COUNTRY BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
PURPOSE
Indonesia Indonesian's political landscape is
shaped by the pervasive
corruption of the Suharto
premiership. Under President
Suharto, who held office from
1967 until 1998, Indonesian
politics was defined by the
absence of transparency,
accountability, democratic
institutions and free press.
Throughout his time in office,
Suharto engineered an
increasingly oppressive system of
governance whereby controls
over the various social and
political forces of Indonesia were
continually increased in order to
both minimise dissenters, and
encourage political inactivity. This
centralisation of power and
autocratic approach fed into
every part of Indonesia's state
infrastructure; movements or
initiatives based on voicing a
need for change were quashed
and public information was
considered confidential unless its
disclosure was specifically
LEGISLATION EXEMPTION AND LIMITATION
The legislation defines public
information and the details the
relationship between the
requester and the public
institutions that hold it. Article 1
of the Act defines Public
information as that which is
"produced, stored, managed,
sent and/or received by a Public
Agency". The institutions covered
include the executive, legislative,
judiciary and other agencies
whose function and main duties
are related to the organising of
the state, as well as non-
governmental institutions that
are part or wholly funded by the
state. Public information
applicants can submit a "request
to obtain Public Information to
the relevant Public Agency in
writing or otherwise", and the
institution has ten working days
in which to respond. The Act also
sets out provisions for the
proactive disclosure of certain
information, including that which
is required to be immediately,
The legislation seeks to
emphasise the obligation of
public institutions to maintain
and develop their attitude on
public information to be one of
openness and disclosure, and
accordingly exemptions are
designed to be limited and
specific. Similar to other FOI
regimes, some potential
exemptions to disclosure include
public information relating to law
enforcement, defence and
security, resilience of the
economy and personal
Information.
Information can only be withheld
following the application of a
consequential harm, or public
interest test, which, although
mentioned in the legislation, the
specifics of its operation are not
explicitly clarified. It is generally
accepted that officials dealing
with the request for potentially
sensitive information have a duty
to judge the potential impact of
releasing the information;
authorised. Suharto ensured the
benefits of corruption were
dispersed throughout the system,
so that officials at all levels were
incentivised to maintain the
status quo. However this
approach could not last, and with
the Asian economic crisis that hit
Indonesia in 1997, one cause of
which was Suharto's massive
misappropriation of wealth, the
funds for co-option were similarly
affected. Once Suharto was no
longer able to purchase the
loyalty of officials, support faded,
opposition mounted, and Suharto
was forced to resign. Suharto's
successor, Habibie, announced a
new ambition for a clear system
of governance and political
existence "free from corruption,
collusion and nepotism" and
Indonesia embarked on a
programme of extensive political
and institutional reforms
including the introduction of
democratic elections and
reduction of constraints on the
press and wider civil society.
Although it took a further ten
periodically and regularly assessing the harm that may be
released by public institutions. In caused to protected or private
addition, the Act established the interests against the wider public
Information Commission, an interest that resides in the
independent body whose disclosure of the information.
members are nominated by Past practices and prejudices
Parliament and appointed by the relating to confidentiality and
President. The Commission secrecy must be disregarded, and
functions to implement the the official responsible must
regulations, provide technical establish a causal relationship
directives and settle disputes between the release of
through either mediation or non- information and the risk of harm.
litigation adjudication. If a dispute Requests can also be refused if
remains unresolved following the institution does not hold the
mediation and subsequent non- information requested, or if the
litigation adjudication, a request is not made in
requester can appeal to accordance with procedural
Indonesian courts. guidelines.
 years for the right to public
information legislation to come
into effect, its development can
be seen as another move to
empower Indonesian citizens,
reduce corruption and improve
the transparency and
accountability of Indonesia's
public institutions.
Thailand Thai constitutions have
recognised the right to
information since 1991, a right
that has been reformulated in
both constitutions passed since.
Under the current (2007)
formulation, section 56 of
Thailand Constitution provides
that: "A person shall have the
right to receive and get access to
public information in possession
of a governmental agency, State
agency, State enterprise or local
government organisation unless
the disclosure of such
information shall affect the
security of State, public safety,
interests of other persons which
shall be protected, or personal
data of other persons as provided
The OFI was approved in July of
1997 and was in force by
December of the same year. The
Act applies to "State agencies",
which covers any agency involved
in central or provincial
administration, independent
bodies of the state, those
agencies prescribed by ministerial
regulations, and the courts in
their non-trial functions. For the
purposes of the Act, "official
information" is defined broadly,
including information in
possession or control of the state,
which may include facts, data,
maps, drawings, diagrams,
