My favorite lecture in India was about the Right to Information. The Right to Information Act is one of the primary laws that deepen democracy in India.
A democratic country needs governance that keeps wishes of people. But only until 2005, it becomes clear that the India’s 1.2 billion citizens have been newly empowered by the far-reaching law granting them the right to demand almost any information from the government. The law is backed by stiff fines for bureaucrats who withhold information, a penalty that appears to be ensuring speedy compliance. The law has given the people the feeling that the government is accountable to them.
What I am jealous of India is that their media enjoys a relatively free press and the Government of India is also making headway in as far as supporting people’s freedom of expression and access to free media. Undoubtedly, media plays an active role in the promotion of Right to Information. Media informs people how important is their Right to Information; what the benefits of Right to information are and how people can present their petitions about Right to Information. As long as people are aware of the significance of Right to Information, they will put pressures on the government therefore it is more likely for the government to serve them better. On the contrary, Chinese government controls the media. People have no other sources of information except absorbing monotonous information from the state-owned TV stations or newspapers every day. The media speaks for the government and fools the public for most of the time. For example, since the Sichuan earthquake hit on May 12, the Chinese public has been deluges with rumors and misinformation. Chinese authorities have on several occasions stepped forward to discredit the latter and appeal for the public to access information from authoritative sources. The phenomenon demonstrates how only when information in China is more transparent the public will have the confidence to turn away from rumors. Even though China subsequently promulgated Regulation on Information Publishing of People’s Republic of China in January 2007, without a free press, none of these laws are meaningful. Plus, from the legal status perspective, India’s Act has a higher standing than China’s because it is a law enacted by the country’s National Congress. China’s ,on the other hand, is a regulation put forth by the Chinese Council, who’s regulations are less powerful than those framed by the Chinese government’s legislative organs-the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee.
A democratic country needs governance that keeps wishes of people. But only until 2005, it becomes clear that the India’s 1.2 billion citizens have been newly empowered by the far-reaching law granting them the right to demand almost any information from the government. The law is backed by stiff fines for bureaucrats who withhold information, a penalty that appears to be ensuring speedy compliance. The law has given the people the feeling that the government is accountable to them. I think the Right to Information Act has given the poor a powerful tool to ensure their benefits from the economic development. Previously, Indian citizens had few means to know what their government is doing for them and people in the government also try to withhold information from them. But now, with the law, it had a significant effect in combating graft and corruption and it is a good deterrence to future scalawags in government. The introduction of the Right to Information has critically transformed the way citizens can seek transparency in decision making and implementation of policies, programs, legislations in any given sector or particular project. At the same time the Act allows one to demand for disclosure of information which an authority or department has failed to put in the public domain.
Right to Information achieved great successes in the past few years, it not only promotes transparency and accountability in government, but it also minimizes corruption and inefficiency in public offices therefore ensures people’s participation in governance and decision making. Rajiv Gandhi, a former prime minister, once said that only 15% of spending on the poor actually reached them-the rest was wasted or siphoned off. Same as India, millions of money is allocated to the poorest areas by Chinese central government every year, however, the living standard of people there still remains the same.
What I am jealous of India is that their media enjoys a relatively free press and the Government of India is also making headway in as far as supporting people’s freedom of expression and access to free media. Undoubtedly, media plays an active role in the promotion of Right to Information. Media informs people how important is their Right to Information; what the benefits of Right to information are and how people can present their petitions about Right to Information. As long as people are aware of the significance of Right to Information, they will put pressures on the government therefore it is more likely for the government to serve them better. On the contrary, Chinese government controls the media. People have no other sources of information except absorbing monotonous information from the state-owned TV stations or newspapers every day. The media speaks for the government and fools the public for most of the time. For example, since the Sichuan earthquake hit on May 12, the Chinese public has been deluges with rumors and misinformation. Chinese authorities have on several occasions stepped forward to discredit the latter and appeal for the public to access information from authoritative sources. The phenomenon demonstrates how only when information in China is more transparent the public will have the confidence to turn away from rumors. Even though China subsequently promulgated Regulation on Information Publishing of People’s Republic of China in January 2007, without a free press, none of these laws are meaningful. Plus, from the legal status perspective, India’s Act has a higher standing than China’s because it is a law enacted by the country’s National Congress. China’s ,on the other hand, is a regulation put forth by the Chinese Council, who’s regulations are less powerful than those framed by the Chinese government’s legislative organs-the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee.-Bei Chen MPIA 2012
Bei,
ReplyDeleteLiked your post, and the comparison with China. I often wondered whether at the development stage whether too many citizen's rights are a burden for a state that wants to do right by its people. Consider a benevolent government (not China, maybe Singapore). The complete right to information may mean giving the right to a freedom that polarizes the population (think US). Of course in India that is a good thing since it is the only way to get a powerful and slothful bureacracy to work. I want to see if it is powerful enough to stop corruption. Only a people's movement can do that. kg