Focus on Rights

Is there a right or a duty to 'Whistle Blow?'
When Woodrow Wilson once remarked that "everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places and avoids public places and we believe that it is a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety", he could not have said it better. This is the basic premise on which right to information legislation around the world is founded. Necessarily, a vital component of such freedom is the right given to those within government institutions and otherwise to 'whistle blow' on corruption scandals within those institutions, even if this means a breach of institutional - let alone personal - loyalty.

It is an obvious truth that individual loyalties have to yield to more imperative claims in the public interest to bring to light, violations of the public trust. Where such claims have triumphed in other countries, India, for example, the right to 'whistle blow' is interpreted as an imperative duty. And those benefiting primarily have been villagers, due to the strongly activist nature of people movements in that country.

'Whistle blowing' has, of course, a wider meaning than in the context of exposing institutional scandals. Essentially, in the parlance of today, it means the courage to stand up to be different despite personal or professional loyalties, particularly where issues of crucial importance to a community or a people are concerned.

Sri Lanka best illustrates the dilemmas that a nation faces when much of the citizenry and certainly those bearing the mantle of the elite in this country, (with significant exceptions however), lack the moral fibre to meet this challenge. Consequently, we have become corrupt in a greater sense, that is not merely with regard to the functioning of our institutions, be they political, educational, judicial, business or law and order but verily, with regard to our very existence.

As one reputed legal academic who would most assuredly prefer to remain anonymous, remarked discerningly in a recent casually philosophical chat, this is mostly due to the obsession that Sri Lankans have with being 'nice', of not wanting to rock the boat too much or indeed, to draw attention to oneself as being 'different', as opposed to citizens in ruder but far more robust cultures in South Asia.

Witness therefore, the hypocrisy we so easily put up with, the injustice that we so casually shrug off and the almost indecent impunity with which we succumb to allurements, whether of personal glory or otherwise, sacrificing the greater good in the process.

Thus, the same individual who protested yesterday with regard to the subversion of basic principles of democratic functioning becomes, without any apparent measure of shame, a disarmingly willing accomplice to that same process tomorrow. Thus, the old notion of 'courage' becomes a private virtue, not to be paraded openly or to be upheld publicly as a necessary and indeed a fundamental strength. Thus, on all sides, we become used to soul-deadening compromises. In this kind of culture, can the concept of 'whistle blowing', demonstrably used to devastating effect in more vigorous societies, ever be usefully employed, despite a few lone voices in the wilderness?

Some of the difficulties inherent in this debate were discussed recently at a public forum hosted by the Ethics Committee of the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science (SLAAS). The discussions offered refreshing constitutional cum legal, individual and political perspectives for thought. However, the central issue remained easy to identify. Whatever legal provisions currently exist or could be enacted for the future, do we as a people in general or as professionals, academics, activists or journalists in particular, have the strength to work these provisions fully for the benefit of this country? The answer to this question continues to be regretfully equivocal.

There are easy contrasts to be considered not so far away. Taking one example far removed from intricate constitutional deliberations, this columnist witnessed an amazing spectacle some time back, in one backward area in south Rajasthan, where over five hundred people - and half of them women incidentally - waited under a sweltering sun to participate in public hearings on whether public money allotted for development had been misused.

After squatting on the ground for three hours, one woman walked up when her name was called and raising her shawl modestly over her head in the customary manner of her community, insisted that "we have the right to see the official record". She explained that this was to check whether the money set apart for them had been properly used and went on to point out that the local government official in that area, who was responsible for the utilising of the funds, had disappeared from sight since their protests had started.

Villager after villager then came out with details regarding incomplete roads and irrigation channels, inflated wages given to a selected few in the local authorities and funds used for wholly imaginary buildings and constructions. The initial information had come from 'whistle blowing' by another official working in the same government office, thereafter used to good effect by the villagers.

These incidents of citizens taking matters into their own hands with regard to the manner in which they are ruled were being replicated in many other parts of the vastness that is India, spurred on by a explosive combination of public interest lawyers, activists, committed journalists and courageous academics. They had backing from the top for their claims when the Indian Supreme Court admonished in 1975 that;

"In a government of responsibility like ours where the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearings. The right to know which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary when secrecy is being claimed for transactions which can at any rate, have no repercussions on public security." (State of U.P.vs Raj Narain, 1975)

As opposed to these vibrant processes elsewhere, this country lacks even a measure of committed activism to combat secrecy and spiralling corruption, (twin evils that are now evident in all sectors of society, including alarmingly judges and lawyers), apart from city- based and donor-driven initiatives. And it is a frightening thought that even the enacting of a specific Freedom of Information (FOI) Act may not help matters very much.

The draft law specifically provides that no one may be subject to any legal, administrative or employment related sanction, regardless of any breach of a legal or employment obligation, for releasing information on wrongdoing, or that which would disclose a serious threat to health, public safety or the environment. However, whistle blowers must necessarily have acted in good faith and in the reasonable belief that the information was substantially true and disclosed evidence of wrongdoing or a serious threat to health, safety or the environment. The basic principles of the draft are being finalised before release for public discussion and comment.

While this is all well and good, we return to our primary question as to whether this law would magically give us a right to whistle blow or to ensure that our rulers govern us better. India provides us with one example as to why laws may not be all that necessary for this purpose. In contrast, this country has so many near perfect laws negated by a corrupt system and corrupt or unconcerned individuals. This is where our real loss continues to lie.

Back to Columns