photographs, film, visual or sound
recordings.
In terms of the rights and duties
The OFI has several provisions
relating to information that must
be excluded. First, the right to
information is not purpose blind.
The request provision itself does
not allow State agencies to
release information unless the
agency is convinced that "the
request is not for benefit of trade
and is necessary for the
protection of the rights and
liberties of such person or is
beneficial to the public". Official
information which may
jeopardise the Royal Institution
can never be disclosed, but this is
the only absolute exemption to
the Act. When exercising the
remaining qualified exemptions,
the State agency must take
 by law." In 1997, the Official
Information Act was passed to
regulate for the constitutional
right.
Malaysia Freedom of Information (FOI)
legislation has been slow to take
root in South East Asia. A number
of civil society groups, including
the Southeast Asian Press
Alliance and Article 19, recently
urged the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
to "demonstrate its commitment
created by the Act, there is an
obligation for State agencies to
pro-actively publish information
relating to their functions and
powers, as well as a duty to make
available additional listed
categories of information for
public inspection. Any
information that is not subject a
requirement to publish or to be
made available for examination
may be subject to a request. If
the requested information exists,
providing the information does
not require any new preparation
or analysis and that the
information does not fall within
one of the exemptions, then the
State agency may release the
information.
Selangor legislation
On 1 April 2011, the Freedom of
Information Enactment was passed
in Selangor's state assembly. The bill
was first tabled early in 2010, and
has been considerably revised since
then, and is likely to continue to
evolve. PR Executive Counsellor
Elizabeth Wong, who introduced the
legislation, describes it as "dynamic"
account of the public interest
when making their decision on
whether to disclose. Among these
qualified exemptions are national
security, international relations,
national economic or financial
security, where disclosure will
endanger life or safety of a
person, where it would harm law
enforcement, or where disclosure
will unreasonably encroach on
the right of privacy.
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, there shall
be no obligation to give any
citizen,—
(a) information, disclosure of
which would prejudicially affect
the sovereignty and integrity of
the state of Selangor, the
to public participation by
promoting access to information
within ASEAN and among its
member states." The notable
exception is Thailand which,
although not without problems,
has had an Official Information
Law since 1997. Indonesia passed
an FOI Act in 2008, that came into
force in May 2010, but
commentators are critical about
the extent to which it has actually
been implemented. In October
2011, a Singaporean MP called
for an FOI Act to be introduced in
the island republic. Malaysia
however, is the ASEAN nation
which has seen the most
significant FOI developments in
the last two years.
Malaysia does not have freedom
of information law at the federal
level. The single biggest
legislative barrier to this is the
1972 Official Secrets Act (OSA).
OSA effectively outlaws the
disclosure of any government
information by government
employees, and has created a
climate where-in officials are
in this respect. Crucially within the
bill, freedom of information is now
described as a right, where as
previous drafts of the bill phrased it
as an "opportunity". Other significant
features of the revised Selangor
enactment include:
An obligation to reveal information
The possibility of review by the
courts
A more independent State
Information Board (to replace the
Appeals Board)
A narrower list of exemptions, with a
public interest override
Protection from prosecution or
sanction for Information Officers or
government officers who disclose
information in good faith.
Critics point out that there is still no
requirement for the state to
proactively disclose information, nor
is there clear guidance on the
circumstances where requesters
may be charged a fee, it is left to the
discretion of the state/the
information officer.
The degree to which the law is
successfully implemented remains to
be seen. Of concern would be the
apparent partisan nature of the law-
making for this piece of legislation,
which appears to have been
security, strategic, scientific or
economic interests of the State,
relation with foreign State or lead
to incitement of an offence;
(b) information which has been
expressly forbidden to be
published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of
which may constitute contempt
of court;
(c) information, the disclosure of
which would cause a breach of
privilege of the State Legislature;
(d) any information including
commercial confidence, trade
secrets or intellectual property,
the disclosure of which would
harm the competitive position of
a third party;
(e) information available to a
person in his fiduciary capacity,
unless the competent authority is
satisfied that the larger public
interest warrants the disclosure
of such information;
afraid of sharing information with boycotted by the party of the ruling (f) information received in
journalists due to the threat of federal government, Barisan confidence from foreign
prison sentences and large fines. National (BN). BN members of Government;
In the words of one Selangor Assembly who sat on the
select committee to draft the
commentator, the act "… contain (g) information, the disclosure of
enactment skipped all of the
provisions that lead one to which would endanger the life or
meetings.
conclude that rights and Recent legislation physical safety of any person or
freedoms mean little when the The Penang State Assembly became identify the source of information
