Protecting the law

It isn’t easy being a cop. Lousy hours, lousy pay. A front-line job, and the butt of all complaints. Worse still, your job description isn’t always clear. The police exist to enforce the law, but often lawyers and learned judges dispute what the law means. How’s your lowly flatfoot supposed to know? And as a cop, you’re always blamed. Crime rises, it’s your fault. Crime falls, it’s because of government policy.

In the last few weeks, our boys in navy have taken a fairly severe, and it would seem well-deserved, bashing. We, the public, have suddenly become concerned about the standard operating procedures in lock-ups, particularly those relating to strip and search. We’ve clamoured for a second independent commission to investigate police abuse of power.

The problem, however, with any investigation of the police is that while most of our civil service is translucent, the RMP is opaque. The need to protect both the force and the general public means that there is some information that the general public just can’t be allowed to know. It could jeopardise investigations, put officers at risk or, worse, bring reprisals onto the heads of civilians who had helped in police investigations.

Nevertheless, there is plenty about the police force that should be made more transparent. Standard operating procedures, where they exist, are one obvious example. Investigations into police abuse of power, generally, also needs to be open to public scrutiny. For the police to do their job, the public need to have confidence in them. And for that to happen, we need to know that they they deserve that confidence.

Following a spate of deaths in police custody in 2003, family members of the (mainly young) men who had died questioned the reliability of official autopsies. The police were upset at this affrontry. Initially, the corpses were released to the families for second opinions (which often varied widely with the initial reports). However, as the bodies began to stack, the bodies were no longer released. Any investigation or inquest had to take the official autopsy as it’s starting point.

Whether there was any abuse of power or not, this is not a move that inspires confidence in the police force.

Towards the end of November, abuse of police power came to public notice once more, with an Abu-Ghraib scenario of a young woman being forced to strip and do ‘ear-squats’, naked. A task obviously set to humiliate. It follows closely on reports lodged by four Chinese nationals of sexual harassment.

An independent commission, headed by a respected former judge, is being established. Unfortunately, information is already being withheld from the public. The ‘ear-squat’ woman has been identified. The woman’s privacy needs to be respected. However, her nationality has become a matter of public interest. It is difficult to see how revealing this would jeopardise investigations. If the police-woman involved has not realised she is under investigation, it does not say much for her own powers of deduction.

The refusal to release these details merely serves to further undermine public confidence in the police. If we are going to protect our police force, we need to stop the rot immediately. We need to open our stations to the glare of public scrutiny, to make them accountable for their actions (and their inactions). Only in this way will we maintain (or re-build) confidence in our police force. And that is the only way it is possible for them to do their job.

The power of the (poison) pen

The Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur is claiming that he’s the victim of a conspiracy, initiated by corrupt officials safeguarding their engorged rice-bowls. The writer of the poison book claims his own claims are well-researched. The battle seems headed to the courts.

It’s not the first time the reputation of powerful politicians or political appointees has been besmirched with the poison pen. We seem to be unable to rise above the adage of sticks and stones. Words continually hurt us.

And we continue offering them official credence. The Anti-Corruption Agency has admitted that it follows up leads sent in poison pen letters, or anonymous tips. Almost a third of its investigations come from unverified sources.

Makes you wonder. Why do we give such credence to these rumour-mongers, people who refuse to accept responsibility for the statements they make? It’s hardly a hallmark of sincerity, not in an ideal world.

Unfortunately, of course, ours is not an ideal world. Datuk Ruslin at DBKL is finding out to his cost that Malaysian mud is a very sticky substance. More viscous than in other parts of the world. But there are ways of watering it down.

Rumours and misinformation are like fungi. They thrive in the dark. Shining light on them causes them to wither and die. If there is truth in either the Datuk Bandar’s allegation of a conspiracy, or in the alleged conspirators allegations against him, bringing more information into the public realm is the only way that reputations – not just of individuals but of the institution of the DBKL – can be salvaged. And it shouldn’t be up to the Datuk Bandar or others, who have political or economic interests to safeguard, whether information is released. Or what information should be released.

So who does decide when and what information to release?

The ideal situation would be that all information is automatically available to the public. If it isn’t going to be made available, there should be a good reason, and that reason should be made available to the public. ‘To protect my own interests’ is hardly likely to make it as a reason to hide information.

