When it comes to information, there are good reasons why both a competitive market and an equitable society mandate that no stakeholder has an unfair advantage over another.

Take the case of a market for automobiles. Information asymmetry could mean that it is not possible to differentiate between an automobile with defects from an automobile without one. What do you think will happen in the long run if the consumer pays the same price for both varieties? Assuming that the cost of producing an automobile without defects is higher, the market will eventually be full of defective autos.

Could this happen in other information dependent social situations where the bad could eventually replace the good? Of course it can. And by recent indications, if something is not done to prevent this inevitability, we as a country will be paying a high premium for being stuck with products, individuals and institutions that do not hold much value anywhere else in the world.

Let me elaborate with the help of three examples.

On July 2^nd of this year, the Daily Star made an exciting disclosure that Bangladesh was now celebrating its first anniversary of going "lead free." The report, which was based on a World Bank Press Release, stated that recent measurements carried out in Bangladesh's Eastern Refinery Limited (ERL) laboratory have confirmed that gasoline dispensed at pumps in Bangladesh is now free of lead.

The news most certainly calls for a celebration. Last year, blood tests by Dhaka's Children's Hospital reported a lead content that was eight times higher than the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommended limits. Just three months ago, a seminar of the Global Environmental Journalists in Dhaka was reporting that lead content in Dhaka's air was reaching the highest level in the world during the dry seasons.

And the World Bank has certainly called for such celebration. It has heralded Bangladesh as an example for other countries to follow: "As lessons from Bangladesh's experience demonstrate, conversion to unleaded gasoline could, in principle, be carried out rapidly if countries committed themselves to a comprehensive phase-out program. The recognition of the lead problem, and the necessary political commitment to do something about it, have decisive roles in any effective lead phase-out process, as Bangladesh has shown."

Unfortunately however, apart from this minor blip in the news dailies, there hasn't been any reported celebration. In fact, as I tried to piece together the events that lead to this comprehensive phase-out program, I got more questions than answers.

• The World Bank press release reported that Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) test of gasoline dispensed at the pumps in greater Dhaka city showed lead levels as being within acceptable limits. In other words, AEC measurements showed gasoline dispensed at the pump was of the low-lead variety and not "lead-free" as the title of the press release claimed.
• On August 2^nd of last year, the Daily Star reported that the Eastern Refinery at Chittagong was mixing imported unleaded fuel with leaded fuel to lower the lead content from 0.5 to 0.2 percent. In another article on October 17, 1999, it was reporting that in the absence of a lead separator at the refinery, petrol and octane were being blended with unleaded motor spirit during processing of crude.
• Another news item reported that fueling stations in Bangladesh did not have separate reservoirs for storing unleaded gasoline. This meant that even if the supplied fuels were lead-free, there would be a high-probability that such fuels would be mixed with previously supplied leaded gasoline.
• A significant part of the current fleet of vehicles plowing the streets were not designed to operate on unleaded gasoline. There should thus have been many reported instances of engine troubles involving the older autos had Bangladesh gone lead-free for one year.

So the question remained, if we are indeed lead-free, how did we get there?

Nearly a month has passed since the World Bank Press Release but environmental watch-dog groups inside Bangladesh, which have gone to great lengths to highlight the problems of Dhaka's Air Pollution, have not recorded any concern over the reported news item. Neither there has been any press release by the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation or by the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission to provide explanation as to the exact extent of their measurements.

Is it because the source of the information was the World Bank?

It is not my intention to propose that the World Bank report is inaccurate. In fact, I have every reason to believe that the World Bank will be extremely forthcoming in providing a satisfactory explanation. But why is it taking me, a non-resident Bangladeshi in Virginia, to browse through Internet archives of newspapers and discussion groups, and figure out that we are still missing some critical parts of the story? In other words, why as a country, we do not have any set mechanism, either inside or outside the government that would demand a more complete account of such claims? If we are indeed an example for the world, shouldn't we at least find out what is it that we are showcasing?

My skepticism has its reasons.

It was not too long ago that another international agency, the UNICEF to be exact, was showcasing Bangladesh to the rest of the World by boasting that 97 percent of the country was now within walking distance of safe drinking water. So adamant it was in its pursuit of such claim that the agency did not even blink in executing its aggressive plan to sink 4 million tube wells despite being informed of Dr. Dipankar's pioneering work in West Bengal detecting the presence of Arsenic in ground water.

And what happened after that impending disaster became a front-page story in the New York Times (November 10, 1998)? The WHO continued to recommend the use of a MERCK test-kit for the detection of Arsenic. Millions of donor dollars were spent in the purchase of those kits and test the levels of arsenic in various water samples. And to what end? WHO's own recommended safe level of arsenic was 10 parts-per-billion (ppb). The MERCK test kit could detect arsenic with accuracy of only up to 100 ppb! And that wasn't all. The recommended kits were potential health hazards. During the testing phase they produced very toxic arsine which would call for special precautions and procedures.