power of government is the second Malaysian state or assistance given in confidence
challenged through concerted legislature to pass an FOI Bill on 4 for law enforcement or security
democratic means by certain November 2011. Like Selangor, the purposes;
segments of society." Penang Assembly is governed by the
Included in OSA's list of materials Pakatan Rakyat. The structure and (h) information which would
banned from disclosure are: criticisms of the Bill are virtually impede the process of
"Cabinet documents, records of identical to that of Selangor; The investigation or apprehension or
notable exception is the removal of
decisions and deliberations prosecution of offenders;
Section 14 from the latest version of
including those of Cabinet
the bill, dealing with offences and
committees; State Executive penalty if the Information Officer (i) cabinet papers including
Council documents, records of intentionally restricts or denies records of deliberations of the
decisions and deliberations access to information requests. This Cabinet Ministers, Secretaries
including those of State Executive clause was designed to prevent an and other officers: Provided that
Council committees." "abuse of power" by the information the decisions of Cabinet, the
Transparency campaigners and officer and its removal has reasons thereof, and the material
critics of the Act have pointed out significantly weakened the on the basis of which the
that it is extremely difficult to enactment. Out of the four states decisions were taken shall be
justify how all of these governed by the Pakatan Rakyat (or made public after the decision
'People's Alliance'), two remain
documents can be considered has been taken, and the matter is
without any form of FOI law. The
confidential or secret. The Official complete, or over: Provided
state of Kelantan has had a draft
Secrets Act has "clipped 'Right to information' bill for a further that those matters which
investigative reporting on number of years, but nothing has come under the exemptions
excesses of government. Since no
excess of government could be
reported without invoking of the
OSA, the executive has in fact a
very safe haven under the OSA as
any information within
government could be labelled as
'secret' under the Act. Once a
document or information is
designated as 'secret' by the
Minister under his hand, whoever
deals with it does so at the peril
of being prosecuted."
Malaysian civil society groups,
including the Centre for
Independent Journalism (CIJ),
have called on Prime Minister
Najib Razak to introduce FOI
legislation at the federal level to
replace the Official Secrets Act.
There are no indications that this
is about to happen however. As
long as OSA exists in its present
form, there is little prospect for
FOI legislation on the national
stage. At the state level, the
prospects are somewhat better.
In Malaysia, FOI seems to be
evolving along party lines. To
date, out of Malaysia's 16 states
been passed into law to-date. There
is as yet little detectable movement
on the issue in the other PR state of
Kedah. While this opposition-led,
grassroots approach to
implementing FOI legislation is a
significant step for Malaysian
democracy, it appears at this stage
to be mostly symbolic. The effective
implementation of this legislation on
the state level, as well as on the
national level, is ultimately
dependent on winning the support
of the ruling Barisan National party
and the revision of the Official
Secrets Act.
specified in this section shall not
be disclosed;
(j) information which relates to
personal information the
disclosure of which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual:
(1) While invoking any of the
exemptions listed in sub-section 1
regard shall be had to the
principle that information which
cannot be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature
shall not be denied to any person.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in
the Official Secrets Act of 1972
nor any of the exemptions
permissible in accordance with
sub-section
(3), a public authority may allow
access to information, if public
interest in disclosure outweighs
the harm to the protected
interests.
(4) Subject to the provisions of
clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-
section
 and federal territories, the only
two states to pass FOI Bills have
been those governed by the
federal opposition coalition,
Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
Philippines The Freedom of Information (FOI)
Program is the Government’s
response to the call for
transparency and full public
disclosure of information. FOI is a
government mechanism, which
allows Filipino citizens to request
any information about
government transactions and
operations, provided that it shall
not put into jeopardy – privacy
and matters of national security.
The FOI mechanism for the
Executive Branch is enabled via
Executive Order No. 2, series of
2016. The Freedom of
Information (FOI) Program is the
Government’s response to the
call for transparency and full
public disclosure of information.
FOI is a government mechanism,
which allows Filipino citizens to
request any information about
Executive Order (EO) No. 2, s. 1. Information covered by
2016 is the enabling order for executive privilege
FOI. EO 2 operationalizes in the
Executive Branch the People’s 2. Privileged information relating
Constitutional right to to national security, defense, or
information. EO 2 also provides international relations
the State policies to full public
disclosure and transparency in 3. Information concerning law
the public service. enforcement and protection of
EO 2 is an important enabling public and personal safety
mechanism to promote
transparency in the government's 4. Information deemed
administrative process. Through confidential for the protection of
FOI, citizens are empowered to the privacy and certain
make a formal request to get individuals such as minors,
