INDONESIA

The Public Information Disclosure Act was ratified on April 2008 and, following a government review,
the Transparency of Public Information Law came into effect in May 2010. The introduction of
transparency legislation in Indonesia has been viewed as a move to alter the default position on
information, which historically has been defined by secrecy[1]. It has also been seen as another step
in improving the  accountability of Indonesian politicians and public institutions that began with the
democratic reforms of 1998 [2].
The objectives of the Act are centred on securing the rights of Indonesian citizens to public
information, improving the transparency of the process of decision making and reasoning behind
policies. The Act also aims to increase participation of the public in the political process, foster a new
era of good governance - defined by its openness, efficiency and accountability -  as well as
improving the sciences and information management [3].

Background and History

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 [4]. 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 authorised [1].
Suharto ensured the benefits of corruption were dispersed throughout the system, so that officials
at all levels were incentivised to maintain the status quo [4]. 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 [5], the funds for co-option were similarly affected. Once
Suharto was no longer able to purchase the loyalty of officials, support faded, opposition mounted
[4], 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" [4] 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 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.

The Legislation
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" [3]. 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" [3], 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, periodically and regularly released by public
institutions.
In addition, the Act established the Information Commission, an independent body whose members
are nominated by Parliament and appointed by the President. The Commission functions to
implement the regulations, provide technical directives and settle disputes through either mediation
or non-litigation adjudication. If a dispute remains unresolved following mediation and subsequent
non-litigation adjudication, a requester can appeal to Indonesian courts.

Exemptions and limitations

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;
assessing the harm that may be caused to protected or private interests against the wider public
interest that resides in the disclosure of the information.
Past practices and prejudices relating to confidentiality and secrecy must be disregarded, and the
official responsible must establish a causal relationship between the release of information and the
risk of harm [1]. Requests can also be refused if the institution does not hold the information
requested, or if the request is not made in accordance with procedural guidelines.

Recent developments
Following the passing of the legislation there was optimism surrounding its aims. However, concerns
also existed that the cumbersome state apparatus of Indonesia could hinder effective
implementation, not to mention the lack of clarity regarding information classification and absence
of sanctions for non-compliance [7]. Recent independent reports appear to confirm the fruition of
the sceptics' predictions.
The reports published criticise the level of awareness and implementation of the Right to
Information law; awareness regarding its scope and procedures are poor, and officials' attitudes
towards disclosure and confidentiality remain largely the same as they did prior to the 2010
legislation [8].
One report, by the Centre for Law and Democracy and the Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law
[1], assessed the exemptions to the right to information and found that a large number of officials
were either referring to other laws when judging whether information was exempt or simply
maintaining the pre-legislation stance of non-disclosure and secrecy, a trait that has also been noted
by the press in numerous articles [9]. These failures were largely attributed to the lack of manual or
guidance in applying the consequential harm or public interest test to enable them to assess
whether information was exempt or not.
Further assessments, examining three Indonesian public authorities, the Ministry of Education,
Ministry of Health and the Republic of Indonesia National Police reaffirmed the lack of clarity
regarding exemptions as being central to the difficulties encountered in implementation. It also
identifies a general lack of awareness surrounding the legislation, with public authorities still citing
confidentiality "as a justification for refusing requested information despite the lack of any
justification for this" [2]. Previous studies, evaluating the freedom of information at a provincial
level, discovered similar problems with local government agencies, and suggested more specific
regulations for local authorities would enable more effective implementation [10].
The reports offer some recommendations for future development of right to information procedures
including the raising of awareness, standardising approaches, training for officials on exemptions and
the strengthening of the Information Commission; the Indonesian Commissioner himself has cited a
lack of authority as affecting the Commission's ability to regulate institutions and officials [11]. The
evidence available so far, certainly suggests that if public information legislation is to assist in
developing a default position of disclosure and openness, greater vigilance and proper application of
the rules are required.
THAILAND
Background and History
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
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 by law." [1]
In 1997, the Official Information Act was passed to regulate for the constitutional right[2].

Legislation
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 created by the Act, there is an obligation for State agencies to pro-
actively publish information relating to their functions and powers (s.7), as well as a duty to make
available additional listed categories of information for public inspection (s.9). Any information that
is not subject a requirement to publish or to be made available for examination may be subject to a
request (s.11). 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.