The DBKL, and the Datuk Bandar, don’t need to wait for national legislation to start enacting openness regulations within City Hall. They could adopt their own transparency regulations, ideally based on international freedom of information principles, as encapsulated in the statement of principles released last year (available at www.cijmalaysia.org/Info_café).

Tackling corruption, and the mud-smearing of poisonous pens, becomes much easier when the public can see the grounds, or lack of grounds, for complaints and convictions.

API: Released?

The nation is progressing. The rakyat have now been entrusted with the potentially explosive information of knowing the Air Pollution Index (API). It is being hailed as a major step forward for transparency and openness. But, cynical as we are at CIJ, we can’t help but think that the reality doesn’t meet the hype.

First off, the decision to put the figures under the Official Secrets Act was blatantly ludicrous. We’ve sunk to such depths that being allowed to know the hazards of breathing deeply is considered a revolution in openness. We are still operating under a system that allows this information to be re-classified, if the Government wills it. Given his statements the day before the figures were released, if the current Deputy Prime Minister was in charge, the API would still be under wraps.

Secondly, there is still a lot of information about air pollution that we’re not being given. It’s possible that this information isn’t being collected – but we don’t know that either. A bit of a chemistry lesson here. Different air pollutants can mix together to create more air pollution than would exist if they didn’t meet – a case of one plus one equals three. The pollution from Sumatra reached the city, mixed with the pollution already in the air then, and possibly led to a worse situation than would have existed if the same pollution hit an area with different pollutants (where one plus one equals two).

To find out whether this happened, it’s important to know what the ‘background’ pollution is – what the normal pollutants are in urban areas. There are also point sources of pollution, factories, oil refineries and the like. These could contribute to an increase in the API. But there isn’t any information in the public realm about if or where these point sources are, and if they contributed to the horrendous haze.

Basically the API figures on their own don’t tell us enough. They don’t point to long-term solutions for solving the haze. Only continual monitoring, with the release of figures on what the pollution comprises and where it comes from, coupled with the already declared assistance to our Indonesian colleagues, is going to yield results.

Another thing that is disconcerting was how unprepared we were, even in the short term to deal with the haze. Was there no warning that there were fires in Sumatra? Did they spring up overnight? Was the seasonal dry spell somehow unseasonal? Perhaps if we had access to the API figures from coastal areas on the Straits of Melaka, we'd be able to assess whether the haze should have caught us unawares.

This lack of preparedness was complemented by the lack of information on what was happening. When the Emergency was declared, nobody knew what it meant. Nobody knew what the guidelines were, whether there was a curfew. This is information that could have been published as soon as the haze was recognised as a potentially serious problem. Health leaflets could have been printed. Mobile stations set up to provide information to the concerned public. It’s amazing how well the Government’s party machinery can swing into action when a General Election is declared, but how slow the Government was in responding to the haze!

A Freeedomof Information Act would require Government agencies to routinely publish figures that are of public interest. All figures on air pollution would obviously come under this category. That way, experts and the interested public could monitor air pollution trends and push for prosecution of air pollution offenders or more appropriate guidelines for action in the haze season. Emergency guidelines would be published as they’re formulated. And if they’re only formulated at the last minute, the public can push for a more responsible approach from their elected representatives.

While the haze was hazardous to our health, it was compounded by uncertainty and ignorance. Both of these could have been avoided if information had been made more freely available.

AP in arms again

The Prime Minister has done the honourable - possibly the only - thing and released the list of Approved Permit recipients. Hurray for him. Full disclosure is the buzzword.

Yet nobody seems happy.

The former Prime Minister says the list is incomplete, the current one asking the Minister for International Trade and Industry to publish everything. Nobody trusts the list to be full, nobody believes that Rafidah Aiz and others in power have nothing to hide.

The root of the problem is the secrecy that has surrounded the issuing of APs. To dispel the air of conspiracy, one quick airing of information is not proving to be enough. The taste is merely giving both public and politicians an appetite.

The public, and the politicians, know that they had no right to the AP list. A moral right, perhaps, but there is no legal right that allows the public to know who benefits, and who doesn't, from the AP system. It hardly counts as a flow of information, more a seepage. Because even if the AP system - for cars, at any rate - is completely above board, even if there are no unworthy recipients, if all those that receive the permits have proven their ability, it doesn't mean that there aren't other systems being abused. Or that information, even on APs, isn't being hidden.

