Sunday Times 2
Transparency or the lack of it in the new Govt.’s 100-Day Plan
A subject that has gained a great deal of public attention, the 100-Day Plan initiated by the new Government on January 10, is set for completion by April 23. Whilst many have commended certain aspects of its workings, there is also some incredulity and opposition to yet other aspects of the Plan. Whilst this is understandable in the case of ambitious new programmes of this nature, this is a situation which cannot be overlooked considering that the hopes and dreams of Sri Lankans have clearly been inspired towards the establishment of good governance in the country, to an extent as never seen before.
Apart from complaints regarding appointments to the ‘All Party Cabinet’, there are some other important areas which need attention. These were some of the points, examined and discussed at a public discussion held at the Organisations of Professional Associations (OPA) auditorium, on January 30. Panellists at the discussion were Attorney-at-Law Elmo Perera, Attorney-at-Law Chandrapala Kumarage, Attorney-at-Law and Ravaya Editor K.W. Janaranjana, Attorney-at-Law and human rights activist S.G. Punchihewa, activist Dr. Raja Wijetunge and Centre for Policy Alternatives Executive Director Dr P. Saravanamuttu. More than 150 participated in the discussion including civil society activists, academics, intellectuals, lawyers, media representatives and members of the public.
Various challenges arising in the establishment of independent commissions, the implementation of the National Medicinal Drugs Policy, the presenting to parliament of the Draft Bill on Right to Information, were among matters discussed, with some prominence being given to the Draft Bill.
The Draft Bill in the Right to Information which had been presented to Parliament when the UNP was in opposition, had at the time being defeated by majority vote. The subsequent attempt by Karu Jayasuriya who took the initiative to pass this bill was also rejected by the then Government. It was highlighted in public discussion that the obstruction of the citizens’ right to information would by its nature, support and promote corruption and fraud. The eradication of corruption and fraud was considered high on the agenda of the new Government.
The Draft Bill on Right to Information is expected to be presented in Parliament on February 20. The process behind this presentation remains somewhat mysterious. While it was stated at the onset that the bill would be drafted with the leadership of the Secretary of the Ministry of Media and an advisory board of fifteen members, it is not clear whether this is, in fact, what happened. Attorney-at-Law J.W. Janaranjana mentioned that he too had been initially invited to this panel, but subsequently had not been contacted. Accordingly it is not clear whether this Draft Bill is the work of only one individual.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka together with other media organisations such as the Free Media Movement worked on a draft Right to Information legislation some years ago. It is not clear whether these have been taken into consideration in the present RTI Draft Bill. In bringing about a society which wants to establish good governance, the views of the people have to be considered by policy makers, and polices have to be formulated to meet the requirements of the people.
For example, the passing of Right to Information legislation in India followed on various forceful requests arising from the grassroots level. The processes of drafting the Bill incorporated transparency and took into account the peoples’ input and requirements. In the case of the 100-Day Plan, it appears that, as usual, decisions taken at the higher levels are imposed on the citizens of the country and this includes the drafting of the RTI legislation as well.
It has been announced by the Government that a proposed Act which allows access to information provided it is not against the interests of national security or the territorial integrity of the country will be passed. However its limitations are not clear. If it is to be entirely enforced, there is the possibility of important information being withheld.
Mr Janaranjana also said it was not clear as to how exactly the Act would be implemented. This too has to be taken into consideration. From all these facts, we can conclude that while there is little doubt that the Draft Bill on the Right to Information will be presented in parliament, there is no transparency as to its composition and process.
The 100-Day Plan also targets the abolition of the 18th Amendment, and seeks to put in place a speedy mechanism towards the 19th Amendment which will empower the Independent Judicial Commission, the National Police Commission, the Independent Public Service Commission, the Elections Commission and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption, following due appointments. To be able to meet these promises in the short time span given, a certain amount of haste is justifiable. There is concern as to whether past experience in the process of establishing such commissions has been taken into account. This is because that apart from trusting that the process of establishing the independent commissions is being taken forward, correctly there seems to be little else that citizens discourse can really do. A question therefore arises as to transparency in such a situation.
Dr Saravanamuttu emphasised that factors that need to be functioning for good governance, could not be worked out in an ad hoc manner as in a cricket match.
The establishment of Independent Commissions has to fulfil the public requirement as a priority and not (merely) cater to the needs of the Government. The main drawbacks of the Commission to Investigate Bribery and Corruption were a shortage of manpower and resources. The proposed Independent Commissions should not face a similar fate. Similarly they should take into consideration local and international conditions and incorporate checks and balances in their functioning.
The Government in appointing secretaries to the new ministries has reshuffled an existing list, it was noted. The President had clarified that it was not the fault of the officials, many of whom acted under strong pressure. However, as many people say there are corrupt officials among them.
If a list of more than a thousand officials in the public administrative service was to be taken, it would be possible to identify the dedicated and honest officials among them. What harm would there be in giving a chance to new officials?
A question arose whether it is merely the age old methods that were being adopted by the Government to appoint people to the Commissions.
Mr. Punchihewa spoke on the problem of “Teeth” for the existing Human Rights Commission. The problem here was that the Commission had no power to act on a matter unless an individual or public official had first makes a complaint. Independent Commissions should have the ability to work around such technicalities. A situation should be avoided where the public lives in mistrust of the workings and transparency of the various committees established.
An important component of the 100-Day Plan is the approval of the National Medicinal Drugs Policy by the cabinet and its submission to parliament. There is a question as to whether the aims of this policy are different to that of Prof. Seneka Bibile’s. If so has it made considerations for the various challenges of the modern day free trade in medicinal drugs? The National Medicinal Drugs, Devices and Cosmetic Regulatory Authority bill submitted by Maithripala Sirisena when he was Minister of Health is possibly still in the Legal Draftsman’s Department, and its status is unknown.
It is true that with such a hasty process it is impractical to spend too much time at one stage. Nevertheless, when such bills are passed they will become law, and it is important to remember that the people will not be benefited from a legal system with loopholes in it. We believe that a government which aims for good governance and the rule of law should maintain a more transparent policy formulation process.
A mechanism should be created as soon as possible to ensure incorporating the views of the public, in policy making. We hope the Government will use the media and other means towards this end.
(The writer is the Editor of Sama Vimarshi Magazine, a publication of the Centre for Policy Alternatives)