Freedom of information 香港應制訂《資訊自由法》

THE government introduced in 1995 the Codeon Access to Information, a set ofadministrative rules that allow the publicaccess to certain government information. However,some government departments have unjustifiablywithheld important information that bears on the publicinterest (for example, melamine contents in some foodproducts). Last week Ombudsman Alan Lai criticisedsome government departments for going to greatlengths to withhold information, saying what they haddone defeated the purpose of the policy. It isuniversally accepted that government ought to be openand transparent. Many countries have adoptedfreedom of information legislation that requires theirgovernments to allow the public access to informationas far as possible. Hong Kong has only put in place theCode, which is not legally binding. It is clear from whathas happened that this method, adopted ten yearsago, does not work. Therefore, Hong Kong ought tolegislate for the freedom of information to prevent thegovernment from unjustifiably denying the public or themedia access of information and to make sure that itoperates in an open, transparent manner and subjectsitself to the public's supervision.

Ombudsman Alan Lai said it defeated the purposeof the policy for any government department to go togreat lengths to withhold information. He did notconjecture what had motivated them to do so. "Theymay not want to take the trouble or they maymisunderstand the Code." It fact, it is a peculiarity ofHong Kong civil servants that they know governmentrules very well. The problem is that officials refuse tochange and still think about work as they did in the lastcentury.

For example, the Food and EnvironmentalHygiene Department refrained from revealingmelamine contents of food samples that had tested allright. Obviously, officials thought the department hadmade the best decisions for the public and, thosefoods being safe, it would be superfluous to releasethe information and it might unnecessarily causeconfusion and worry to do so. They did not realisecitizens had the right to have information on foodsafety and they had the right to make their owndecisions in the light of available information. Clearly,when officials refuse to give citizens information, theytake citizens' right to know lightly.

The Ombudsman's report says that, between1997 and 2004, the Home Affairs Bureau provided notraining for Access to Information Officers (AIOs); that,in the eleven years after 1997, there was no positivemedia publicity of the Code; and that, in the decadebetween 1997 and June 2007, only three documentswere issued to remind government departments of theprovisions of the Code. That might arouse suspicionsthat the government has tried not to give the Codemuch publicity lest citizens should be aware of theirfundamental rights. A provision of the Code says thateach department should designate an AIO forpromoting and overseeing the application of the Code.However, the government has behaved in such amanner that the job title should aptly be changed to"No Access to Information Officer".

The US adopted the Freedom of Information Act inthe 1960s. Under the Act, citizens are entitled torequire federal government departments to releaseinformation unless it is classified information onnational defence or any commercial secret or itsrelease may violate privacy. Legislation pertaining tothe freedom of information is what the media mainlyrely on to supervise the government. It often enablesjournalists to obtain leads to major news stories.

Freedom of information legislation is an importantweapon the public can use to supervise thegovernment. The Code (not legally binding) wasintroduced 15 years ago. What has happened shows itis futile to expect the government to act on its owninitiative. It has to be compelled. It is necessary tolegislate. The government's application for funding forthe express rail link project has aroused muchcontroversy. The Professional Commons requestedthat the government provide it with the feasibilityreports of the project. The government rejected itsrequest on the grounds that it was a third party and itwould not greatly further the public interest to providethem with those reports. Were there freedom ofinformation legislation, the government might havepromptly released the information, and the controversymight have been more sensibly and peacefullyresolved.

明報社評 2010.02.01

香港應制訂《資訊自由法》

香港政府早於1995 年已經訂立《公開資料守則》，以行政指引方式規定部分政府資訊須向公眾公開，但近年有政府部門無理拒絕公開與公眾利益攸關的重要資訊，如食物三聚氰胺含量等，申訴專員黎年上周批評政府部門用盡方法拒絕透露資料，違反政策原意。政府運作須透明公開是普世認同的標準，不少國家都設有《資訊自由法》，規定政府必須把資訊盡量公開，香港只以沒有法律約束力的《守則》作規範，實踐了超過10 年，證明失效；所以，香港應該訂立《資訊自由法》，確保政府不能無理拒絕公眾及傳媒查閱政府資訊的要求，確保政府運作透明公開，接受公眾監察。

申訴專員黎年批評，政府部門用盡方法拒絕透露資料，違反了政策原意，他不揣測背後是否有目的， 「可能是怕麻煩或誤解守則」。香港公務員的特色正是對各種官式文件規條非常熟悉，問題癥結應是官員拒絕改變，仍以上世紀的舊思維辦事。

以食環署拒絕公布測試合格食物樣本三聚氰胺含量為例，官員明顯認為，官府已為市民做了最好的決定，食物既已合格，要求公布資料只是多此一舉，會引起公眾混淆及不必要的疑慮。但官員沒有意會到，公眾對食品安全有知情權，市民有權根據資料自行作出生活上的決定，官員拒絕公開資料明顯是不重視市民的知情權。

此外，根據申訴專員的報告，1997 至2004 年民政事務局沒有為公開資料主任提供任何培訓，97 年後的11 年內沒有再透過媒體積極宣傳，政府內部在97 至07 年6 月的10 年間，只發出過3 份文件提示各部門有關《守則》的條文。政府的舉動，令人質疑是故意拒絕宣傳《守則》，讓公眾無法知道自己的基本權益。根據規定，政府各部門須指派一名人員擔任公開資料主任，負責促進和監督《守則》的執行，以政府的表現而言，這職位實應改稱為「不公開資料主任」。

美國早於1960 年代已訂立《資訊自由法》（Freedomof Information Act），訂明公眾有權要求聯邦政府部門公開相關的資訊，除非涉及指定國防機密、商業機密或資訊明顯侵害個人私隱等，與資訊自由相關的法例更是傳媒監察政府的「尚方寶劍」，經常藉此取得重要新聞線索。

《資訊自由法》是公眾監察政府的重要武器，香港訂立無法律約束力的《守則》已有15 年，要求政府自覺證實無效，唯有引入他律，立法規管。近月香港就高鐵撥款引發社會爭議，公共專業聯盟曾向政府索取高鐵可行性資料文件，但被當局以第三者拒絕、沒有知識產權、不覺得有重要公眾利益為由，拒絕披露，如果引入了《資訊自由法》，政府或許早已交出資料，一場社會爭議也有望以較和平理性的方法解決。

Glossary

peculiarity /pI ?kju:lI'arItI/

a features that belongs only to a particularperson, group of persons, thing or place.

light

In the light of something means afterconsidering something.

aptly /'aptlI/

appropriately.