information held by the victims of crimes or the accused
government, barring certain
sensitive and important data 5. Information, documents, or
related to the nation's security. records known by reason of
FOI complements continuing official capacity and are deemed
proactive information disclosure as confidential, including those
efforts where agencies are duty- submitted or disclosed by entities
bound to publish information in to government agencies,
government transactions and the spirit of openness and tribunals and boards or officers,
operations, provided that it shall transparency. in relation to the performance of
not put into jeopardy – privacy FOI is an integral element of their functions or to inquires or
and matters of national security. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s investigation conducted by them
The FOI rules and exceptions also Good Governance Plan aligned to in the exercise of their
apply to the eFOI platform. reforms and initiatives that administrative, regulatory or
pursue greater transparency, quasi-judicial powers.
accountability, and citizen
participation in governance. EO 2 6. Prejudicial, premature
was signed by the President on disclosure
July 23, 2016. The Presidential
Communications Operations 7. Records of proceedings or
Office (PCOO) oversees the information from proceedings
implementation and which pursuant to law or relevant
operationalization of the FOI rules and regulations are treated
Program pursuant to as confidential or privileged
Memorandum Order No. 10, s.
2016 issued by the Office of the 8. Matters considered
Executive Secretary. PCOO serves confidential under banking and
as the coordinator of all finance laws and their
government agencies to ensure amendatory laws, and;
that the FOI Program is properly
implemented. 9. Other exceptions to the right to
information under laws,
jurisprudence, and rules and
regulations.
Vietnam The Law on Access to Information 2016 is the first law stipulating access to state-held information in Vietnam. It is a very
significant benchmark that brings hope for the securing of people’s right to information (Centre for Law and Democracy,
2015b). The extent to which FOI is understood as protecting human rights, and to what extent the party-state must be obliged
to guarantee human rights in accordance with universal standards is, however, a matter of debate. Vietnam has signed up to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1982, of which art 19 provides that: Everyone shall have
the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(ICCPR, art 19(2)). The broad nature of the wording ‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information’, as provided by this
Convention, enables state members to adopt very diverse perceptions of the right to access stateheld information (Darch and
Underwood, 2009: 30). Over the eight years of the preparation of Vietnam’s FOI law, there have been drastic changes in
conceptualising human rights in general, and the right to access information in particular. the law emphasises proactive
publicity but omits the maximum disclosure principle. Instead of following this principle, the LATI 2016 provides for a list of
information categorised to ‘be publicly disclosed’ (art 17). Meanwhile, the legal provisions enabling Vietnamese citizens to
request information from state bodies are strict and complex. For example, the scope of information, which can be supplied on
request, is limited (art 23); the requesting person must supply reasons for the information request (art 24); and it is absolutely
prohibited to use information, which would intentionally ‘fight against the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’
(art 11). Second, the LATI 2016 lacks provisions that create possible sanctions for violations. The citizens’ right to state-held
information is, therefore, not yet explicitly guaranteed because the legislation does not bind the state bodies to their
responsibilities of accountability and transparency in their public disclosure. The law may therefore become another ‘toothless
tiger’, like the insufficiently-enforced 2005 Law on Anti-corruption (Thai Son, 2014).
Myanmar The government of Myanmar has put forward a new National Records and Archives Law to modernise the system of
maintaining records and archives in the country. While the overall thrust of the draft Law is positive, it fails to respect standards
regarding public access to information in several key respects. Given that Myanmar has still not adopted a right to information
law, it is unfortunate that other laws, including this one, are being put forward which risk undermining the longer term
objective of opening up government.
“We support efforts that may result in better records management and preservation,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director,
CLD. “But these need to take a wider view of information as a social phenomenon and, in particular, respect the idea that
citizens have a right to access information held by public authorities.”
Some of the key weaknesses of the draft Law in terms of access to information include the following
 The proposed system of classification appears to set rigid periods of secrecy which are in any case far too long,
fails to define the different levels of classification, and seems to assume that all information will be subject to at
least some period of secrecy.
  Access to information, whether or not its classification remains in force, is subject to the discretion of officials,
rather than being recognised as a right.
 Unreasonable restrictions are imposed on the use of information obtained from the Archives.
 The draft Law include a public interest override for accessing information, which is welcomed, but clearer rules
on the application of the override are needed.
CLD encourages those responsible for developing the draft Law to revise it to ensure that it respects international standards
regarding the right to information.

