies propagated about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and the expense claim scandals in the British Commons has shaken powerful ruling establishments. Here in Sri Lanka the public have not been taken into confidence on the findings of Justice Shirani Tillakawardene and two other judges on military procurements. We will freely concede that there was good reason for non-publication of the findings if they endangered military morale while the war was being fought. But the war is now over and the public at least deserves an assurance that anybody found culpable has not been anointed with public office. But the approach has been ``it’s my commission and I will decide whether the report is to be published’’ accompanied by some dark muttering about which the less said the better.

If Sri Lanka wants a Right to Information law enacted, the people will have to fight for it. Politicians will not readily concede laws that weaken their power and expose their chicanery to unwelcome public attention. Re-election is the end game and anything that can hurt that will be resisted. It is not only politicians who are endangered by RTI – corrupt elements right down the line risk exposure. Aruna Roy, an Indian public interest activist who was here some time ago as a guest of the Sri Lanka Press Institute gave us some good examples from Rajasthan on how corruption in village works have been dug out thanks to RTI. Judge Christopher Weeramantry has written eloquently on the subject. There’s no paucity of knowledge on the value of RTI; but how to get it is the big question. Big Brother will always resist.