Exemptions
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 (s.14), but this
is the only absolute exemption to the Act. When exercising the remaining qualified exemptions (s.
15), the State agency must take 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.

Operation
Upon receiving a request for information, a State agency must reply "within a reasonable period of
time". This phrase is not defined in the Act, but Article 19's report on the state of Thailand's FOI law
indicates that the term has been "interpreted rather liberally by State officials". Their research has
found that delays of months followed by a refusal to release without an explanation are not
uncommon[3].
If disclosure is refused, a requester may appeal to the Information Disclosure Tribunal, which is
subdivided by subject matter into five separate Tribunals. Appeals to the Tribunal are final, although
it is possible to petition the administrative court of the decision is alleged to be unjust.
There is little or no data available on the extent to which Thai people have made use of the Act, but
information is available from the Official Information Commission about appeals and complaints on
the decisions of State authorities, which gives an indication of who is making use of the Act. Of those
who have complained, journalists are relatively poorly represented in the figures, with government
officials making between 30% and 40% of all complaints and over half of all appeals according to the
statistics of the Official Information Commission[4].
There have, however, been a number of high profile incidents that have arisen out of the Thai FOI
regime. In the early life of the scheme, Mrs Sumali Limpa-ovart uncovered the practices of an elite
school in accepting the students of wealthy benefactors over those who had scored higher on
entrance exams, and scrutiny of the applications procedures for universities and schools has been a
persistent use of the OFI since. More politically, and rather less successfully, a number of
applications were made to gain access to an official report on the Thai uprising of 1992. The report
was finally released to those who had requested it, but subject to a high level of redaction and
alongside a threat of prosecution should the information be disseminated more widely.

Critical reaction
The Thai scheme of FOI has had a mixed response among commentators, with general praise for the
progressive Constitutional protection of a right to information, but criticism among many for what is
seen as weak legal and practical implementation of the right[5]. David Banisar has also highlighted
the difficulty in enforcing the decisions of tribunals as a result of the complex overlapping laws[6].
Leading Thai journalist, Kavi Chongkittavorn, meanwhile has criticised the Official Information
Commissioner on the grounds that it is under the care of the Prime Minister's Offfice rather than
taking the form of an independent body [7].
MALAYSIA
Background and recent history
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 to public
participation by promoting access to information within ASEAN and among its member states." [1]
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.[2] In
October 2011, a Singaporean MP called for an FOI Act to be introduced in the island republic.[3]
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
afraid of sharing information with journalists due to the threat of prison sentences and large fines.
[4] In the words of one commentator, the act "… contain provisions that lead one to conclude that
rights and freedoms mean little when the power of government is challenged through concerted
democratic means by certain segments of society."[5]
Included in OSA's list of materials banned from disclosure are: "Cabinet documents, records of
decisions and deliberations including those of Cabinet committees; State Executive Council
documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of State Executive Council
committees."[6] Transparency campaigners and critics of the Act have pointed out that it is
extremely difficult to justify how all of these documents can be considered confidential or secret.[7]
The Official Secrets Act has "clipped investigative reporting on excesses of government. Since no
excess of government could be reported without invoking s.4 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."[8]
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.[9] 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 and federal territories, the only two states to pass
FOI Bills have been those governed by the federal opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

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" in this respect.[10] 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 boycotted by the party of the ruling federal government, Barisan National (BN). BN members of
Selangor Assembly who sat on the select committee to draft the enactment skipped all of the
meetings.

