‘The Conference on Freedom of Information and Civil Society in Asia’ took place on April 13 and 14, 2001, at Aoyama Gakuin University. Japan's Information Disclosure Law had just come into effect on April 1, 2001, moving Japan from the era of creating disclosure systems to that of actually using information disclosure as a tool. In fact, among countries in Asia, Korea and Thailand already have information disclosure laws in force, India has information disclosure laws at the state level, and there is a high level of interest in information disclosure in Indonesia, the Philippines, and other South East Asian countries.
List of foreign panelists
|
NGO members, academics, journalists, and government officials were invited from five Asian countries to participate in the conference. Closed sessions were held all day long on the 13th and during the morning of the 14th, and an open session was held on the afternoon of the 14th. Based upon the discussions that took place during the open session, the following introduces the circumstances and issues of each country represented at the conference. Please note that information regarding the operation of Japan's Information Disclosure Law is not included in this article.
In Korea, the city council of Cheong-ju, upon the initiative of assembly members, enacted Korea's first information disclosure ordinance in 1991, and from that time on the creation of ordinances at the local level has continued. On the national level, Korea's Information Disclosure Law came into force in January of 1998.
The national law features the placing of “the people's right to know” in the purpose provision, and because public bodies are made subject to the law, the law applies not only to administrative agencies, but also to the national assembly, the courts, and public corporations. Furthermore, where information is not disclosed, an appeal may be made to the Administrative Appeals Commission, of which conference delegate Prof. Sung is a member.
The Administrative Appeals Commission is made up of academics and lawyers, and its decisions are legally binding. Also, it is possible to directly file suit in court without completing an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Commission. Among the cases heard by the Appeals Commission, there was one involving the disclosure of prices of apartments sold by the public housing corporation. Because the public housing corporation is a corporation, the information was not disclosed as it was considered to be protected corporate information. However, the Appeals Commission decided that the public housing corporation is different from a normal corporation, and ruled for the disclosure of the information. The public housing corporation filed suit in court to appeal this ruling, but the court upheld the Appeals Commission's decision.
In the case of a request for disclosure of tax information, the debate was divided over whether or not electronic data that had not yet been made into a document constituted a document under the law. The same question arose over whether or not meeting minutes should be disclosed, and where the meeting minutes were held to be a document and therefore subject to disclosure, the tax information was held not to constitute a document. Currently, there is a debate underway leading towards the reform of Korea's Information Disclosure Law.
Thailand's Official Information Act was enacted during a period of political reform in 1997, one month before the establishment of the new constitution. At that time there was a rough draft of the new constitution, however those people who were pushing for reform doubted that reform could be achieved based on that draft alone. Therefore, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Official's Liability Act, as well as the Official Information Act, were enacted in order to supplement the constitutional reforms.
As with Korea's law, not only administrative agencies, but also the Parliament, the courts, and local governments were made subject to Thailand's Official Information Act. In the case of the courts, information related to on-going trials is an exception to the rule, and may be withheld. Other agencies and individuals who wield public power may be designated by the office of the Prime Minister to be subject to the law. Requesters may appeal decisions not to disclose information, and the Official Information Commission as well as Information Disclosure Tribunals were created to handle such appeals.
The Official Information Commission is made up of government ministers and ministerial advisors, as well as experts appointed by the cabinet. Conference participant Professor Prokati is an expert member of the Commission, and Mr. Serirak is an official with the Office of the Official Information Commission. The Commission issues advice on the operation of the law, and where an appeal is made against the non-disclosure of information, an Information Disclosure Tribunal hears the appeal and issues a decision which is binding on the government. The people may appeal an unfavorable decision by filing suit in court.
There is an active movement for information disclosure in India, and there already are various information disclosure laws in place at the state level. The Freedom of Information Bill was submitted to the Indian Parliament in July of 2000, but it has many problems, as the breadth of information that is protected from disclosure is too great, it lacks guaranties of the right to request disclosure, and it does not provide for adequate appeal procedures. On the state level, the movement for information disclosure has developed in tandem with efforts to help those suffering from poverty. In Indian society, there is a direct link between the lives of those people who suffer from poverty and the fact that accurate information is not communicated to those people. For example, it is not unusual for money that is supposed to be used for the improvement of homes to disappear, and bricks that are meant to be used to build those homes crumble at the touch of a hand. Here, there is a concrete link between the people's right to receive information that concerns their lives and the right to participate in the process of decision making.
