Much ado over FOI bill

The passage of such legislation does not mean that the public will enjoy ready access to government information.

From P Ramasamy

More than 10 years ago, the Penang government implemented the Freedom of Information (FOI) Enactment to enable the public to access information from government departments.

Before the bill became law, there was considerable agitation by civil society organisations demanding the implementation of the FOI.

It was widely expected that once the FOI bill became law, there would be an avalanche of requests from the public for information on government affairs.

However, once the initial enthusiasm for the legislation faded, public use of the state enactment also declined.

I do not have the latest statistics on the number of applications submitted, the information disclosed, rejected, or the appeals made.

Those who supported the FOI in Penang were under the impression that data on public matters handled by the government would be readily available. However, they failed to realise that the passage of the FOI enactment was subject to various rules and regulations.

Matters classified as confidential or official secrets cannot be obtained through the operation of the enactment.

At the same time, government departments tend to withhold documents even when they are not classified as secret or confidential.

In Penang, despite the good intentions of the state government, the FOI enactment was never meant to provide automatic access to information.

The federal government now wants to replicate the Penang FOI bill at the national level.

Although this move is necessary, the passage of an FOI bill does not mean that the public will enjoy ready access to government information as there are still too many restrictive federal laws and regulations that prevent full access to information.

While the FOI enactment could be an important beginning, unless and until the country moves towards substantive democracy, it will remain superficial in nature.

The FOI legislation needs to be approved by Parliament, but it cannot be considered an institutional reform in itself.

The federal government under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim appears to be following the example set by Penang.

Even the proposal to limit the term of the prime minister to two terms or 10 years unmistakably mirrors Penang’s decision to limit the chief minister’s tenure to two terms.

Is there any mark of originality on the part of the Madani government in bringing about institutional reforms?

The FOI legislation may be one of several low-hanging fruits. But by the time these low-hanging fruits are plucked, the high-hanging fruits would have already fallen and gone rotten. - FMT

P Ramasamy is chairman of Urimai and a former Penang deputy chief minister.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.