Conflicting statements, cover-ups, corrupt officials and a lame judiciary. Add apathy and ignorance to the mix and you get the Malaysia of today.

Is there anything that can upset this cosy set-up bound firmly together by political patronage?

Yes, repeal or amend laws that deny the public's right to information and pass a new freedom of information (FOI) law, said a five-member panel that spoke on 'It's None of My Business: Freedom of Information for Lawyers'.

The few most notorious ones are the Official Secrets Act 1972, Sedition Act 1948, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and Internal Security Act 1960.

Prominent lawyer Zainur Zakaria, also a former Bar president, said many projects and decisions were made in the public's name but without full disclosure of pertinent details.

Citing the now-scrapped Scenic Bridge project, he said both the former and present prime ministers continued to make contradicting statements.

"But who do we believe? The government keeps saying that it was scrapped because the people wished so but the people don't even know what is really happening.

"There is no information made available for us to even consider the matter.

On the continued lack of information, he cited the restructuring of loss-making government-owned MAS and the Middle Ring Road II which cost millions in taxpayers' ringgit to repair.

"Take the toll concessionaires who are guaranteed returns despite making millions in profits every year. We are the ones who pay the toll but we have no right to even look at the contracts.

Slick bailouts

"Look at Petronas, the custodian of the nation's wealth, and the Petronas Act which says the company is only accountable to the prime minister but it's no secret that profits have been used to bail out failed businesses.

"The same goes for how investments are made by the Employees Provident Fund," he said, adding that an action filed for full disclosure was dismissed for "fishing for information".

"Even the courts do not see the need to protect the interests of the public, as seen clearly in the judgements of some senior and former top judges."

Zainur said it was for the courts to decide whether or not the restrictions or denial of fundamental freedoms imposed by the government are justified.

"Unfortunately, the courts have set a disturbing precedent by rubber-stamping the government's exercise of discretion in imposing the restrictions," he said, criticising the judiciary for failing in its role as the custodian of fundamental liberties.

"The courts are reluctant to go beyond the OSA classification and consider the content of documents in question even though a citizen may be deprived of his or her liberty."

Moderated by lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad, the half-day event jointly organised by the Bar Council and the FOI Coalition in Kuala Lumpur was attended by about 50 people.

No distinction

Mohamad Ezam Mohd Nor, chairperson of newly-formed Democracy and Anti-Corruption Movement (Gerak), sees access to information as an important check and balance mechanism.

"I still recall, with much displeasure and disgust, the days in government when I had to be part of a difficult effort to resist bailouts and the indiscriminate use of government funds for the sake of certain connected individuals."

On April 15 last year, the High Court quashed his conviction and two-year sentence for breaching the OSA. The government is appealing the decision.

Referring to the UK's Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, he cited the bit which says it was mainly enacted "to encourage people to blow the whistle about malpractice and to ensure the authority respond by acting on the message rather than the messenger".

Calling the OSA "a shelter for the corrupt", he said there was "no difference between vital information on corruption and toilet papers other than the stamp of 'RAHSIA' (secret)".

To illustrate the absurdity, Mohamad Ezam, who is Keadilan Youth chief, said even his appointment letter bore the stamp.

On calls to repeal repressive laws, he said there was no dispute as to the "delicate balance" required between public demands for transparency and government confidentiality.

Legality challenge

Lawyer M Puravalen urged for more legal challenges to be mounted against the arbitrary classification of secrecy on public documents, even if it is to expose maladministration.

"It is liberty versus licence. The provision for an annual licence for printing and publishing is a 'brilliant' device that only Malaysia has."

Citing several precedents including one in Singapore, he said the judiciary had sold out by rubber-stamping the use of repressive provisions to inhibit freedom and deny the right to information.

"The restrictions in the Bernama Act, for example, has never been challenged for its validity."

He said Articles 128 and 162 of the Federal Constitution can be used in legal challenges against restrictions on access to information or denial of fundamental freedoms provided under Article 10.

Centre for Independent Journalism executive director Sonia Randhawa, in an overview of the right to information, said corrupt officials benefited most from a lack of FOI.

"The effect of FOI is the exact reverse of the OSA, which means that withholding information is a violation."

She said the FOI Coalition, a small grouping of non-governmental bodies, have started engaging local authorities and certain organisations to create awareness and a code.

Maggi - national security?

To illustrate the extent of the OSA's reach, Sonia cited toilet papers and instant noodles being classified as state secret by virtue of use in the government.

"In the 1970s, the army was paying RM4.50 for a packet of Maggi (instant noodles), information considered as a state secret and a national security issue just because it involved the military.

"But don't taxpayers have a right to know who is making tonnes of money here?"

Tenaganita executive director Irene Fernandez blamed the repressive laws for instilling fear into most Malaysians.

In 2003, she was convicted for publishing false news after helping to expose the large number of migrant deaths at the Semenyih detention centre and corrupt practices involving a Cabinet minister in the recruitment of migrant workers.

She recounted the police's scare tactics employed to intimidate her after she tried to expose all these activities.

"The impact (of my case) is to criminalise freedom of expression and create fear. The police were only interested in finding out who had given information to Tenaganita."

"It didn't make any difference that the same information was in the memorandum we sent to all the relevant ministries highlighting the plight of migrant workers in detention centres."

Human rights advocate and lawyer R Sivarasa urged for more efforts geared towards creating public awareness and support which will eventually lead to a demand for the right to know.

Replying to queries of how to introduce a FOI Bill through a Private Member's Bill which has never succeeded before, he said it was important to engage the MPs.

"Tell them this... 'if you don't support this Bill, we won't support you in the next election'. Then the MPs may want to sit and talk about it."