Unless the public has the right to this information, and to other information about how individuals and companies are benefiting from government contracts, the public will remain justifiably suspicious about those who appear to be benefiting from close relations with ministers and senior civil servants rather than their own ability.

The only way to defuse the situation is not to let the public know everything about the AP awards. It is to let the public know everything about every contract or award that is awarded by a public body, how those decisions were made, when, why and how much the contracts or awards were worth.

The decision to reveal this information needs to be taken out of the hands of those who stand to lose from these revelations. It needs to given to the rakyat as a matter of course.

This is the basis of the first principle for freedom of information legislation, which states:

"The government should pass a comprehensive freedom of information law based on the right to information which establishes the principle of maximum disclosure. Access to information is a basic necessity and right, not a luxury, indispensable to the aim of Malaysia to become an information society.

The right to information is relevant to all members of society and their concerns."

The implication is that it would not be the Prime Minister’s or Rafidah's decision to disclose information. The information would automatically be in the public realm.

As the Prime Minister has said, withholding the information only creates "a negative perception". And the basis for that negative perception is because the only reason to withhold the information is to protect those receiving APs.

Why do these people need protecting? If they have legitimately worked to achieve this status, if there is a reasonably equitable distribution of permits, if there is no rent-seeking going on, then there is no need for them to be protected.

It is only if there is something underhand occurring that there is a need for secrecy. There was never any reason for the AP awardees list to be a secret. The question is, how many similar pieces of information are waiting for disgruntled politicians to ask searching questions, before the public learns the truth?

With a Freedom of Information Act, the public no longer needs to depend upon the whims and interests of ministers, but can act as a check upon them. As it should be.

Managing the information revolution

Bringing out the best in people, sharing information and experience, translating data into knowledge – it’s all part of the process known *buzz* as knowledge management.

Knowledge management is about making the most of the resources, the human capital, that a company has, a way in which it can gain and maintain a competitive edge. And effective knowledge managers, proponents of effective knowledge managers, are inevitably proponents of freedom of information. Because one of the keys to effective knowledge management is effective information sharing.

It is impossible to tell which bit of information is going to lead to the efficiency overhaul that a company needs. The same bytes might pass through a hundred (if you’re lucky, a million hands if you’re not) before one person clicks one byte with another, and comes up with three bytes. As it were.

It applies to the private sector and applies doubly so the public sector. And an efficient public sector is in everybody’s interest.

Freedom of information legislation will help this sharing of public information in a variety of ways.

First, it will lead to an overhaul in the ways in which public information is stored. Officials who attempt to avoid disclosure by claiming they can’t find a document can be censured. They’ll be breaking the law. A pretty steep incentive to make sure that your document retrieval systems are working properly. And efficiently.

Second, it will allow a huge amount of information sharing. The petty fiefdoms of bureaucracy won’t be able to hide their secrets from rival officials in another department. The flows of information within the government will become smoother. And flows of information to the public will, well, come into existence as well. The public will be able to suggest efficiency improvements.

This third also brings up the inevitable argument against corruption. Freedom of information helps reporters and investigators pick out the paper trails that show corrupt practices. And rooting out corruption helps improve cost-effectiveness.

Lastly, all these things will have an impact on the private sector. They’ll be able to make more intelligent predictions and assessments of Government behaviour. They’ll be able to make more rational decisions, based on more reliable information. They’ll have to pay fewer taxes (or the same taxes for more services).

This is the reason why freedom of information legislation on its own is not enough. It requires enforcement, it requires training – because the benefits will only be felt when the bureaucracy incorporates efficient data management practices into their routine. It’s why there are calls for training and improved retrieval systems to be included as an integral part of freedom of information legislation, so that it isn’t just about the virtual right to see documents and files. But that it involves efficiency gains and a right to information in real time. Data may not be knowledge, but without data knowledge is impossible.

Driving corruption

Importing cars is a business shrouded in secrecy, involving government officials handing out choice permits to a few private firms. It’s got to the stage where even former PM, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, is asking whether corruption is occurring in the awarding of approved permits for importing cars.

It’s an area where high taxes ensure huge profits for those who can skirt the law. The Approved Permit (AP) system was designed to help Bumiputeras enter the autmobile marketing industry. Every car manufactured and assembled outside ASEAN has to have an AP to be sold in Malaysia. Only 116 companies were issued APs last year, and they imported over 46,000 cars.