Recent legislation
The Penang State Assembly became the second Malaysian state legislature to pass an FOI Bill on 4
November 2011.[13] Like Selangor, the Penang Assembly is governed by the Pakatan Rakyat. The
structure and criticisms of the Bill are virtually identical to that of Selangor; The notable exception is
the removal of Section 14 from the latest version of the bill, dealing with offences and penalty if the
Information Officer intentionally restricts or denies access to information requests. This clause was
designed to prevent an "abuse of power" by the information officer and its removal has significantly
weakened the enactment.[14]
Out of the four states governed by the Pakatan Rakyat (or 'People's Alliance'), two remain without
any form of FOI law. The state of Kelantan has had a draft 'Right to information' bill for a number of
years, but nothing has been passed into law to-date.[15] 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.
PHILIPPINES
Freedom of Information (FoI) is a right enshrined in our fundamental law. It refers to the right of the
people to information on matters of public concern. It is the right of every citizen to access official
records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development (Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
This includes the public’s right to know the public officials’ and employees’ assets, liabilities, net
worth and financial and business interests.
So as not to render this right ineffectual brought about by the lack of a law therefor, President
Rodrigo Roa Duterte passed Executive Order No. 2, Series of 2016, which implemented the FoI
Program in the executive branch. For its part, the Supreme Court passed the Rule on Access to
Information About the Supreme Court early this year. The Supreme Court likewise ordered the
creation of FoI Manuals in the entire judiciary, ie, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax
Appeals and lower courts.
The Rule on Access to Information About the Supreme Court guarantees one’s “privilege” to either
obtain a copy receive the information or gain insight to all information and records or portions of
those records in the official custody, possession and control of offices in the Supreme Court. Like all
other rights, the “right to know” is not an absolute right.
Excluded are those “non-disclosable information” protected by laws, rules or resolutions of the
Supreme Court En Banc. For instance, access to information will be denied if the request (1) is made
by one whose identity is fictitious or not legitimate; (2) is prompted by sheer idle curiosity; (3) made
with a plainly discernible improper motive; (4) made for a commercial purpose; (5) is contrary to
laws, morals, good customs, or public policy, eg when the request pertains to privileged documents
or communications.
To obtain access, the requesting party must submit to the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office
(PIO) two filled-up copies of an Access to Information Request Form (AIRF) stating therein his/her
personal information, the requested information and the purpose of the request, together with two
of his/her valid IDs.
However, securing the Justices’ Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), Disclosures
of Business Interests and Financial Connections, Personal Data Sheets (PDS) and curriculum vitae
(CV) follows a different procedure as the contents thereof are deemed non-disclosable when
requested or to be used for any purpose contrary to morals or public policy, or any commercial
purpose other than by news communication media for dissemination to the general public. As a
general rule, only copies of the latest SALN, PDS and CV may be requested, and requests for previous
records may be covered only if so specifically requested and if considered as justified. Nevertheless,
information as to whether or not such statements have been filed shall be fully disclosable.
To request for SALN, PDS or CV of a Supreme Court Justice, the requesting party must state the
specific purpose and individual interests sought to be served as well as a commitment that the
request shall only be for such purpose. For members of the media, the same must be supported by
proof under oath of media affiliation and certification of the accreditation of their respective
organisations as legitimate media practitioners. In all cases, the requesting party must have no
derogatory record of having misused any requested information previously furnished to him/her. For
SALNs of Justices of Supreme Court as well as those of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and
Court of Tax Appeals, the authority to disclose shall be made only by the Supreme Court En Banc.
In an En Banc Resolution, the Supreme Court has granted requests for SALNs for varying purposes,
including transparency and governance, media database, posting in a website for the general public,
reference materials for newscasts and for academic purposes.
Non-disclosure of SALNs, PDSs and CVs is a privilege that belongs to the Supreme Court as an
institution, not to any justice or judge in his/her individual capacity. Hence, no sitting or retired
justice or judge, even the Chief Justice, may claim exemption without the consent of the Court.
Significantly, the Rule on Access to Information About the Supreme Court likewise provides for
administrative liabilities and penalties ranging from reprimand, suspension and dismissal, and even
indirect contempt for disclosures in violation of the rule on confidentiality and provision of any false
information in the AIRF and its accompanying documents.
To borrow the words of the Supreme Court, “while the Constitution holds dear the right of the
people to have access to matters of concern, the Constitution also holds sacred the independence of
the judiciary”. Thus, the passage of the Rule on Access to Information About the Supreme Court,
which allowed people to exercise their right to know by allowing access to public and official records
in the custody of the Supreme Court subject only to reasonable requirements provided therein
VIETNAM
6 APRIL 2016
The Vietnamese National Assembly on April 6 approved an access to information law, according to
an April 6 VNExpress article by Hoang Thuy, Vo Hai and Vuong Anh.

The law was backed by 437 of the 448 deputies who cast their votes. Now that the National
Assembly has adopted it, the government and Ministry of Justice make some revisions and then it
goes to the president for signature, according to persons following the process, but few significant
changes are expected.