Brunei Brunei’s legal system is based on British common law, with a parallel Syariah law system for Muslims, which supersedes the
common law system in areas such as family and property law. In 2014 Brunei became the first Southeast Asian country to
adopt strict Syariah law, that applies to Muslims and non-Muslims, with the enactment of the Syariah Penal Code
Order 2013. Since 1962 Brunei has been ruled under a State of Emergency. The Sultan possesses wide legislative powers, and
during a State of Emergency the Sultan may pass any legislation he deems expedient by Emergency Order. There is no judicial
review of his actions. There is no legislation establishing the right to access official information. Under current press legislation,
newspapers are required to apply for annual publishing permits, and foreign journalists must obtain government approval prior
to working in the country. The government retains the authority to arbitrarily shut down any media outlet and bar distribution
of foreign publications, with no possibility of appeal by the affected outlet. An Internet Code of Practice, included in a 2001
press law, makes individuals as well as content and service providers liable for publishing anything that is “against the public
interest or national harmony or which offends against good taste or decency.” It also requires all sites that carry content or
discuss issues of a religious or political nature to register with the Broadcasting Authority. Failure to register is punishable by up
to three years of imprisonment and a fine of up to US$200,000.

Cambodia Kofi Annan said "Information is a great democratising power, allowing us a

chance to conduct change and alleviate poverty."