Of these license-holders, 40 hold permits for one make of car, according to an AFP report in January this year, while the rest are unrestricted. Overall, foreign cars from outside ASEAN are restricted to 10 per cent of the market.

It’s a system that has come under attack from both inside and outside the country. Car manufacturers overseas cry foul, that this is a violation of trading agreements under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Consumers complain that it raises car prices, and that the quality of locally-produced cars suffers from the lack of competition. And politicians complain that the secrecy surrounding the system could cloak corruption, or at the very least breed suspicion that corruption exists.

Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has asked for the records surrounding the AP licenses to be made public – who holds the permits, what cars they’ve been importing and how much those cars are worth. Unfortunately, the Minister in charge, Rafidah Aziz, has declined on the grounds that these records have never been made public, neither in her time nor beforehand. It seems like a singularly poor excuse.

First, the policy benefits 116 companies. If tax evasion is happening, it happens to the detriment of 23 million Malaysians. Tax money is spent on amenities for all. Profit that ends up in the pockets of the 116 companies isn’t.

Second, if nobody is doing anything wrong, there is no reason not to open up the files. Ministers, companies and consumers alike will be satisfied. The Ministers and companies will have the suspicion currently surrounding them dispelled. Consumers will have the satisfaction of knowing that the Government is efficient and trustworthy.

The only people who benefit from the secrecy surrounding the AP system are those who are using it to hide corruption and tax evasion – corrupt customs officials, corrupt car importers and all those associated with them. The rest of us lose out.

The 34-million dollar cop

Note [21 June 2005]: Seems that it's now Four-million dollar cop.

Our police force has come in for a pounding. The Royal Commission that looked at their efficiency came up with a report that has given shape to our image of the corrupt officer. Despite the balance of good cop bad cop in the report, what lingers in the public imagination is the high-ranking officer with a fortune of RM34 million.

Imagine what a police officer has to do to earn thirty-four million ringgit. The number of times he (or she) has to compromise the law, the number of times they have to compromise our safety and security. The pimps, the mobsters, the underhand developers they associate with, that they are indebted to, who have power over them. And the number of their junior officers that they must drag down into this dirt with them.

It’s a scary image. If true, it’s obviously been going on a long time, largely undetected, completely unpunished. It now casts a long shadow over the entire police force. The honest officer, who has turned down offer after offer, is tainted as much as her dishonest colleague.

If the report is true, the officer was not even trying to hide. This was in the asset declaration, an astounding piece of arrogance. Had this piece of information come to light earlier, if the public had access to this little nugget, the course of events may have proceeded very differently.

First, if the report is false, we would know by now. The report would never have even included it. The Commission would have checked the information against the public record, and dismissed the complaint. The officer’s reputation would be intact.

If, however, the report is true, the darkness of secrecy has helped nourish this corruption. If asset declarations were made public, this officer could not have remained undetected for such a long time. As soon as the asset declaration was made, some enterprising journalist, junior officer, or victim of the corruption would have made it public. An open investigation would have occurred then. Justice would have been done, and seen to be done.

Instead, nothing has been done. The officer has, presumably, continued in his corruption. Continued his association with the underworld. Continued dragging down the officers around him, either by subverting honest investigations or subverting honest cops. And continued dragging down the force.

The lack of access to information protects the guilty, often at the expense of the innocent. Because those who are bearing the brunt of this report are the honest officers. They need the trust and cooperation of the general public to get their job done. And their job is protecting us.

Those suffering most are the poorly paid cops who haven’t made money from the gangsters. Their reputation is tarnished, the organisation they work for is tarnished. And without corruption money cushioning their homes and family lives, often this is all the honest officer has.

Privacy and freedom of information

It’s late at night. Or you’re just settling down for dinner. The phone beeps. A new message. Could it be the boss with a raise? Or that cute guy you gave your number to the other night? Nope. Maxis/ Digi/ is having some special promotion. Delete and groan.

This month, around 50 NGOs and over 230 individuals signed a memorandum calling for an end to moral policing, the authorities’ intrusion into our bedrooms and private lives. There is a private sphere and a public sphere. The police have a place in one, but not in the other.