Not only was the kit ill-equipped to detect the problem where arsenic level was more than 10 ppb and less than 100 ppb, but it was creating a new operational hazard as well!

The Price of Ill-gotten Information

"Why not abolish the Information Ministry?" --was a question with which a Bangladeshi-American startled the State Minister for Information, Professor Abu Sayeed. The Honorable Minister was attending a reception organized in his honor by a group of Washington DC area non-resident Bangladeshis on the evening of December 23, 1999.

The questioner had a reference. In the United States, reporting of news, government or otherwise, is carried largely by an independent and mostly commercial media. Governmental broadcast of news, as in the case of Voice of America, is intended for overseas consumption and is difficult, if not impossible to intercept locally. The questioner also had a precedent. In a bold move about a week prior, Indonesia's newly elected President Abdurrahman Wahid sanctioned the abolishment of that country's information ministry. The 50,000 employee strong Ministry was to be replaced by a much smaller, streamlined Information and Communication Board (The Washington Post, Friday, December 17, 1999). The questioner had a rationale as well. Information provided by the government is rarely trusted. In fact, when the source of information is determined to be the government, a cloud of doubt and suspicion is placed on the motive, devaluing its merit.

Prof. Abu Sayeed's reply to the questioner was candid and direct.

The information ministry was the "Eyes and Ears of the Government." One could forget the idea of the government giving up such an agency. Besides, given wide scale poverty, underdeveloped democracy and a large illiterate population, the need of the information ministry in promoting social welfare programs was well grounded. Prof. Sayeed emphasized how the Radio Bangladesh had emerged as a major vehicle for advancing various social welfare programs targeted to the rural poor who are difficult to reach through traditional means.

One could easily demonstrate why the "market failure" argument of Professor Sayeed was irrelevant during times of revolutionary innovations in the telecommunication and broadcasting industries. Still, there wasn't much harm in letting the government provide a vehicle for disseminating public welfare information; that is of course the information ministry was not used for other purposes.

Turns out that apart from advancing social welfare programs, an important function of the information Ministry is to quell any social unrest or anxiety created by false information. Professor Sayeed provided three examples where the information ministry intervened to help the public in separating truth from falsehood.

However, this noble mission of the information ministry deserves a quick review once we recognize that the motivation for such intervention is purely political. All three examples provided by Professor Sayeed involved the party in opposition. The first one related to the certification of birth of the leader of the opposition, which was obtained from her passport records. The second related to the educational achievements of the leader of the opposition, which were obtained from the department of education. The third related to the Hartal stance of the leader of the opposition before and after losing the 1996 elections, which were obtained from the archives of Bangladesh Television.

Such intrusion may not raise any eyebrows in Bangladesh. In fact, the practice may be seen as a legitimate function for the ministry of information. But in any other developed democracy, when taken together, this would have caused serious public outrages and, most likely, legal challenges involving the nation's highest judicial authority.

No democracy can adequately develop if such sweeping powers are vested in one sole agency of the government. In the United States, it is illegal for the Bureau of Census to disclose a citizen's private information without an expressed written consent to the public or any other government agency. There are good reasons for such precautions. For instance, the Census data is used for drawing up voting districts and public welfare programs. The citizens would not divulge accurate information about themselves if they fear that such information would be used by other agencies to persecute them. That is the reason why even in the pursuit of legitimate criminal cases, agencies are not allowed to share information with each other without appropriate court authorization.

No reasonable competition in politics can ensue if the party in power can invest the entire machinery of the government for surveillance and harassment of the opposition. If the sole purpose of the information ministry is to become the "eyes and ears" of the government, then the opposition, regardless of who it is, would be perpetually in a position of disadvantage. In fact a certain President of the United States had to resign for conducting the kind of surveillance that all ruling parties in Bangladesh have done without exception, remorse or consequence.

Unfortunately for us, the trouble just doesn't end there. The "eyes and ears" of the government also comes with a mouth, one which can be used to add to the oppositions political woes. After President Clinton's botched up maiden voyage to Bangladesh, the Daily Star reported on March 26 that a booklet titled "Politics of Bangladesh -- Democracy vs. Fundamentalism" published by the information ministry was distributed generously to the visiting foreign media.