Cambodia currently does not have an access to information law. The Access to Information Law development campaign will
encourage a culture of better public access to public institutions, public information and the legislative process that will
encourage the Royal Government of Cambodia and the National Assembly to adopt an international standard a Rights Access to
Information Law.

As Cambodian taxpayers and voters the Cambodian people have the right to
access public information: this right is guaranteed by the Constitution of Cambodia.

What are the benefits of a Right Access to Information Law?

The Cambodian people -

Access to public services information.
Access to information about requests (e.g. for identity cards, birth
certificates, etc.) to authorities.
Access to information on public expenditure for projects.

Members of Parliament -
Better access to information held by public institutions on development
projects, business contracts with companies, public expenditure, etc.
More access to information held by public institutions such as the Ministry
of Expenditure required by the National Audit Authority.
Improved access to information held by public bodies needed for investigation.

The Media –
Increased access to public information for reporting in publications.
More accurate reporting as public officials cannot hide public information.

The Private sector –

Access to information regarding public bidding, development projects, etc.
Access to information on the economy, investments, tax policies, laws, and other
information useful for business.

Civil Society Organisations -

Access to information regarding public policy held by public bodies.

In August 2007 the Royal Government of Cambodia under leadership of the Ministry
of National Assembly Senate Relation and Inspection (MONASRI) completed the
Rights Access to Information Policy Paper. Today all eleven political parties, including the Cambodian People's Party say they
have the political will and commitment to pass the Rights Access to Information Law in the next fourth-mandate Government.
 These are very positive indications. We, civil society organisations, encourage the
new Government and will fully support further actions towards this new law.

We, civil society organisations, look forward to actively working with the new
Government to ensure full participation and support from all stakeholders in passing the Rights Access to Information Law. We
also call for national and international organisations, donors, Embassies and foreign Governments to join hands and support
this process both technically and financially.

Laos There is no law mandating access to official information, and in practice, the authorities restrict media access to
information sources. The country’s media remain under the tight control of the ruling Lao People’s Revolutionary
Party (LPRP). Media personnel are appointed mostly from within the LPRP, and publications must be approved by
the Ministry of Information, Culture, and Tourism (MICT). Officials provide content guidelines for newspapers. Post
publication monitoring of content is routine, and outlets can be penalized for covering issues that fall outside the
guidelines. As a result, journalists write primarily about anodyne topics, and the vast majority practice self-
censorship. There are around 24 regularly printed newspapers, all government affiliated. Privately owned magazines
have emerged in recent years to cover general interest, health, and other nonpolitical issues.
Singapore There should be a Freedom of Information Act in Singapore so that citizens can put in requests for data from the
Government, freelance journalist Kirsten Han said at the Select Committee hearing on online deliberate falsehoods
yesterday. This can empower people to do their own fact-checking and conduct their own analysis, which can
strengthen public trust, she said. It can also tackle the issue of fake news and disinformation campaigns, which can
thrive in an information vacuum, she said in her written submissions to the committee. Committee member and MP
Edwin Tong quizzed Ms Han on various aspects of her suggestions, from the law's efficacy in fostering trust to
potential abuse by businesses and national security concerns, raising examples from several countries. Mr Tong noted
former British prime minister Tony Blair's comments in 2011 that the law, which fully went into force under his
government's watch in 2005, has "hindered progress in our trusting of politicians", even though it has achieved
greater transparency. To this, Ms Han said it was not the Freedom of Information Act that undermined trust in the
British government, but rather Mr Blair's government's complicity in the Iraq War. Mr Tong then turned to Australia
as an example, saying that its senior public servants called for freedom of information laws to be amended to conceal
sensitive advice to ministers in 2016. He also cited a poll last year which found that the most frequent users of such a
law in the United States were businesses, which may use this to seek commercial advantages. However, Ms Han stood
by her suggestion. She did not see a problem with businesses having access to such data because journalists and non-
governmental groups have the same access. Such a law also does not impede the Government's ability to keep things
confidential for legitimate national security reasons, and can be amended to suit Singapore's needs, she said. Asked
by Mr Tong if she has studied this issue in depth, Ms Han said that she has not, and suggested setting up a Select
Committee to study how such a Freedom of Information Act can meet Singapore's needs. Mr Tong replied: "I am sure
that will be considered."