More than 16 years ago, a sleepy village northeast of London called Brickendonbury made the headlines in Malaysia.
The Sports Ministry wanted to develop the Tun Abdul Razak Research Institute’s facilities into a “forward base” for Malaysian athletes competing in Europe.
I stood firm that it would be a waste of public money, and for good measure suggested it would end up as a boarding place for selected politicians and their cronies on their sojourns to London.
Half-truths and misinformation were fed to a gullible section of the media, who pliantly swallowed the words hook, line, and sinker.
Emissaries from the then sports minister Azalina Othman Said came to ask me to “drop the subject” and when it did not work, they went to the then editor (the late) Zainon Ahmad who flatly told them that the newspaper practises a “right of reply” policy and would publish any clarification or correction if anything was incorrect.
On June 3, 2007, Bernama reported that the project in Brickendonbury was expected to take off early the following year.
“We have had meetings with the authorities from the council and the Malaysian Rubber Board and we have finalised four options to be put forward.
“Once the council approves the proposal, work on the refurbishment or upgrading works will start. We expect the project to take off early next year,” Bernama quoted then National Sports Institute director-general Ramlan Abdul Aziz as saying.
UK’s freedom of information
As an immediate retort to such claims, I wrote to the East Herts Council and got the following message:
“The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and many of the buildings are listed which makes any development more difficult, but not impossible.
“A new hostel building would be an inappropriate development contrary to green belt policy, and could only be permitted if there were very special circumstances to justify it.
“One case being made is that replacing poor quality unlisted buildings for new accommodation for Olympic athletes in buildings more sympathetic to the surrounding area provides such justification.”
How did I get the information? What many did not know was that I used provisions in the UK’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to get access to the application, minutes of planning council meetings, and other documents to augment my reporting.
Over the years, I have used the FOI to request the contributions made by Malaysian developers towards the cost of the extension of the Elizabeth Line to Battersea. I also requested the number of Malaysian prisoners held in various UK prisons.
Why this long-winded story?
Freedom of Information Bill
By a twist of irony, it was Azalina, now the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) who on Wednesday announced the promulgation of Malaysia’s Freedom of Information bill.
“This will enhance the transparency of the government’s lawmaking process for the public’s best interest,” she said.
The proposed law, she said, would enhance the disclosure of information and provide public access to information from public bodies and the government.
This new law will certainly be welcomed by the public who have often been denied access to documents or information because of red tape or the use of the dreaded “Official Secrets Act”.
But here’s the catch: “Why is this being done in secrecy?”
“I welcome suggestions from all stakeholders and am pleased to share that these suggestions will be proposed to be covered under the Freedom of Information Bill,” Azalina said.
No one knows the contents of the proposed law but how does one contribute without knowing the parameters or details?
But why not publish a Consultation Paper so that every citizen of the country would be able to contribute towards a more open society?
However, I want to make a request – hold the civil servants to reply to FOI requests within a stipulated time instead of giving excuses.
Taking a leaf from the UK’s FOI law, every request has the following response and undertaking: “Your request will be considered and you will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being exempt or containing reference to a third party.
“If your request is made as a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act, you will receive a response within 40 calendar days as specified in the Act.”
It’s just a start but if there is a Consultation Paper as suggested, more people will be able to contribute ideas and provide expertise in their respective fields. - Mkini
Footnote: Just before the plans for the Brickendonbury project were rejected in April 2008, the editor-in-chief Ho Kay Kat received a call from a senior lawyer threatening to prosecute both for “acting against national interests” (whatever it meant) but Ho challenged him to go ahead and called his bluff.
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.