Once signed, the law will come into effect on July 1, 2018, according to the newspaper. It reported:
According to the law, all citizens are equal and there will be no discrimination in the right to access
information. The information provided must be accurate and complete. The provision of information
must be timely, transparent, accurate and convenient for citizens, while following the process and
procedures prescribed by the law.
All information released must have been previously declassified by the government.

The Access to Information Law also specifies information that citizens cannot access, including state
secrets, information with important content in politics, national defense and security, foreign affairs,
economy, science, technology and other areas regulated by the law.

Citizens will not be given access to information if it could harm national defense and security,
international relations, public order, social morality, public health, or the lives and property of
others. They are also not allowed to access information containing business secrets and details of
internal meetings and documents.

The law encourages state agencies to provide information they have obtained where possible.
The draft law went before the Standing Committee in August 2015 and was further examined by the
Assembly’s Law Committee. The committee focused on “the scope of the legislation, defining what is
deemed confidential information, who is responsible for providing the information and who is
eligible to make a request,” according to the article.
During the debate, “some delegates expressed concern over making available `sensitive’ information
that could be used to cause social instability,” according to the article, but other delegates said the
law would be a step forward in transparency and social development.

Deputy Chairman of the NA Huynh Ngoc Son was quoted as saying that there are many issues that
need to be publicized that have so far remained confidential. “For example, the health of state
officials traveling overseas should not be considered confidential. Rumors will start if this
information is not publicized which may stir social instability,” Son said.
“If an invitation to a meeting is considered confidential, what exactly can we publicize?” Chairman of
the NA’s Law Committee Phan Trung Ly said. “There must be a list of information that cannot be
made public outlined in the law.”
The Centre for Law and Democracy, a Canadian-based nongovernmental organization, rated the
draft law in November, giving it 59 points out of a possible 150 on the RTI Rating scale.

Once the bill is signed, Vietnam will be the 109 th country with a FOI regime.
MYANMAR
A new Analysis by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) of the latest proposed Right to
Information (RTI) Law reveals a relatively robust draft but with some shortcomings. The RTI Law,
which will allow citizens to obtain information from public bodies, is key in any democracy,
enhancing government accountability and improving trust between government and the people.
“It is encouraging that Myanmar is moving forward on this important issue, which will help it in its
democratic transition,” said Toby Mendel, Executive, CLD. “We hope that when the law is placed
before parliament they will be open to making changes to improve it further. Our work on this
continues by working with media organisations and civil society organisations for which this law will
be essential.”
The draft RTI law was released in late December 2017. When adopted, Myanmar will join the nearly
120 countries around the world that have RTI legislation, although the draft has not yet been placed
before parliament. The Analysis was prepared by CLD with the support of International Media
Support (IMS) and Fojo Media Institute.
The Analysis points to both “easy wins”, changes which are relatively easy to make, and ‘important
gains’, changes that are important but which may either encounter more opposition or require a bit
more effort. Some of the key points are:
The law should make it clear that it covers all bodies created by statute as well as bodies which are
owned, controlled or substantially funded by public bodies.
The law should include a list of categories of information that every public body must, at a minimum,
publish proactively.
The procedures for lodging and processing requests should be substantially strengthened.
A public interest override should be added to the law, so that information covered by an exception
would still be disclosed where this was in the overall public interest.
The law should include at least a general framework for the processing of appeals.
A clause on whistleblower protection should be added to the law.
We urge the parliament of Myanmar to consider the recommendations in our Analysis with a view to
bringing the draft Law more fully into line with international standards.
BRUNEI
Brunei’s legal system is based on British common law, with a parallel Shariah law system. The laws of
Brunei comprise of written judgments and legislation enacted by the Sultan and the Legislative
Council. The civil and criminal courts include the Supreme Courts (High Court and Court of Appeal),
the Intermediary Courts and the Magistrates Courts, with the Privy Council in London remaining the
final court of appeal for civil matters. Shariah courts have jurisdiction over Islamic family and criminal
law. The judiciary has no power to interpret the constitution and judicial review is prohibited under
Brunei’s Constitution.
Brunei has an Anti-Corruption Bureau within the Prime Minister’s Office. Brunei has legislation and a
National Council on Social Issues to protect the rights of women, children, persons with disabilities,
the elderly and the poor. Trafficking and smuggling in persons is also criminalized.
With respect to human rights, the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam states that “The official religion
of Brunei Darussalam shall be the Islamic Religion: Provided that all other religions may be practiced
in peace and harmony by the persons professing them.” The Constitution provides no guarantee for
other human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Brunei Darussalam is a State Party to two core international human rights instruments, namely the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography (OP-CRC-SC). Brunei has lodged reservations against provisions
in both Conventions that Brunei believes are contrary to its Constitution and the beliefs and
principles of Islam. Brunei is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD), which it undertook to ratify in its 2009 Universal Periodic Review. Brunei is also a party to
the ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention.
In its State Report submission to the 2009 UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the Government of
Brunei emphasized progress made in improving access to education, health care and social security.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) UPR submission noted that no UN
Special Procedures Mandate Holder has visited Brunei in their official capacity. Brunei responded
that it would welcome any request that it issue a standing invitation to the UN Special Procedures.
Members of the UN Human Rights Council made a number of recommendations during the UPR
review that Brunei did not accept:
Ratify other UN core human rights treaties (Brunei committed to considering ratification),
Establish a national human rights institute,
Revoke the 1962 state of emergency which grants the Sultan absolute discretion to issue executive
orders,
Amend the Societies Order that requires public gatherings of more than 10 people to have prior
government approval,
Decriminalize rape within marriage and consensual homosexual activity,
Amend or repeal the Sedition Act and the Newspapers Act that, respectively, prohibit criticism of the
Brunei royal family and give discretionary government powers to issue and revoke annual
newspaper licenses, and criminally charge editors for publishing false information,
Amend or repeal the Internal Security Act that allows an individual to be held, upon the Home
Minister’s Directive, without charge or trial for a period of up to two years, renewable indefinitely.
Brunei accepted the UPR recommendations on preventing abuse of migrant worker, responding that
national employment and migration law offers sufficient protection.
CAMBODIA

