Dhaka Tribune: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 26 May 2021.
If the government is truly on the public’s side, there should not be too many secrets to keep from journalists
By now, there has been a lot of discussion on the origin and nature of the Official Secret Act 1923. Without going into much detail, we may safely conclude that this was promulgated by our colonial masters more than a century ago with a view to protecting secret official information from going over to their adversary.
It is clear that this was mostly aimed at disciplining insiders. The prime concern was photographs, maps, sketches, files etc containing sensitive information, disclosure of which could jeopardize state security.
In my long career in the army, I have witnessed good practice in this regard. A register is maintained which contains the OSA and circulated to all officers and individuals working in the office who deal with such sensitive information. Persons who need to sign are either involved in preserving files containing such information, or are engaged in processing, updating, and safekeeping of such documents.
This ensures that all individuals sign a certificate on a monthly basis that they had gone through the contents, understood them, and would make sure that through their activity, no such compromise is made.
It is part of our job to make a pledge that we shall maintain such secrets, as we have been entrusted with, in the interest of the state as government officials. I am sure similar practice is also there in the offices where civil bureaucrats have to deal with sensitive issues.
To talk about secrecy, it may be pertinent here to refer to the use and handling of cameras. Previously, anybody possessing a camera was required to endorse it in a register in a military unit. In the cantonments, cameras were strictly prohibited.
Now, with the advent of mobile phones, it has become all the more difficult to guard against leakage of information through such devices. Hence, rules need to be amended as such and technical vigilance needs to be in place.
How to reduce the risk of disclosure of such information?
There could be a lot of information which a ministry or a government office may like to protect to their utmost ability, and put in efforts not to divulge it to jeopardize any state interest. With the advent of the RTI, there are always talks as to what are the kinds of information in a government office which cannot be given out to the public -- who actually are the owner of the state while others are to serve them in various capacities as part of the government.
Experts already opine that RTI and Secret Act are contradicting each other. Some even opine that there cannot be any secret information in a public office that cannot be shared with the public.
Actually, transparency in dealing with matters concerning public affairs is most sought after. All government officials are to provide some kind of service to the public. When it comes to public health, it is all the more relevant that the process followed in the allocation of funds and resources, in making procurement, and in recruitment of manpower are done with utmost diligence.
Now, how can we reduce chances of pilferage of such sensitive information from our offices? Is there any way we can reduce the degree of sensitivity of such information?
Can we arrange disclosure of relevant information to the public on our own so that their queries are satisfied even before they approach us to lay their hands on those? Can we pre-empt the nature of information the public will be interested in, and the manner they would need those to be disclosed in view of the prevailing circumstances?
When it involves spending good sums of public money in public health, treatment, procurement of large amounts of equipment, furnishing of hospitals, or dealing with foreign agencies to procure vaccines in times of a pandemic, the degree of sensitivity and the need of people to have access to such information will naturally be very high.
Offices dealing with such sensitive issues need to have well-rehearsed and tested procedures in place to get their job done to achieve intended goals. In addition, there is a great deal of requirement of non-interference by political leaders, in addition to transparency and efficiency of the procurement system, and keeping people informed at various stages.
The website of all our ministries could be a source of wealth of such information. If a ministry maintains such information in a presentable manner which can be accessed by individuals in need, there will be no requirement of people making desperate efforts to physically queue up for such information, or even resort to means that are not very transparent.
To deal with special requirements of the media, the concerned ministry can even train nominated individuals with the proper communication skills to confidently handle them without making any compromises or letting down the dignity of the outfit.
Secrecy in public office is considered by some experts as a disease. Transparency gives us strength to face queries, whereas secrecy makes us vulnerable and unnerved. Maintaining secrecy in this digital age is becoming more difficult.
There have been anecdotes that following RTI, some people already succeeded in various fields in getting their sought-after information and thus enabling the public offices to serve people even better.
We actually are servants of the republic, which belongs to the people. If we are transparent, if we have made pragmatic SOPs for going about our jobs, if we truly prioritized public good on top of all other issues, we shall have no secret to keep from people, be they a journalist or a common citizen.
(Brig Gen Qazi Abidus Samad, ndc, psc (Retd) is a freelance contributor.)