What could be the purpose of such disclosure other than to portray the party in power as the defender of democracy and the party in opposition as the promoter of fundamentalism? What could be the purpose of such blatant exaggeration if not to align the party in power with the global concerns of the United States? Is it a welfare function of the ruling party to build distance between its political opposition and a visiting foreign leader using governmental resources? Are such fears justified when the visiting delegation was projecting Bangladesh as an example of moderate Muslim democracy? Didn’t the country as a whole suffer irreparable damages when the US President canceled his only scheduled trip outside of Dhaka on grounds of questionable terrorist threats?

The Price of Inaccurate Information

Could a small textile mill in Comilla featuring some 1973 model looms of German origin bought at the cost of less than half a million US Dollars and employing 10 people be shown to the US investors as having cost US $12 million and employing some 315 people? Could this company, which produced nothing but defective fabrics of very low quality, be shown to be making about US $10 million in sales in 1999 alone and about US $2 millions in profit with projected sales in the range of US $100 millions in few years? Could such company, be taken public in the United States without the permission of the Bangladesh Government?

Could such company be shown as being owned by another company in the United States? Could the stock of this company jump 1000% for a few days on the basis of false press releases? Could the owner of the company dump some 30 plus million unauthorized shares to bring hard cash into the company? Could that cash be then taken out in the name of machinery purchase using false company, bank accounts and invoices?

Could someone do all of the above and run away to Bangladesh?

As is being reported this month in the New York based Bangla Newspapers, Internet discussion forums and credible information outlets, the unfortunate answer, to all of the above questions, is one resounding "yes."

A certain Bangladeshi individual has single-handedly masterminded the entire scheme and defrauded countless of smalltime US investors. Internet newsgroups in the past weeks have become inundated by stories of novice investors who lost their entire life's saving by trusting the false press releases orchestrated by a fraudulent Bangladeshi businessman.

The genius that masterminded the entire operation knew exactly where the information disparities were, who could be mislead, and who could be bought. He knew that there was no extradition treaty between Bangladesh and the United States. He knew that individual US investors had a soft corner for helping a country devastated by natural calamities with money they were going to invest any way. He knew that authorities in the US would not expend public funds to go after one petty criminal in a country where they don't have much strategic interest. He knew authorities in Bangladesh would not expend public funds to go after someone who is well connected with the upper echelons of political and business leadership in Bangladesh.

And because he knew all of the above, he reportedly embezzled thousands here and thousands there to rake in a sum totaling US $30 million.

One can take the position that the greedy investors assumed all the associated risk when they decided not to verify the quality of information they were getting. One can also take the position that such things happen all the time in financial markets. But one cannot deny the price that would be ultimately paid by Bangladesh if 10 or 20 others decide to follow the above recipe for making few quick millions.

Surely there would come a time when a genuine Bangladeshi entrepreneur would venture to take a company public in the US or look for joint ventures with other US based companies. Surely a small textile mill in Bangladesh could have great market potentials by virtue of quality products and sound business practices. Surely, a Bangladeshi company could raise needed capital through smalltime investors in other countries willing to back its line of products. Surely, a US based company would be interested in purchasing a company in Bangladesh.

And surely the chances of doing all of the above will be greatly hampered if fraudulent businessmen are allowed to manipulate and victimize people by selling information that are simply untrue.

The Needed Vigilance

The cases presented here adequately portray how our developmental efforts could be seriously damaged when our international partners are not forthcoming in providing a complete account of the relevant information. They also show that our democratic aspirations would die a premature death if the parties in power were allowed to use public resources for political surveillance and posturing. Finally, the cases forewarn that we would have difficulty in drawing the confidence of foreign investors if unscrupulous businessmen are allowed to exploit people in other countries on the basis of false information.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. One can generate series of articles highlighting cases where unsuspecting individuals are being victimized by incomplete, ill-gotten and inaccurate information.

We as a country need to start thinking about how to build our own internal capacity to exercise informational vigilance in all matters related to our political, economic and social well-being. This vigilance will need to rise above the level of simplicity in which most of the complex debates relating to our national interest are currently framed. It will also need to draw from our combined intellectual, ethical and moral capital because information by nature transcends all of these boundaries.

The form of vigilance that is warranted here will need to come from multiple sources since no one entity can adequately master the needed objectivity, credibility and competency required in different situations. In essence it would call for fostering individuals, groups and institutions within the governmental sectors, within the non-governmental sectors, within the business community, and within the larger civil society that could provide oversights in matters where information asymmetry is hurting our developmental prospects.

To combine two clichés, information is power, absolute control of information leads to absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those of us on the receiving end of the information revolution need to wake up to this reality and effectively engage in finding, creating and fostering avenues that would resolve the informational disparities threatening our individual and collective prosperity.

Like taking food, it is acceptable to be served a bad meal once in a while; but if we remain in a state of perpetual indigestion due to bad meals served many times over, even staying alive would become a difficult proposition.