The issue of privacy is not just about what happens in our bedrooms, but the right to privacy of our telephone numbers, our health records right down to a criminal record.

The issues of privacy and freedom of information are strongly interlinked. A common concern about freedom of information legislation is that ‘anyone will be able to find out anything about me’. This, however, can happen right now – there is nothing to prevent the government or private companies selling personal information to marketing companies, or anyone else.

With Freedom of Information it is necessary to provide guarantees to privacy of information on individuals. Unfortunately at the moment we have the worst of both worlds.

Privacy can be protected by a Data Protection Act or its equivalent. This would prevent companies or authorities from selling your personal details without your permission. Or even using it for themselves without your permission. It can even mean that they can’t even collect the details without your permission – it remains a mystery to me why Telekom requires to know whether I have a fridge to give me a phone line. Or why Popular Book Stores need to know my race before I can get a discount card. And one of the reasons I cancelled my Citibank account was because I kept receiving calls from insurance companies who addressed me as a Citibank customer.

The aim of the Data Protection Act in the UK, for example, is to balance the rights of individuals to privacy and the rights of those who want to collect information within the limits of the law. You have the right to know who knows what about you. So if someone has your phone tapped, and has recorded information about you, they have to tell you. Think about the nightmares this would give Special Branch officers!

Then, if you want them to get rid of the info they’ve collected, they have to. (SB officer turns green).

Oh, and you have the right to stop people from using information against you (SB officer files papers to migrate to Kazakhstan!). You have the right to compensation if information is misused.

And, best of all, you have the right NOT to have your information sold to people for the purpose of direct marketing.

An Open Letter to Pak Lah on Corruption

Very Honourable Prime Minister,

May I take advantage of your kind invitation to the rakyat to tell you the truth. Its about what you had proclaimed and loudly promised during the general elections, about a year ago.

You have ceaselessly chanted about combating corruption in this country, but truthfully, your crusade against the corrupt has been to date mere claptrap,devoid of concrete results.

Your battle cry against crooks has quite clearly become a cliché and a cheap charade, with civil servants still ahead of the corruption curve.

The spell of change with which you had first cast on this country has evaporated, and so has the confidence of the rakyat and foreign investors, in your credibility.

You had asked for more "muscle" - a clear and strong mandate. The rakyat gave you a nine-tenth majority! Sadly you have reciprocated with political muscular dystrophy.

You started off looking good as a PM and you had made the citizens of Bolehland feel good, but you have failed to deliver the goods of transparency and accountability.

You had insisted that you were starting with a clean slate, but added to the already sad state of affairs by slotting into your Cabinet soiled reputations and spent characters.

Your officers lie low with no more high-profile individuals to be prosecuted -- not even amongst the unknown 18 of high standing and low morals, high on the corruption list.

You say you need more time, but you do not have much time. The previlege of time was given to the last PM -- and the legacy you have inherited shows that corruption got worse through time.

Your invitation to work with you does not work at all. Whistleblowers and the alternative media like Malaysikini continue to be subjected to petty prosecutions and childish threats.

Failure to show that you mean business has resulted in "business as usual". Things are getting out of hand and daily reports by Malaysiakini on corruption make this truth stick out like a sore thumb.

At the last UMNO General Assembly you waved your wand instead of wielding the stick. You lost your magic -- and your party displayed the "worst case of money politics in history".

In the so-called war on graft, Parliament has remained but a rubber stamp, a symbol shorn of substance, stripped of essence, sidelined and side-stepped by the executive.

The citizenry of Bolehland are getting wary and weary of your nice guy image, your nice speeches and newsworthy moves on fighting graft, with nothing or little to show.

Mr Prime Minister, it is time to shut the door on the corrupt and to take down the "window dressing". Your honeymoon is over and you seem so divorced from day-to-day realities.

The country does not need a crooner on corruption and the crooked. It needs a leader courageous enough to translate his chorus against corruption into concrete reality.

Your efforts seem have been negated by the minister in your department Mohd Nazri Aziz, who has displayed quite limited knowledge on the difference between a April Fool's prank and a lie.

Perhaps the niggling Nazri was right when he accused Malaysiakini of "lying" -- the government has in fact not taken any concrete action against any high-profile individual!

Alas, it has taken a "lie" for your government, often in a state of denial, to tell or even insist on the truth that it has done nothing significant to curb corruption amongst people in high position!