There has been an active movement by NGOs for transparency in Indonesia since 1998. 18 NGOs have formed an alliance to debate and create a draft bill for an information disclosure law. NGOs working in various areas, such as the environment, local government, human rights, judicial problems, and the problem of corruption, all are part of the alliance, and they have been working together since February of 2000. Currently, they are cooperating with the National Law Commission that was created by the President to try to create an information disclosure bill. Meanwhile, the House of the People's Representatives has independently created a bill which will likely be officially submitted for ratification. In addition to creating a draft law, the NGOs are continuing their lobbying activities and their general campaign for an information disclosure law.
The Constitution of the Philippines guaranties the right to information. However, the Supreme Court has stated that in order to guaranty the right to information disclosure that is provided for in the Constitution, it is necessary to have a separate information disclosure law. Recently the Philippine people's interest in an information disclosure law was heightened due to the media's exposure of former President Estrada's having failed to disclose his assets that led to him being ousted.
In this panel discussion, there was a debate by representatives from countries that currently have information disclosure laws - Korea, Thailand, and Japan. Appeal procedures were the central issue, and there was a comparison of the respective systems. In Thailand, there is first an appeal to the Official Information Commission, and the Commission makes its recommendation to the Cabinet. Where that recommendation is appealed, an Information Disclosure Tribunal is convened. However, it is rare for an Information Disclosure Tribunal to be convened, and most appeals are settled through the mediation of the Commission. In Korea there is no independent review body, and all appeals go through the normal procedure for administrative appeals. The panelist from Japan, Mr. Akiyama, is a member of the Information Disclosure Review Board that was set up under the Information Disclosure Law; he emphasized the importance of third party participants in deciding whether or not the decision to withhold information is correct, while pointing out that at that time Japan's law had just come into effect and therefore there were not yet any appeals.
In this panel discussion, the debate centered on the question of why information disclosure is necessary for NGOs and the people. Panelist Joshi said that “NGOs are the bridge bringing information to the people,” and in order for people to enjoy their legitimate rights it is necessary to have information disclosure. Panelist Khatarina set out the idea that in order to participate in the process of policy formation it is necessary to have a good understanding of the problems at hand, and that an information disclosure law is important for NGOs because the more transparent the government the easier it is for NGOs to participate in the decision making process and the more the voice of the people will be heard.
Panelist Malaluan suggested that as NGOs are users of public information, the freedom to access public information makes possible effective analysis of public policy. Panelist Serirak commented on the use of the information disclosure law by NGOs from the point of view of a government official, pointing out that because there are aspects of the government that are not positive about information disclosure, it is good for NGOs to aggressively demand disclosure on the behalf of the people. This author, as the panelist from Japan, stated that, for the people, information disclosure provides the means to make their own decisions, and it is necessary for people to be conscious that the right to know is their personal right. Panelist Ha stated that information disclosure is necessary in order for the people to understand that they hold sovereign power in society, and that participatory democracy is advanced as a result of information disclosure.
In this panel discussion, the debate centered on the role of the media in information disclosure. Panelist Chongkittavorn stated that in Thailand, because it takes time to receive information through use of the information disclosure law, there is a tendency to place more importance on collecting information through personal connections, and thus the media has not actively used the information disclosure law. The panelist from Japan, Akio Nakajima of the Asahi Shimbun, said that through his experiences using information obtained through Japan's information disclosure ordinances and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act in his own reporting, he has found that information disclosure systems can be effective means for reporting.
Another panelist from Japan, Yasuhiko Tajima of Sophia University, stated that the issue will be whether or not the media, which have up to now simply tried to be the first to report the announcements of the administrative agencies, can move to doing thorough investigations, analyses, and commentaries based on information obtained through the information disclosure system.
In addition to the above discussions, Hideo Shimizu, Shigeki Okutsu, Hiroshi Miyake, Akira Morita, Kenta Yamada, and Lawrence Repeta participated as coordinators, and there were reports on information disclosure in Asian countries as well as varied discussions. It is impossible to light out all that was discussed at the conference in this short article, but Information Clearinghouse Japan plans to put together a detailed report on the conference. In the future, there are plans to develop an internet web site to disseminate information on information disclosure in Asia.