Both public servants and those they serve are not yet fully comfortable with our more open society which grants access to state information. It is a novel concept which will take time to be fully appreciated.

NAKORN SERIRAK

The Official Information Act came into effect slightly less than five years ago, but already it has proven of real benefit to the public. The Act has shaken the complacency of the bureaucrats and changed their attitude towards the release of state information.

The main aim of the legislation is to guarantee the rights of citizens to full access to government files. The Act provides for almost all official data to be open to public perusal. Some categories of information can still be kept confidential, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Anyone denied access to information can appeal to the Official Information Commission.

The law gives the public the right to inspect documents, to request copies, to take advice, to make complaints, and to appeal against what they feel is personal information which is not correct.

This goes against the traditional practice of state officials as guardians of government information, keeping it for the eyes of state employees only. In the past, the disclosure of information was an exception. Most data was kept confidential and designated for official use only. The Act reverses this and affirms the new principle of disclosure privilege.

There have been no studies to date of how actively the public is making use of this right to know, and how well the bureaucrats are responding. The recording of information varies from government office to office, making it difficult to check the performance.

The best way to see how effectively people are exercising this right to know is to look at the problem stories, when people felt they had been subject to prejudice by the state and have complained and/or appealed to the Official Information Commission.

In 1999, there were 122 complaints about government disclosure, compared to just 26 in 1998, the first full year of information disclosure. Most complaints concerned poor service and civil servants' lack of willingness to provide information.

There were 87 appeals, compared to just six in 1998. Fifty percent of the appeals involved disciplinary investigations. Others involved requests for information into such things as investigations into corruption at the Ministry of Public Health, the sale of assets by the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority, concessions, contracts, and the minutes of meetings.

Of 209 public and private sector complaints and appeals, those in Bangkok doubled those for all other 75 provinces. Most people who exercised their rights under the Act during the first two years were private citizens, followed by civil servants and then journalists. Only two politicians made use of the Act.

There were 164 complaints and 83 appeals submitted to the Commission in 2000. Among the 164 complaints were 34 filed against local government agencies, 21 against the Education Ministry, 16 against the Finance Ministry, 13 against agencies falling under the Prime Minister's Office, 13 against the Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry, 11 against the Transport and Communications Ministry, and 11 against the Interior Ministry.

Among the 83 appeals, 13 cases involved the Agriculture Ministry, 12 involved the Finance Ministry, nine involved the Prime Minister's Office, and eight involved the Education Ministry. Twenty percent of the appeals concerned disciplinary inquiry documents, 10% involved the management of state banks and financial institutions, and 10% related to information about concessions, contracts, projects and budgets.

The majority of those making use of the Act in 2000 were government employees. They lodged the most complaints (45.12%), followed by private citizens (25%), businessmen (20%), journalists (4.88%) and non-government organisations (2.44%).

Civil servants also filed the most appeals (44.58%), followed by businessmen (28.92%), private citizens (15.66%), journalists (3.61%) and NGOs (2.41%).

On Dec 9, 2001, the fourth anniversary of the Act's introduction, the number of complaints over information disclosure dropped to 138 and the number of appeals to 80.

The Education Ministry and local government agencies shared the most complaints at 28 each. Next came the Transport Ministry with 19 cases and the Public Health Ministry with 12. The Education Ministry was the subject of 13 appeals, local government bodies 11, the Finance Ministry nine, the Transport Ministry eight, and the Interior Ministry seven. Most complaints were filed against state employees who provided poor service, did not release the information requested or made no decision on requests.

Most appeals were filed by people denied access to disciplinary investigation files (40%). Others were filed by people seeking information on procurements, bids, concessions, contracts, projects and budgets, or for documents related to state banks and financial corporations.

The overall impression is that many civil servants lack sufficient understanding of the Official Information Act.

Ironically though, most of those making use of the Act are civil servants. State employees lodged 45.12% of complaints regarding information, compared with 25% for private citizens, 20% for businessmen, 4.88% for journalists, and 2.44% for NGOs.

After nearly five years, it is clear that the key elements of the Act are not fully understood by most people. They are ignorant of the procedures involved in getting access to state information. Also many state employees are unaware of how to implement the Act. They are unfamiliar with the principle of information disclosure as part of their job, and so fail to deliver on the promise of the people's right to know.

The Official Information Act is a crucial component in the development of democracy. It encourages people to take a more active part in politics by expressing their opinions, needs and suggestions more directly to the government. This should help make government more accountable and more transparent.

In order to participate in the political process more efficiently, people must have full access to government information and state policy.

The Official Information Act defines the principle of ``what the government does or knows, and people have the right to know''. However, the Act is a new law, as is the concept of freedom of information for both civil servants and the public.

Thai society needs more time to appreciate and practise the new way of doing things. State officials need a clearer understanding of the procedures so they can more readily meet public requests for information. The public should recognise that they have the right to information. They should learn how to use the Act to access information.

Thai people should recognise that this information law is an essential part of establishing accountable and transparent government, and a crucial part in establishing a stable civil society.

The United States has enjoyed a freedom of information act for 30 years, Canada for 20 years. Thai society needs to be patient, pushing the Official Information Act as part of political reform may be too demanding for a law not yet five years old, but it is worth trying.

- Nakorn Serirak, a Thammasat University integrated science doctoral programme candidate, is writing his thesis at the Research Centre for Data Protection at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. He is head of policy and planning at the Office of the Official Information Commission and can be contacted at:nakornseri@yahoo.com
---------------------------------------

Bangkok Post
Tuesday 24 September 2002 - Making sense of the right to know