Foreign 'Mafia' Harass Tourists in Pattaya, Taunt Local Police

[webfact]

THAI TALK
To fight graft, Freedom of Information Act must be overhauled
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- If the government is serious about reducing corruption, one of the most crucial steps to take is to get all political and bureaucratic agencies to disclose all relevant information to the public. Access to official information is vital to deterring and halting corrupt practices.

The 1997 Freedom of Information Act should cover this, but its implementation has been seriously flawed. Officials remain reluctant to make full disclosure of details of purchases, acquisitions and bidding processes that have been the largest sources of bribery and conflicts of interests.

Whatever the purpose of the law, government officials have been able to keep vital information confidential. The press has largely failed to make use of the law to pursue stories that may reveal illegal practices and shady deals among politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen.

Past governments have paid lip service to providing transparency. They have yet to be strict about offering the public full access to information on transactions that have come under suspicion. Neither have successive governments provided adequate budget for the Office of the Official Information Commission (OIC) to carry out its mission of keeping the people informed of exactly how their tax money is spent and how the public can monitor the spending patterns to catch thieves.

The major flaw in the law is the provision that allows officials to define "information that doesn't have to be disclosed". The wording is ambiguous and there are no clear criteria to define what can and what can't be made public.

In fact, once any part of an official document is stamped "confidential" or "can't be disclosed", that particular set of details should come under scrutiny, because a veil placed over any official information should suggest suspicious circumstances.

Punitive measures are stipulated in the law for officials making public any information considered "confidential" while no such clause exists to punish civil servants who refuse to divulge information vital to the public interest. There lies the lack of incentive for officials concerned to make all-out effort to make sure that the public is kept abreast of what really happens to their tax money.

In the end, even if officials fail to provide the necessary public information and thereby subject themselves to legal action under the criminal or civil law, the extent of the punishment for "failure to perform duties" is still much lighter than that imposed upon officials who disclose what is considered confidential.

Besides, the process is long and complicated for any effort to press government agencies to make public any information they try to keep secret. A subcommittee for this purpose usually takes months if not years to hand down a ruling, and even when a decision is made, it's not final. The ministry or agency concerned still has the last word on whether it will offer access to the information requested by the public.

The law, therefore, needs to be rewritten if the government's pledge to fight corruption is to be taken seriously.

A research team at the Thailand Development Research Institute led by Dr Duenden Nikhomborirak has proposed several major changes to the law.

The most important proposal is to make disclosure of public information a "duty" of the government rather than a "burden" or an "optional decision".

Officials should get a higher degree of legal protection for improving access to information for the public, while those trying to block the flow of public information should face more severe punishment.

It is also crucial to increase the categories of information that must be made public automatically, while the principles and process of seeking public information must be improved to make them simpler and more easily understood.

Most important is to "depoliticise" the Official Information Commission to ensure independence and professionalism and to ensure it has enough budget and staff to be able to genuinely represent public interest, rather than protecting political and bureaucratic shenanigans.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/To-fight-graft-Freedom-of-Information-Act-must-be--30249555.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-11

[NongKhaiKid]

How about throwing Defamation and LM in there too and that's just for starters ?

It's not a big ask more like an impossible one as too many vested interests like things the way they are and these interests have a habit of getting their own way.

[Chang_paarp]

Defamation laws need to be addressed, they are a civil action not criminal and truth should be a defence.

As to LM, not going to happen in the lifetime of the present PM and his friends. It would be nice if they followed the law as it was written not how they would like it interpreted.

[ChrisY1]

"If the government is serious about reducing corruption,"

Says it all IMO.......Impossible to reduce while the main actors are involved in the practice .....right up to their bank accounts!

[Tatsujin]

Defamation, libel, slander, LM all need to be thrown out or heavily revised to prevent them becoming Political tools as they are currently.

And if you're talking about "improving" freedom of information, how about starting by unblocking the Human Right's Watch website ... along with the 1,000's of other websites you've blocked?

[jcisco]

Public service in so many places needs substantial modernization to even begin to get near capable of delivering datasets in a timely manner that represent their activities. This is a serious disability that afflicts so much of the Thai government and that is lack of efficiency, even high volume departments suffer. The government really should tackle this as once the information can flow its easier to tap into and know whats going on.

Increasing the operation visibility of the government operations at the executive level would be a boon, then finally they could deliver reporting to the public. Till then I guess it will continue to be non stop meetings.

[billd766]

"If the government is serious about reducing corruption,"

Says it all IMO.......Impossible to reduce while the main actors are involved in the practice .....right up to their bank accounts!

That could be said of just about every government since 1932 and NOT just this one.

[Roadman]

Put the Act under the jurisdiction of the NACC. No declaration then immediate disciplinary action.

[timewilltell]

I think it is obvious that no one at all is in the least bit zealous about fighting corruption unless it provides an excuse for some other reason to 'get' someone. It is all a load of hot air!

[Robby nz]

Official Information Commission, isn't that one of the outfits that had their budget cut in the previous administrations fight against corruption ?