The Act has shaken up complacent government bureaucrats and changed their attitude towards the release of official information.

The main aim behind the legislation was to guarantee the right of citizens to have full access to access to government information. The Act provides for almost all official data and information to be open to public perusal. Some categories of information can still be kept confidential, but these are the exceptions.

Anyone denied access to information, which the state deems confidential, has the right - under the Act - to appeal to the Official Information Commission (OIC).

The law enshrines the right of citizens to have access to government information. It gives them the right to inspect documents; to request copies of them; to take advice; to make complaints; and to make appeals against what they might feel is personal information which is not correct.

This goes against the traditional practices of state officials who often saw their task as guardians of government information to be kept for the eyes of officials only.

In the past, disclosure of information was an exception. Most data was kept confidential and designated for official use only.

Last year, there were 124 complaints about government disclosure. Eighty of these were settled, while the remaining 44 are still being processed. This compares with only 32 official complaints in 1998.

Most of the cases were complaints about poor service by government officials and their lack of willingness to provide information to people requesting it.

So far, 42 appeals have been settled by the Information Disclosure Tribunal, 15 are still under consideration and 24 are being processed by the Office of the OIC.

Forty-nine cases were handled by the IDT for social and national administration affairs and eight cases by the IDT for economic affairs. The total number of 81 appeal cases compares with only six cases in 1998.

Fifty six per cent of the appeal cases concern disciplinary investigation documents. Twenty three per cent concerned information about current affairs such as the results of the investigation into corruption at the Ministry of Public Health and the asset sales by the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority (FRA). Twenty one per cent were related to concession, contract and meeting reports.

Of the overall 205 cases of public and non-public sector complaints and appeals last year, 28 cases were filed against local government agencies. Considered individually, nine cases involved the Office of the National Police Bureau, eight the Office of the Anti-corruption Commission, six the National Expressway Authority, six Hon Ken University and five the FRA.

In terms of location, 143 cases happened in Bangkok and 62 in provinces. As for cases involving local administration agencies, 10 cases were related to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and 18 were concerned with municipality and other forms of local government bodies nation-wide.

Most of those who exercised their rights under the OIA last year were private citizens, while government officials and journalists ranked second and third. Only two politicians utilised the Act.

Most requests were for official information relating to concessions, contracts, projects and budgets. These were followed by request for information relating to investigative documents.

After two years of implementation, it has become clear, however, that the key elements of the OIA are not fully understood by most people, nor do they realise the rights the Act gives them. They are ignorant of the procedures involved in getting access to State information and are therefore failing to exercise their rights.

On the law enforcement side, many state officials are still not aware of how to implement the Act. They are unused to regarding the principle of information disclosure as part of the service they provide and are failing to deliver on the promise of the people's right to know.

The OIA has been a crucial component in the development of democracy. It encourages people to take a more active part in politics by directly expressing their opinions, needs and suggestions to government.

This should help make government more accountable and more transparent. In order to participate in the political process well and efficiently, people should have full access to government information and should know what the policy of the state is.

The OIA ascertains the government's vision of "what the government does or knows, people have the right to know".

However, the OIA is a new law, as is the concept of freedom of information to both the state officials of Thailand and its people. Thai society needs more time to understand and come to practice the new Act.

State officials need a clearer understanding of the procedures so that they can more readily meet public requests for the disclosure of official information.

Meanwhile, people should recognise that they have the right to information. They should learn how to use the new Act as a means of access to such information.

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

BY NAKORN SERIRAK

---------------------------

The Nation

Friday, March 10, 2000

Nakorn Serirak is an OIC official