By taking action against Malaysiakini, you would only be exhibiting to an amused world how your government has not only lost its credibility and sense of shame, but also its sense of humour.

Martin Jalleh
4 April 2005

Talk introduces FOI and a community's struggle for information

We need information to help us deal with almost every situation we face. Our need for information is as basic, and as crucial, as that; hence, the necessity for freedom of information.

This need was explained to about 30 representatives of various community and civil society groups at a talk at the Centre for Independent Journalism in Kuala Lumpur on Feb 19. The talk was held in conjunction with the KOMAS Freedom Film Fest 2005, which carries the theme ‘Freedom and Access to Information’.

Four guest speakers, Padmaja Padman, Claudia Theophilus, Dr Zulkefly Mohamad Omar and Alice Lee, spoke on the theme ‘The Right to Know, The Right to Live’.

Padma, who has 30 years experience in journalism and book publishing, has researched extensively on freedom of information. In her talk entitled "Terus Teranglah!", she said every citizen should be able to ask for, and get, information that affects how they conduct their lives - especially information that is in the hands of the government, since that is used to formulate national policies. Yet official information is often hidden from the public. A case in point is the incinerator controversy in Broga, Selangor, as illustrated by the speakers after Padma.

Padma compared the basic elements of the present Official Information Act with a typical Freedom of Information Act. Revealingly, the FOIA contains security safeguards that are in the OSA, but guarantees liberties clamped down by the latter.

Next, in ‘A Journalist’s Journey’, Claudia recapped her experiences covering the incinerator controversy since it first surfaced in Puchong, Selangor, the original site for the project before it was transferred to Broga.

The first hint of the story came at a press briefing by the Housing Buyers Association about squatters being relocated due to the project. Since it was a government project, there was only one source of information, i.e. the government. Yet government officials and officers were largely misinformed, unresponsive or unhelpful.

The Internet provided basic information about the technology. Bits of information gleaned from reports of media conferences elsewhere added to the picture. An international workshop in Penang connected her with NGOs in Japan (where the contractor was based) who gave her more information about the incinerator.

The Environment Impact Assessment report came in three volumes of technical jargon and the public viewing period for it was limited. Pressed for time, Claudia got the important details off the Broga residents who had purchased the pricey document and deciphered it with an expert’s help.

While accepting such barriers to information as challenges of the job, likening them to a great wall, Claudia was confident of chipping them down, but only with help from other media.

The third speaker was born and bred in the Broga village. In her talk, ‘The Broga Detectives’, Alice Lee related that she first knew about the incinerator from the Chinese newspapers in November 2002. She turned to the Internet and found facts that contradicted government claims.

Concerned for their health, the villagers formed a committee to stop the project. Various NGOs chipped in: Suara Rakyat Malaysia taught them how to organise press conferences and liaise with government departments; the Consumers Association of Penang provided information on incinerators and connected them with international NGOs; and the Malaysian Youth and Student Democratic Movement helped with research.

The villagers produced and distributed a flyer highlighting the dangers of the incinerator, but government was as quick to counter with a flyer promoting the incinerator, naming the site even before the EIA report was approved.

The government claimed that the effluent would be Grade A, safe for drinking. Yet the EIA said it was unsafe and there was risk of cancer and asthma. It said fishponds should close or rear only ornamental fish.

Since 2003, the committee has sent 20 memoranda to all authorities, from Broga-born Seremban MP Hon Choon Kim to the Backbencher’s Club. Until recently they had never heard from any of them. At their wit’s end, they sued the government in November 2003 for details of the project (the case is pending).

Alice said the residents were grateful to journalists such as Claudia, who has consistently covered the issue despite an initial media blackout. Journalists play a very important role and it was thanks to them that the Broga people’s effort was not wasted.

Lastly, chairperson of the Broga ‘No Incinerator’ Action Committee, Dr Zulkefly, in his talk ‘Communication and People Power’, said the community reacted strongly because of a communication breakdown between the government and the people. He said the government has not been a good listener.

But that may change soon as Dr Zulkefly revealed the latest twist in the saga. The residents have finally received the first official response to their letters: Vincent Lim, political secretary to the Prime Minister, has asked the Housing and Local Government Ministry to answer to their concerns.

The Broga story is a truly inspiring one of how a small community fights for access to information.