A month ago, I had the distinct honour of speaking briefly at a workshop on Freedom of Information jointly organised by Transparency International Malaysia, the Swedish Embassy, and others.
Met some great people there and I’m happy to present here the write-up on the workshop :)
Project
Freedom of Information (FOI) and the media’s role in improving governance, transparency and accountability in Malaysia
Format
Two-day workshop with discussion groups and Q&A sessions
Timeline
October 9-10 2008
Participants
Representatives from the print media, electronic media, NGOs, Malaysian Bar Council and Anti-Corruption Agency, officials from government ministries, officials from embassies and academicians
Aim
To explore and find out how freedom of information or information accessibility can contribute to greater anti-corruption efforts, with the goal of achieving zero tolerance of corruption in Malaysia
Venue
Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan
Workshop (Day 1)
President of Transparency International Malaysia Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam opened the workshop with a welcome address.
Ambassador of Sweden H.E. Helena Sangeland gave a welcome note; it was followed by a keynote address by Information Ministry secretary-general Datuk Kamaruddin Siaraf.
The workshop introduction was given by Toby Mendel, who was the chief facilitator. Mendel is the law senior director of Article 19, an international NGO focusing on freedom of expression and the right to information.
Member of TI-Malaysia Dr Lim Teck Ghee was the moderator for the first session in Day 1 of the workshop.
The speakers on the first day were:
i. Prof Claes Sandgren from Stockholm University
He spoke on freedom of information and how it can fight corruption and promote accountability – a case study of Sweden and best practice.
ii. V. Gayathry from Centre for Independent Journalism
She outlined the principles of FOI legislation and Draft FOI.
A Q&A session followed after her presentation.
For the second session of the workshop, Shaila Koshy, Chief reporter at the Star Publications (M) Bhd, was the moderator.
Swedish investigative journalist Anders R. Olsson spoke on investigative journalism and its effects on corruption in Sweden.
R. Nadeswaran from The Sun Daily (a Malaysian daily) gave a presentation on investigative journalism in Malaysia.
A Q&A session followed after that.
Two discussion groups were formed on the first day and the discussions focused on:
Question A. What information is Public?
Question B. What information should be made public?
Question C. What are the challenges?
For results, please see attached Appendix.
Workshop (Day 2)
The workshop opened with the first speaker, lawyer and social activist Malik Imtiaz, who touched on freedom of information and accountability in the Malaysian context.
Second speaker was blogger Nathaniel Tan, who spoke on responsibility and freedom of information in Internet media.
A Swedish case study was explored by Kjell Swanstrom, head of staff of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Office in Sweden. He spoke on how freedom of information is implemented by the Swedish public administration.
Working group discussions centred on how to move Malaysia towards setting up a good FOI system.
Question: What can we do to get an FOI law?
The working groups presented reports compiled in Day 1 and Day 2.
For results, please see attached Appendix. (Session 2)
Chief facilitator Mendel made remarks and recommendations to the government based on the two-day workshop presentations and group discussions.
Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin, TI-Malaysia Exco member, and V. Gayathry of CIJ made the closing remarks for the workshop.
** The next action plan will be strengthening initiatives for access to information through training, awareness-raising and a national conference in 2009. (Attached is the action plan, titled FOI 2009 Proposal)
Appendix
Session 1
Question A+B
We decided to use the negative list approach whereby;
All public information in whatever form or medium should be made public with the exception of:
1. personal information
2. legal privilege
3. national security and defence
4. health and safety
5. information already made public
6. public interest override
7. to enable law enforcements
8. public economic interest
9. time limit
*Note that the exceptions will need to be subjected to judicial review or some form of review if it is challenged by a public authority.
*Whistleblowers need to be protected as they are human rights defenders
Question C
Challenges:
1. the need for a FOI legislation to be tabled in Parliament as it is, discretion lies with the ministers or secretary generals who decides what information should be published
2. need for FOI to be subjected to judicial review
3. tainted and weak judiciary
4. time limits for documents classifieds under the Official Secrets Act to be released
5. to challenge the public to actively seek the truth and ask for information which is supposed to be available for all by any public authority
6. to change civil servants mentality to be more responsible and to understand their role as trustees of documents which belongs to the public.
7. to review other laws which contradict FOI principles
Session 2
What can we do to get an FOI law?
1. General public
o Need to change mindset
o Bring issue home to them as why they need such an act (e.g. public will want to see water/electricity concession agreements as it will effect them economically)
o Can start educating them at the residents association level and work way up
2. Set up a Parliamentary Select Committee for Information and Transparency
o This committee will be able to gather written and oral statements from the public on this matter
3. Schools
o M’sia has rectified the Child Rights Convention and access to information is one of the articles in it.
o Civics education is taught in schools and can use that as a medium to highlight why they have a right to access information and this can be tied up with the need to be educated as to be knowledgeable consumers.
4. Mainstream media and alternative media need to get the message across
o Corporate social responsibility by mainstream media to promote access of information to the public and to carry a FOI campaign if the need should be
o Bloggers and alternative media can play a part in disseminating the “truth” and to have a concerted push to campaign for FOI
5. Corporate activism
o Using shareholders to question at the AGM why certain aspects are not covered by a certain media corporation etc.
6. Developed Nation argument
o The M’sian government has set a vision that by the year 2020 Malaysia should attain developed nation status and there is some characteristics which need to be inculcated such as the need to be open and transparent, so its just not the government but the entire nation should be open to FOI.
What we need are professional media men of old. They have become scarce since BN decided that the media was needed to rule by deception. Mercenaries like A Kadir Jasin and Dollah Kok Lanas became mouthpieces of the ruling party instead of serving the media needs of a democratic society.
If BN had had their way, Samad Ismail would have died incognito. And that is a towering Malaysian who paid the ultimate price in serving the Malaysian public!
[Apologies for a long comment]
On the exception list of what defines as public information, we have among them:
3. national security and defence
4. health and safety
5. information already made public
6. public interest override
7. to enable law enforcements
Given the bad track record of the public bodies in Malaysia, the exception list will provide avenue for abuse by them and defeat the purpose of any freedom of information law. This is because the terms are too broad, more so under the interpretation of untrustworthy officers.
I am not sure what specifically the note/clause “the exceptions will need to be subjected to judicial review or some form of review if it is challenged by a public authority.” means – whether the list must be reviewed or the interpretation and application of the exceptions by public bodies are subjected to review.
A more sensible approach would be to keep the (general) exception list, but for items 3-7 above, specific exception items (a specific exception list) be defined that those public bodies can apply and be exempted (i.e. a white-list approach). Any information not in the specific exception list, even if appears to belong to the general exception list, must be public information until a review is made to make it exception. The burden is then on the public bodies to apply for review of the exception, failing which they have to release information to the public. Until such time when they establish a good track record, such burden can be reduced or even eliminated.
As an example, for ‘national security and defence’, it should be explicitly stated that matters and information related to defence procurement process do not fall under this exception. But information on defence personnel mobilisation does. How we end up buying the Eurocopters at what price is public info, but where and when the Eurocopters is not public info.
Just to share..kalau obama itu bapaknya MELAYU .http://1426.blogspot.com/2008/11/kalau-obama-itu-bapaknya-melayu.html
Thanks Nat for the report and publicising the workshop and Guan Sin for the input. In fact, it is precisely the suggestion that exceptions need to be narrowly defined. It is proposed that an Independent Information Commission be set up which will also have scrutiny over these. The whole idea is to take away the powers to define in broad strokes what can and cannot be disclosed. I will include your ideas in the discussions ongoing about the FOI.