This week, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong was reported to have stated that the Official Secrets Act (OSA) will be repealed, to be replaced by a Freedom of Information Act.
According to the de facto law minister at the National Stakeholders Consultation on the Right to Information, some parts of the OSA will be retained in the proposed new law.
This announcement is certainly welcomed. Civil society groups have long criticised the OSA and have called for its abolishment.
The Act criminalises those who obtain or possess what is defined as “official secret”.
According to the OSA, “official secrets” include cabinet and state executive council documents and records of decisions and deliberations of cabinet and state exco.
Documents concerning national security, defence and international relations are also automatically classified as official secrets under the Act.
The Act further empowers a Minister, Menteri Besar or Chief Minister, or any public official appointed by a Minister, Menteri Besar or Chief Minister, to classify any information and material as ‘Top Secret’, ‘Secret’, ‘Restricted’ or ‘Confidential’, which would then make that information or material an official secret under the Act.
As such, the list of people able to classify information as official secret is large. This also means that there is a large number of documents classified as official secret.
The Act does not require the Minister, Menteri Besar or Chief Minister, or any public official appointed to justify why the document should be an official secret.
In other words, a person authorised under the Act to classify a document may do so for any document or information, regardless of whether there is a need or justification for the classification.
The information need not relate to national security or defence.
A person who obtains an official secret would commit an offence if he or she retains in possession or control any such official secret when he or she has no right to retain it.
It is also an offence if the said person communicates directly or indirectly any information under the OSA to any person other than a person to whom he or she is duly authorised to communicate it or to whom it is his or her duty to communicate it.
Archaic legislation like the OSA no longer has a place in today’s modern democracy.
The world is now moving towards more open and transparent governments. Many countries have enacted freedom of information legislation and done away with a regime that is similar to the OSA.
In the place of the OSA, there should be legislation to promote transparency and accountability and the right to freedom of information for the people.
That is not to say that there should be no official secrets. The information which genuinely relates to national security, defence and foreign relations can still be protected by the law.
In this regard, if parts of the OSA which are retained relate to this aspect, such retention can be justified.
However, “official secrets” must be strictly defined to cover this information, not any other information which has nothing to do with national security, defence or foreign relations.
There must be a mechanism in place to ensure any information classified as an official secret can be justified as such; any wilful misclassification should attract criminal sanctions.
If the government makes good on this commitment to freedom of information, it will go a long way to establish good governance and transparency in this country.
SYAHREDZAN JOHAN is a civil liberties lawyer and political secretary to Iskandar Puteri MP Lim Kit Siang. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.