The editorial in last week's Sunday Island titled "The Right to Information" was excellent in that the Editor, within the limited space allocated to the editorial, touched on the history of the Bill presented in Parliament, facts not disclosed like Civil List officials' salaries, opinions of others such as Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Aruna Roy - an Indian public interest activist, and his own. He started the leader article pessimistically: "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."

The editor adds: "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 past week, as reported by MTV news which I watch, saw forums and meetings discussing the topic – the need for a Right to Information Act in Sri Lanka. Dr. Harsha de Silva, a new shining star in the Opposition firmament who substantiates what he says with facts and figures, particularly on corruption and questions as to where the money from this sale or that has got to, was very committedly loud in the demand for transparency and accountability regards public funds.

Nan is obsessed with honesty and transparency in public affairs, being of the old school. Her brother and a brother-in-law, both public servants with much responsibility and concerned with the revenue of the divisions they administered, did not tolerate even foodstuff-gifts from headmen. The sheaf of betel at New Year was what was allowed and accepted with grace. There was no political interference at all in those days (forty to fifty years ago) and thus Nan absorbed such virtues. Corruption and bribes were unheard terms. The picture is so very different now. Everything we read in the newspapers or see on TV has us asking questions about honesty, integrity and who's earning commissions. These rumours that float around of billions being made by certain persons in politics have credibility.

It is too much to hope that people will reform themselves. Taste money, illicit more so, and the thirst becomes insatiable. So there is absolutely no hope that people will reform and become honest and consider the fact that commissions or whatever else that is accepted is a theft from the country and its people; hence the need for a law to curb this greed and eradicate the canker. And that law is a Right to Information Act whereby government undertakings are transparent and can be questioned by anyone. Matters will be transparent so no money hanky panky will be, in most instances, allowed or given room and license.

Librarians speak of this era as the Era of Information. We emerged from the Decade of Electronics and realized that information is the most valued commodity. And that leads to the fact that information must be free and easily accessible. This in turn leads to the RTI Act.

India boasts The Right to Information Act No. 22 of 2005, which is said to be a barrier to corruption that was rampant in the sub-continent. People will say corruption still rages, but at least an instrument is in place to curb it and catch the miscreants. To quote what's written about the Indian Act: "An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

"Whereas the Constitution of India has established a democratic Republic; and whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

"And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

"And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.."

Reading about the RTI of the United States of America, it is stated that "The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States Government. The Act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants nine exemptions to the statute.[1] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 (Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383; Amended 1996, 2002, 2007),[2][3] and went into effect the following year."

In Britain The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Unless there's a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within 20 working days. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you.

Everyone can make a request for information – there are no restrictions on your age, nationality, or where you live. You can ask for any information at all - but some information might be withheld to protect various interests which are allowed for by the Act. If this is the case, the public authority must tell you why they have withheld information.

Scotland has its own Freedom of Information Act, which is very similar to the England, Wales and Northern Ireland Acts.

The Act applies to public bodies including: local authorities and councils, the police, non-departmental public bodies, committees and advisory bodies, health trusts, hospitals and doctors' surgeries, schools, colleges and universities and publicly funded museums.

The Editor 'Sunday Island' ends his last Sunday's editorial (July 3) thus: "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 will be resisted. It is only politicians who are endangered by RTI – corrupt elements right down the line risk exposure."

And so this article from a member of the public almost crazy over the need for openness, fair play and justice – 'fighting' for the Right to Information. The prevalent notion is that one can scream from the rooftops for justifiable causes but will not be taken notice of by the authorities. Nan muses with a big smirk – have we to call in the FTZ workers of Katunayake to bring in the needed legislation disregarding politicians' wishes and protective armour plating?