SEAPA -- Southest Asian Press Alliance

Home I About Us I Contact Us

Has the Official Information Act, introduced five years ago, made lives of citizens easier when it comes to access to government records?

April 1, 2002
By: Alongkorn Parivudhiphongs

This has been designated as the Year of Access to Official Information - that is, a period during which the government will actively promote citizens' "right to know" .

The main legal instrument that's relevant here is the Official Information Act (OI Act) (1997), which guarantees every citizen's right to gain access to official information.

Does that mean that anyone can walk into a government office and request confidential data that's long been hidden in State archives?

The answer is "yes" and "no".

"Yes", because the OI Act states that citizens are entitled to access official information that is in the possession or control of a State agency - whether that information relates to the operations of the State or to a private individual.

"No" because in reality, things are a little different.

Historically, the prevailing authoritarian mentality, along with the general view among bureaucrats that the "little people" had no reason to concern themselves with government affairs, have long been currents running through Thai society. Such views have meant that there has been little, if any, tradition of the man in the street requesting information from the State.

The law has now changed, but the situation on the ground has been slow to catch up.

Those who do dare to try and breach the "information wall" still find themselves running into obstacles like "confidentiality" and "violation of privacy rights", reasons often cited by civil servants to to bar citizens from obtaining data they've requested to see.

Citizens also get worn down by complex bureaucratic procedures which often requires them to make countless return visits to government offices. The complicated red tape at some agencies means that even the simplest request for information can take months to process. Often, neither reason nor explanation is given for such delays.

Even media workers, whom many assume would have an easier job getting access to official archives, often find it difficult to navigate all the bureaucratic regulations, protocols, technical language, etc, and just give up trying.

Traditionally passive, even submissive, in the presence of officialdom, many Thai citizens simply accept the status quo. And journalists themselves often end up tapping other, non-official sources to gather the data they need for investigative reports.

"Information held by the State is for every single person," says Surasee Kosolnavin, committee member of the National Human Rights Commission.

"State agencies are just civil representatives. They should serve the people. They are wrong to think that they own information or that they have the right to disclose or withhold data from the public."

It's actually against the law for government bodies to refuse to assist people who are making inquiries, he said.

"Access to official information is not just a mechanism for investigating government work. It's also a mechanism to increase understanding between the government and citizens," added Rosana Tositrakul, director of the Federation of Consumer Organisations.

For Rosana, opening the door to government archives is a win-win situation that encourages political participation, helps the reform process and enhances the solving of problems like corruption. Goodwill is created when government agencies operate in a transparent manner, she said.

"It's good for those who are doing good, and it's bad for wrongdoers. Corrupt agencies will run into problems," said Rosana. Most corruption in government agencies happens in the areas of purchasing and employment, she added.

But many civil servants still see the disclosure of information as a threat to their security and to the freedom they've long enjoyed to operate more or less the way they wish. Others have a more worrying ulterior motive: they don't want their activities to be investigated too closely.

"The government is afraid that if the public has easy access to information, it will lose control over the civil sector and will lose its bargaining power. That's why lots of politicians haven't supported the OI Act ... it could make them the subject of scrutiny," said Rosana.

In 1998, Rosana used the OI Act to uncover a scandal at the Ministry of Public Health. Some ministry officials had ordered a State-run hospital to buy supplies from a company that was charging much higher prices than its competitors.

"State agencies are supposed to serve civil society, not the powers-that-be. If they do their job fairly and squarely, there'll be nothing to hide," Surasee insisted.

Yet it's still the case that many bureaucrats worry that by releasing a document from official records they might be harming national security or violating someone's right to privacy.

"That's not entirely groundless," said Dr Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, a media expert at the Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University.

"Earlier laws regarding access to information were designed, first and foremost, to protect national security. They were about keeping official matters secret," she said.

One early piece of legislation - it dates back to 1940 - was conceived to protect information about military installations, missions, plans and projects. More information came under the "national security" net in the late 1960s which dictatorial regimes justified by the need to tackle separatist elements and the communist insurgency.

Even tighter restrictions on access to information were enforced in the mid-1970s after the country's bloodiest-ever military and police crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators. At that point, barriers to public access were put in place at practically every State agency.

"Those early directives divided government documents into various categories of sensitivity. But the ultimate decision about whether to release information or not was allowed to rest with heads of department. That's been a long-standing practice ... one that will certainly take time to change."

The current OI Act still has significant restrictions, of course. Sections 14 and 15 state that official information may not be disclosed that could jeopardise the monarchy, national security, international relations or national economic or financial security.

Disclosures that could endanger the life or safety of a person, or encroach on his/her rights to privacy in relation to medical reports and personal information are also prohibited. "Still, phrases like `national security' and `right to privacy' should not be used as excuses to block citizens' legitimate access to information," said Surasee.

Rosana and Surasee are both of the opinion that now that Thailand is no longer ruled by repressive military regimes and now that it has progressive legislation on the right-to-know issue, it's time that citizens started to see more concrete change.

"State information belongs to all the people of Thailand. Having to request something that belongs to you is silly," said Surasee.

"It's been almost five years now. State agencies should re-think their levels of secrecy and figure out which documents can simply be made freely available to the public, rather than just on receipt of a request," said Rosana.

At the moment, if a government body delays providing answers, or fails to provide information, or rejects a request without good reason, a citizen may file a complaint with the Office of the Official Information Commission (OIC), which enforces the OI Act.

There, the Official Information Board review the complaint, and the Information Disclosure Tribunal considers and decides on appeals against orders prohibiting the disclosure of information under Section 14 or 15.

According to the OI Web site, the rate of complaints and appeals has been growing constantly since 1998. In 2001, there were 150 complaints and 88 appeals _ seven by the media, 60 by the private sector, 64 from citizens, and, surprisingly, 96 from government agencies themselves. The two State bodies that lodged most complaints and appeals were the Ministry of Education and the Local Administrative Department.

"We've had a fairly good response from the private sector. The trend is good," said Nithi Wirudchawong, director of legal affairs at OIC.

However, the five-year-old agency must still tackle old-style power structures that just won't gone away. Some government agencies simply ignore OIC orders, either because they refuse to engage with the OI Act or because they just don't know what to do, said Nithi.

"The penalty for ignoring us is minimal," said Nithi. "And it doesn't affect some key people working for certain agencies, like university deans, for example, because they're not actually State officials."

It's clear that there are still large grey areas and loopholes in the relationship between the people who monitor the OI Act and Stateagencies. Members of the public needn't expect an easy ride _ unless, that is, the government gets serious about making the OI Act more effective.

But change is definitely in the air; there's a plan for an amendment to make the law easier to enforce, says Nithi.

And the OIC is raising awareness of the issues through the media and through its Web site. Some government agencies are holding workshops to train staff how to handle requests for information and many have set up Web sites to enhance communication with the public.

"If all State agencies could provide information online, that would help reduce the number of requests," said Surasee. "The public could study what they do and see how transparent they are."

"It would also be good and would save time and money if each agency had a library so the public could go there and check information without having to make a formal request," said Rosana.

But if more people don't get involved, all this effort to create an open, transparent society won't come to very much.

That means we need to educate ourselves about the OI Act and about our rights.

"It will take quite some time for citizens and State agencies to adjust to each other and to understand that access to information is beneficial for society as a whole."