By Yip Wai Fong

KUALA LUMPUR: A freedom of information law actively pursues the protection of private information while ensuring a transparent and accountable government, participants at a public forum on the topic were told recently.

Developed countries such as the UK and United States have safeguards for private information in an environment where the public has the right to access public information. This point was made by the forum panellists to debunk the notion that an access to information law will expose private information and subject it to abuse.

The deputy co-chair of the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Council Andrew Khoo stressed in his presentation that in the UK, the Registrar of Data Protection was also the FOI registrar, which meant that there was a clear line between the right to access information held by public bodies and in ensuring that parties handling personal information meet certain legal obligations that protect the rights of an individual under the Data Protection Act.

One of the consequences of protecting private information is that it will not be accessible to third parties especially for sales, marketing or spam attacks. The upside is a society that can have confidence that the state will protect its private information but transparent in the matters of public interest.

In contrast, a regime of secrecy justified in the name of security protection, such as the one prevalent in Malaysia, is lax in safeguarding the privacy of individuals. UK's FOI law overrides the OSA, of which the scope is narrowed to penalizing leakages of state secrecy as opposed to defining state secrets as in Malaysia. Andrew is worried that over the time, the regime of secrecy have also bred a culture of fear among the populace, who are induced to self-censorship and apathy.

"Free flow of Information is not only controlled by the state, but also by a climate of fear," Andrew said.

In Malaysia there is resistance from the corporate sector to data protection, said Andrew. He said when the government considered the Data Protection Bill in 2001 (to comply with the EU trade requirements), plan was stalled due to intense objection from the private sector.

Transparency in local councils?

Another panelist, Maria Chin Abdullah of Empower said despite the change in the political landscape with more state governments in the hands of non-Barisan Nasional parties following the March , 2008 general elections, it has been difficult to introduce openness and transparency to replace the deep rooted regime of secrecy at the local level.

Maria pointed to the KL Draft Plan, the so-called blueprint of major redevelopment of the capital city, as one such example.

"The protests submitted by the residents groups and NGOs highlights what essentially is the unwillingness of the authority to be more open and consultative. Although the plan was made available to the public, it is expensive, complicated in presentation and too technical for an ordinary member of the public," she said.

Consultation sessions were often called in short notice and no feedback from DBKL on recommendations by NGOs and residents.

Maria said for the Pakatan Rakyta states of Selangor, Perak, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan, their motivation to do well in order to return to power for the next election might sweep the promises of transparency aside. She cited the example of the Penang state councils, which are now being dominated by representatives from the business sector because of the state's priority on the economy.

In Selangor, councilors were appointed under a publicized set of broad criteria. The result is that the pool of qualified nominees also broadened and gave an impression of openness, but even this became problematic when one of the nominees for the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council was found to have a criminal record.

"The local level experience suggests that while a national legislation on FOI is important, locally they should start off with an internal policy of transparency," Maria said.

During the Q&A session moderated by CIJ executive director Gayathry Venkiteswaran, participants also discussed the DNA bill and shared anecdotes of the culture of fear in their lives.

The forum was held at the Annexe Central Market on September 28 as part of the Black and White Fest (art exhibition) and in conjunction with the International Right to Know Day.