If the government is truly on the public’s side, there should not be too many secrets to keep from journalists
By now, there has been a lot of discussion on the origin and nature of the Official Secret Act 1923. Without going into much detail, we may safely conclude that this was promulgated by our colonial masters more than a century ago with a view to protecting secret official information from going over to their adversary.
It is clear that this was mostly aimed at disciplining insiders. The prime concern was photographs, maps, sketches, files etc containing sensitive information, disclosure of which could jeopardize state security.
In my long career in the army, I have witnessed good practice in this regard. A register is maintained which contains the OSA and circulated to all officers and individuals working in the office who deal with such sensitive information. Persons who need to sign are either involved in preserving files containing such information, or are engaged in processing, updating, and safekeeping of such documents.
This ensures that all individuals sign a certificate on a monthly basis that they had gone through the contents, understood them, and would make sure that through their activity, no such compromise is made.
It is part of our job to make a pledge that we shall maintain such secrets, as we have been entrusted with, in the interest of the state as government officials. I am sure similar practice is also there in the offices where civil bureaucrats have to deal with sensitive issues.
To talk about secrecy, it may be pertinent here to refer to the use and handling of cameras. Previously, anybody possessing a camera was required to endorse it in a register in a military unit. In the cantonments, cameras were strictly prohibited.
Now, with the advent of mobile phones, it has become all the more difficult to guard against leakage of information through such devices. Hence, rules need to be amended as such and technical vigilance needs to be in place.
How to reduce the risk of disclosure of such information?
There could be a lot of information which a ministry or a government office may like to protect to their utmost ability, and put in efforts not to divulge it to jeopardize any state interest. With the advent of the RTI, there are always talks as to what are the kinds of information in a government office which cannot be given out to the public -- who actually are the owner of the state while others are to serve them in various capacities as part of the government.
Experts already opine that RTI and Secret Act are contradicting each other. Some even opine that there cannot be any secret information in a public office that cannot be shared with the public.
Actually, transparency in dealing with matters concerning public affairs is most sought after. All government officials are to provide some kind of service to the public. When it comes to public health, it is all the more relevant that the process followed in the allocation of funds and resources, in making procurement, and in recruitment of manpower are done with utmost diligence.
Now, how can we reduce chances of pilferage of such sensitive information from our offices? Is there any way we can reduce the degree of sensitivity of such information?
Can we arrange disclosure of relevant information to the public on our own so that their queries are satisfied even before they approach us to lay their hands on those? Can we pre-empt the nature of information the public will be interested in, and the manner they would need those to be disclosed in view of the prevailing circumstances?
When it involves spending good sums of public money in public health, treatment, procurement of large amounts of equipment, furnishing of hospitals, or dealing with foreign agencies to procure vaccines in times of a pandemic, the degree of sensitivity and the need of people to have access to such information will naturally be very high.
Offices dealing with such sensitive issues need to have well-rehearsed and tested procedures in place to get their job done to achieve intended goals. In addition, there is a great deal of requirement of non-interference by political leaders, in addition to transparency and efficiency of the procurement system, and keeping people informed at various stages.
The website of all our ministries could be a source of wealth of such information. If a ministry maintains such information in a presentable manner which can be accessed by individuals in need, there will be no requirement of people making desperate efforts to physically queue up for such information, or even resort to means that are not very transparent.
To deal with special requirements of the media, the concerned ministry can even train nominated individuals with the proper communication skills to confidently handle them without making any compromises or letting down the dignity of the outfit.
Secrecy in public office is considered by some experts as a disease. Transparency gives us strength to face queries, whereas secrecy makes us vulnerable and unnerved. Maintaining secrecy in this digital age is becoming more difficult.
There have been anecdotes that following RTI, some people already succeeded in various fields in getting their sought-after information and thus enabling the public offices to serve people even better.
We actually are servants of the republic, which belongs to the people. If we are transparent, if we have made pragmatic SOPs for going about our jobs, if we truly prioritized public good on top of all other issues, we shall have no secret to keep from people, be they a journalist or a common citizen.
(Brig Gen Qazi Abidus Samad, ndc, psc (Retd) is a freelance contributor.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
