The Right To Information Act & The Educational Qualifications Of MPs

By DNR Samaranayaka –JULY 6, 2021

DNR Samaranayaka

A request had been made by the Sunday Times, on 28th March, 2021, from Mr. Tikiri Jayatilleke, the Assistant Secretary-General and Information Officer of the Parliament. In this request, the Sunday Times sought the information on educational qualifications of members of parliament. However, this request had been turned down by Mr. Jayatilleke on the grounds that it amounts to the invasion of privacy of the MPs. He has used the section 5 of the RTI act that enforces certain conditions under which the information should not be made public. These four conditions can be summarized as:

1. the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity, 2. the disclosure is likely to lead to unwanted invasion of privacy of the individual, 3. there is no large public interest to learn about MPs qualifications and 4. The approval of the disclosure is subject to the wish of the MP.

These are very stringent rules that cannot be easily explained to the satisfaction of the rule; and it is very clear that they are meant to prevent the release of the information on educational qualifications of MPs. Consider the absurdity of the last rule. It requires the approval of the MP to release his or her educational qualifications. If the law requires the disclosure of academic qualifications to be approved by the person concerned, it will never be possible to get this information if the person does not have any qualifications that he can disclose. Such a person can always refuse to give the information and it cannot be forcefully obtained either. The RTI, however, recognizes the right of the people to know the information about other people as said in the act: Subject to exceptions such as state secrets, people should have the right to demand information from state institutions. Releasing private information and information related to accomplishments being done using the public tax funds is a responsibility of public officials. It is a right of the people to receive such information without any delay and with complete accuracy”.

Perhaps the most important condition regarding the release of the information is in section 6 of the act. The Assistant Secretary-General appears to have ignored this section in making the decision to reject the request of the Sunday Times. This section, however, introduces a more difficult prerequisite to comply with. It says: Notwithstanding the provision of section 5 (1), a request for information shall not be refused where the “public interest” in disclosing the information outweighs the harm that would result from the disclosure. This condition is more difficult than satisfying the four conditions, reported above, because of the term “public interest” remains undefined in the RTI act. The act says, the “term public interest will be interpreted by the RTI Commission in due time”. Unfortunately, even after more than five years, this term has not been defined and published.

I searched the internet to find a definition or the meaning of ‘public interest’, and I went through many articles that attracted the attention on this topic. Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of it among the articles I read. I am quoting the following from the Western Australia Royal Commission report: The public interest is a term for which there is no single precise definition. The answer to the question “What is the Public interest depends almost entirely on the circumstances in which the question arises. The public interest has been variously described as the sum of special interests, the shared values of the community, the broad shared interest of the society etc.  It is not difficult to find multitude of definitions about the public interest since the time of Aristotle”.

The rule of the section 6 of the act, on the other hand, appears to provide an opportunity to Sunday Times to obtain the information on educational qualifications of MPs from the RTI on the basis that the paper represents the public interest. The information requested by the Sunday Times is not for the personal use of the paper. It is quite clear that the information was intended for the general public. If this information was requested by someone for his or her personal use, the rejection by the Assistant Secretary would have been justified. The section six clearly emphasises that the information should be released if the public interest is greater than the harm it causes to the individual. Turning down the request of the Sunday Times is a violation of the rights of the people. It has sought this information since it is becoming clear that people in the country are interested in knowing the educational qualifications of MPs. Educational qualifications are simply a public good. As such, its release to the public cannot be denied.

Is there any harm in releasing this information?

One of the four reasons that were used in prohibiting the release of the information is that “the disclosure is likely to lead to unwanted invasion of privacy of the individual”. Releasing the information on educational qualifications of MPs is not going to harm the MPs in any manner. A parliamentarian can continue to be an MP irrespective of the level of education; and his or her term ends only with the dissolution of the parliament. As such an MP will not face any threat to his or her position in parliament by RTI releasing the educational qualifications on MPs.

Educational qualifications are the most commonly used yard sticks in measuring the knowledge of a person; it is often used to determine the ability of the person to undertake the responsibility that he or she is entrusted with. According to the Assistant Secretary, educational qualifications are personal information and as such they cannot be released. There may be some truth in what he says; but it becomes public information when a person is involved in public duty. If a person applies for a job, for example, the applicant needs to prove that he or she possesses the qualifications relevant to the position. To prove his or her claim, a certificate issued by a relevant authority must be forwarded along with the application. If fails to do so, that person will be eliminated from consideration for the position. Even to enter a university to follow a degree program, the applicants will have to sit for a competitive exam and its results will determine whether the applicant has succeeded in getting a place or not.

I saw an advertisement in the papers recently calling for applications for Village Councillors (Grama Niladhari) in Sri Lanka for those with three average passes at S.S.C exam. It is a government position with a salary of Rs 47,000 per month. Isn’t this a good example to support that educational qualifications are not only private information, but they become public when they are revealed when seeking a job. That is the rule of the government. This process helps to understand that all selected candidates have the required qualifications. Since the MPs do not have to have any education to enter the parliament, there can be so many MPs without any educational qualifications. Some may not even eligible to hold a Grama Niladhari position. 

Educational qualifications of MPs in other countries

Educational qualifications of politicians in most other countries are known to the public as they are published on the internet. The British Prime Minister, Mr Boris Johnson, for example, has earned a B.A in economics from Wharton School of Finance and Commerce in 1968. In the UK parliament, about 81% are holders of at least a bachelor’s degree. Mr. Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) degree from the University of Delhi and an M.A from Gujarat University. In Australia, out of 226 members in parliament, 86% have at least a Bachelor’s degree. The former President of The United States, Donald Trump, also holds a B.A. in Economics from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A number of Sri Lankan politicians have also registered their educational qualifications on the internet; among them are Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is a graduate from the University of Ceylon, and also an advocate from the Law College, which he secured in 1972; and Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa is also a lawyer from the law college. Even Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s information is on the internet. He has given the school he studied (Ananda College) and the Diyatalawa Army Training College, where he underwent military training, as his educational qualifications. Unfortunately, these are not the educational qualifications; they are the places where he studied and where he received his army training. It appears that he has nothing to declare as educational qualifications. This might explain the stupidity that he demonstrates very often when dealing with important development or administrative issues in the country.

Read More