The empowerment of citizens
Z.A.M. Khairuzzaman praises a work on information rights
RIGHT to information has been playing a vital role in reshaping the state machinery and ensuring greater participation of people in different countries across the globe. One such book that depicts change in the state mechanism through participation of people vis-a-vis Information Act is Our Rights Our Information. The book has recently been translated in Bangla by Altaf Pervez and Mizan Ali. They call it Amader Totthyo Amader Odhikar. The Bangla edition of the book has been published jointly by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and Nagorik Udyog. It provides case studies from some Commonwealth countries (part of western democracy) as well as developing nations. The Bangla edition of the book has arrived at such a point of time when its need was probably felt the most. Bangladesh's Jatiya Sangsad passed legislation in this regard in February 2009. This law has been enacted and implemented in eighty other countries so far. The law enacted in this country though has some limitations as it restricts citizens from seeking information about eight different agencies as they are supposedly related to the security of the state. The passage of the law, however, widens people's participation and involvement in national activities. Citizens of Australia and New Zealand took full advantage of the Information Act when their governments made attempts to suppress vital information regarding a genetically engineered variety of corn approved only for animal consumption. It was actually being sold for human consumption during 2001-2004. People's participation to plumb the depths of the matter brought the issue into media limelight and was dubbed as Corngate Scandal. Despite many years of having access to information legislation, some bureaucracies continue to deny such rights, especially that which is inconvenient and embarrassing. However, the public can be inspired to campaign when they perceive that information is being withheld irrationally or to favour illegitimate interests. Through using the law with regard to Right to Information, a scandal of corruption and bribery was unearthed in the school admission system in Thailand. In early 1998, a young Thai girl named Natthanit took the standard entrance examination for admission to the well regarded state primary school, an examination she had been working towards for two years. Natthanit was told that she had failed the examination and could not be admitted to the school. However, when her mother Sumalee Limpa-Owart asked the rector of the school if she could see her daughter's answer sheet and marks awarded, she was refused. Two months later, Sumalee used Thailand's official Information Act to request access to her daughter's marks and answer script. In November 1998, the official Information Commission ruled that the answer sheets and marks of Natthanit and the 120 students who were admitted to the school were public information and had to be disclosed. The school and parents of the students who had secured admission resisted, claiming that the information was private and should not be released. In fact, 109 of them got together and took Sumalee to court claiming their right to privacy and accusing her of abusing her position as a state public prosecutor. Despite the Commission's order in favour of Sumalee the school continued to deny their obligation. Midway through the two-year legal battle to receive information on her daughter's marks, Sumalee was offered a compromise by the school. She was allowed to inspect the list of test results of all students that had taken the entrance examination, but all names were removed. The list showed that one third of the students who had been admitted to the school had in fact received failing grade. Sumalee suspected that this was not an unusual occurrence for the school, which had rumours of corruption and bribery swirling around it regarding the admission of children who were well connected or belonged to elite families. It was alleged that the parents often paid "tea money" or used social connections to get their children admitted to the school even if they did not make the grade. Sumalee continued with her legal battle against the school and in 2000, the Supreme Court of Thailand ruled that the complete list of students, including names of candidates, must be disclosed. The records revealed that a majority of the students who had secured admission, regardless of their poor performance in the entrance examination, belonged to leading political and business families. The information led to media and public outrage and more families of children who had been denied entry requested information from the school through using the Information Act. Sumalee's experience illustrates how information sought to redress individual grievance can lead to larger policy changes that benefit the whole community. Her complaint touched on injustice which reverberated throughout the country. Sumalee prompted similar queries, breaking the habitual acceptance of unfair practices. Her action catalyzed a nationwide campaign for better access to education for all children, not just for those from a privileged background. Altaf Pervez is a researcher and an author. He has conducted research on garment workers and the garment industry, sweepers' colony and a host of other topical issues. Mizan Ali, a former journalist is now working as an entrepreneur.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments