Introduction

An editor of a Thai vernacular newspaper told me in June 1997 during the financial crisis his resentment after he learned that the information act will be enacted soon after it was deliberated by the Parliament. I understood his anguish because he did not want to give up his special relations with politicians, who had fed him with confidential documents. The editor said the information act will enable other journalists to access the government ?held information without spending time cultivating personal ties with their informed sources.

His anxiety was not unique. During the first six months, the Thai journalists did not utilize the information act because most of them still relied on their personal connections. In fact, it was not wrong to say that they chose to ignore the access act altogether. As time goes by, a few journalists began to learn about the process of information act and required procedures to obtain information. However, with more and more people using the law, the journalists gradually became interested in the information act. But it was a slow process.

Reasons why journalists reject information act

Although there were at least mover half a million people around the country which have utilized the information act, one form or another, in the past three years, journalists have comprised the third largest group followed the public at large and government officials. There are several factors why journalists do not use information act.

1. Thai journalists are used to obtain information through “personal connection” with news sources. They do not need the information act.

2. Journalists are impatient because the information act takes up some time to process. They want to finish within the deadlines.

3. Journalists fail to plan ahead and work harder, which are requisites for the use of information act.

4. Journalists are ignorant about the information act.

If all the government agencies have fulfilled their service in providing information, then journalists will be able to report on the information they obtain and request easier. As such, it will promote each objective.

Media and scandals through access law

Since the Official Information Act (OIA) was promulgated in 1997, more than half a million Thai people have used the Act one way or another. During the first two years, the public was not well aware of the new law, what it did and what kinds of impact it could have on Thai society. But several scandals helped publicize the information law, especially Sumalee’s quest and the Public Health Ministry’s scandal. Sumalee Limpa-ovart spent two and a half years struggling with the administrators of Kasetsart Demonstrative School, who denied her daughter’s admission to its first-grade class, to find out the reasons why the school did not accept her daughter. As it turned out, she uncovered that the school admitted children of privileged families and donors. After several court battles with the school lawyers and administrators, the Council of State supporting her and ruled that the school acted unconstitutionally and in bad faith and ordered the school to abolish the discriminatory system. Consequently, other state-run demonstrative schools have adopted the same system.

The 1999 scandal, which involved the procurement of medical supplies worth US$35 million (1.4 billion baht), led to the resignation of Deputy Public Health Minister, Rakkiart Sukthana and two senior officials. Relying on tip-offs and information given by an alliance of non-governmental organizations and grass-root groups including rural doctors, the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) was able to dig deep into illegal procurement networks that jacked up prices of medical supplies to rural health stations. Through the information act, advocacy groups and journalists successfully obtained the records of the NCCC investigation after several appeals but the names of eyewitnesses were blackened to protect their identities.

With Sumalee’s victory, the public started to appreciate the access act. More and more people know that they have the right to have full access to government information. In the past, all official data and information were considered confidential and not for any disclosure, except in exceptional circumstances. Now, the pendulum has swung back: all official data and information should be released for public perusal with minimal exceptions. Beyond the right for all citizens to access official information and the erosion of culture of secrecy, it also has wider implications in various ways: 1) it supports the right for all citizens to participate effectively in the decision-making processes of government; 2) it increases the efficiency of the workings of government by making the various government agencies accountable to public scrutiny; 3) it reduces the corruption in government by making all dealing more transparent; 4) it weakens the long tradition of patron-client relations which rely on connections and nepotism; 5) it lessens the possibility of social conflicts between groups of citizens and government agencies; 6) it empowers ordinary citizens especially those in rural areas.

According to the access law, some information are not subject to disclosure, especially those related to the Royal Institution and those which will jeopardize national security, international relations, or national economic and financial security. For those who want to access information related to the Royal Institution, it can be done under the category of historical data, which takes 75 years to be declassified. If need be, an additional but final extension of 75 years can be added before a full disclosure.

Any Thai citizen can request official information, by filing a simple form. In theory, all requests must be fulfilled within a “reasonable period of time.” Failure to do so could bring jail terms and fines. In reality, the ambivalence of the law has allowed the authorities to prolong the requests. There is no specific timeframe for the so-called reasonable period of time - it could be one week, one month or one year. This has become one of the biggest loopholes. For instance, a request was made on 25 October 1998 related to paper procurement by the Finance Ministry’s Tobacco Bureau took two and a half months before an official response was made. In another case, it took three months to process a request to examine the agreement made by the Bank of Thailand in selling off a state-owned bank. For the time being, there is a seven-day time frame. After that, an appeal could be send to the Office of Information Commission (OIC).

Generally, it does not cost money to ask for information, even though it can involve thousands and thousands of pages of documents like the request made by a PhD student doing research on Thailand’s economic crisis. He wanted to scrutiny the minutes of discussions going back some three decades of the Bank of Thailand to find the cause of the economic crisis in 1997. It is a time-consuming process that requires patience. After several months of foot-dragging and bureaucratic red-tape, the student got the documents he wanted.

Most of the requests concerned official information related to concessions, contracts, projects and the budget. Documents demanded by investigative journalists ranked second. The statistics provided by the OIC showed that only six of the 100 cases judged by the five Information Disclosure Tribunals from 1998-2000 were dealing with economic and financial matters. Five cases were made by the Prachachart Thurajit newspaper and involved the details of purchasing contract related to the bid for sales of the financial sector debts. The tribunal ruled that all details must be disclosure. The sixth case dealt with the disclosure of a series of confidential letters written by the Bank of Thailand to the International Monetary Fund. The tribunal rejected the request.

Barriers to implementation of the information act

After three years of implementation, some of the problem areas in the implementation of the information act could be identified as follows:

1. Most people neither understand key elements of the access law nor realize their rights. Most people do not know how to use the law in compliance with their demand to have access to state information. Therefore, people cannot exercise their right, as they do not know the procedures.

2. In government agencies, high-ranking officials do not understand the law and do not know how to implement the law. Furthermore, they lack adequate knowledge of the law. Since the whole exercise is new, they have little skill in exercising discretion.

3. They do not consider the public requests for information as part of the government’s service. They view the access act as a burden on them.

4. Lack of coordination among various ministries, making cross-references almost impossible.

5. Members of disclosure tribunals serve on a voluntary basis which could affect their decisions because they have other jobs and responsibilities.

6. Lack serious provisions of punishment. While the persons failed to respond to information requests with a one-year imprisonment and a fine of 5000 baht (US$116), it also reprimands those who disclosed information by mistakes with a one-year imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 baht (US$465). This contradiction has discouraged the authorities to act promptly as they tend to drag on with the requests. They prefer to pass the requests to the OIC for further deliberations.

7. Lack sufficient staff and money. The current 19-member OIC has to handle workload submitted by 8,775 state and local agencies around the country.

8. Lack the structure that will support the access to information act. So far, it has depended on the goodwill and active support of the personnel involved in its administration.

9. Lack of independence as it is under the executive branch, the Prime Minister’s Office. In the future, the OIC should be transferred to the Parliament to get rid of political interference that has plagued the committee over the scandal in the past years.

Access to information in Thailand and the region

Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that has a separate law on access to information. Although the Philippine constitution guarantees public access to government-held information in general, there are on-going discussions among lawmakers, civil society leaders and journalists whether a separate information law is needed to promote open and accountable government. Indonesia is currently drafting a similar law, which will be taken up by the Parliament in the near future. The Indonesia version is more liberal than the Thai version as it has very little limitations, e.g., foreigners are eligible to use it. Beyond Southeast Asia, India has promulgated an information law last year. Japan’s national information law is effective in April 2001. South Korea enacted a similar law, known as Act on Information Disclosure of and by Public Agencies, in 1996. Nepal has its own draft ready to be vetted by the lawmakers. Since Nepal and Thailand are constitutional monarchies, their access laws have many similar features.

Manila-based Philippine Center for Investigative Journalists (PCIJ) has done a comparative study on access to information of eight countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia), which will be completed in June. The working definition of “access to information” used in this project is the ability of citizens to obtain information in possession of the state. The studies did a survey of the availability of over 40 public records such as macroeconomic data, social data (literacy, poverty, infant mortality rates), data on government budgets and contracts, information on parliamentary meetings and and inquiries, court proceedings, official investigations, financial disclosures by officials and companies. The survey asked two questions whether these records available to the public. For the yes answer, the Philippines ranks as No. 1 (68 per cent)as the country which allows access to all these records while Cambodia (50 per cent) and Thailand ranks second and third (49 per cent). Singapore ranks fifth (44 per cent), Malaysia ranks sixth (36 per cent), Vietnam ranks seventh (21 per cent) followed by Indonesia (19 per cent). Burma is at the bottom (5 per cent).

For the no answer, Singapore ranks first (56 per cent) followed by Burma (56 per cent) and Vietnam (49 per cent). Cambodia ranks fourth (43 per cent) with Malaysia ranks fifth (38 per cent) followed by Indonesia (36 per cent). Thailand and the Philippines score 18 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.

These preliminary findings indicate that there is no correlation between level of development and access to information. The main determinants appear to be: democratic and pluralistic polity, plurality of media ownership, a culture of discussion, inquiry and political participation. For instance, although Singapore is considered an open society, access to certain information is extremely difficult. According to James Gomez of the Think Center, records concerning government officials, military personnel, Alien information are difficulty as they deemed too confidential. Burma ranks the lowest in the region in all categories, while the Philippines is considered the most accessible country.

Propsects of access law and media

Quite a few newspapers, including Prachachart Thurakit and Krungthep Thurakit, have set up investigative report desks. The Nation has made it a policy to file a request every week on issues of interest to the public. Groups of journalists, especially at Prachachart Thurakit, are assigned to follow new topics as well as going through old headlines to uncover further information. These desks will also prepare letters and other necessary steps to use the information act. Journalists who have used the access act have a better chance to get a better pay in journalism.

Meanwhile, the uuniversities and colleges throughout Thailand are now offering class related to information act. Workshops are also geared towards the Thai journalists to improve their reporting and investigative skills. Judging from the articles submitted to be considered for top journalism prizes (Thai version of Putlizer Prizes) administrated by Thai Journalists Association (TJA) in the past four decades, most of the winning articles focused on scandals and corruption, which were revealed by political opponents or whistleblowers. These reports were part of the daily follow-ups of stories in progress. There was no systematic or long-term planning to investigative news. However, after the information act was put in place, the investigative reports have increased. As a result, they have gained the top slot three years in a row (1998-2000). The article which exposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s fraudulent asset declaration leading to his indictment last year won the best report of the year 2000. The paper uncovered evidence that Thaksin, who was serving as a deputy prime minister in 1996, had illegally hidden US$53 million worth of shares in his telecommunications company through a false stock transfer to one of his maids and a family driver.

In its annual accounting of press freedom conditions in Thailand, the Committee to Protection Journalists has this to say about the Thai press and the impacts of information act: “The Thaksin case showed how aggressive local journalists have been using a reform Constitution passed in 1997, an Access to Information Act passed the same year, and a new official anti-corruption body to check the malfeasance of officials at all levels of government. A similar case earlier in the year resulted in a leading ruling party politicians being barred from office following newspaper revelations about his hidden assets”

BACK