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

chance to conduct change and alleviate poverty."
 
CAMBODIA
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 -
1. Increased access to public information for reporting in publications.
2. More accurate reporting as public officials cannot hide public information.
The Private sector -
1. Access to information regarding public bidding, development projects, etc.
2. Access to information on the economy, investments, tax policies, laws, and other
information useful for business.
Civil Society Organisations -
1. 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
Press freedom in Laos is highly restricted. In September 2014, the government approved a
prohibitive new cybercrime law.
Legal Environment
Article 44 of the 1991 constitution guarantees freedom of the press, but in practice the government
controls nearly all print and broadcast news. Under the criminal code, individuals can be jailed for
reporting news that “weakens the state,” or for importing a publication that is “contrary to national
culture.” Defamation and misinformation are criminal offenses, carrying lengthy prison terms and
even the possibility of execution. However, due to high levels of official censorship and self-
censorship, legal cases against journalists are rare.
In September 2014, Laos’s government signed a new law introducing criminal penalties for
publishing to the internet false information about the government, or information meant to
discredit it. Internet service providers can also face penalties for permitting internet users to publish
such information. The law additionally requires individuals to register on social media sites with their
full names, making it difficult for people in Laos to share news articles or other information
anonymously.
There is no law mandating access to official information, and in practice, the authorities restrict
media access to information sources.
 
Political Environment
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. Postpublication 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. Meanwhile, Laos’s
telecommunications minister warned in July 2014 that Facebook users who post articles or other
content that disrupts “social order” or threatens security in the country would see their accounts
blocked. However, the government’s technical ability to monitor internet usage is limited. Press
releases on noncontroversial activities by international organizations and foreign missions are
usually published with minimal edits.
Pervasive censorship and self-censorship mean that physical attacks and extralegal intimidation
aimed at journalists are rare. Detentions in Laos occur with little public information, so it is
impossible to tell how many journalists might be in jail in the country, although the advocacy group
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) does not count any reporters jailed in Laos. Foreign
journalists are usually permitted to enter Laos and travel to cover specific stories, but face significant
barriers in establishing a permanent presence there.
 
Economic Environment
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. Newspaper and other print media circulation figures remain small due to low literacy rates
and an insufficient distribution infrastructure outside the capital, Vientiane. Most of Laos’s roughly
30 television stations and 44 radio stations are government-run, though companies are increasingly
permitted to buy airtime and run privately produced content. A number of citizens access Thai
television and radio, and wealthier individuals have access to cable and satellite television. A few
community radio programs, covering local interest stories along with health and social issues, have
sprung up with the help of international development organizations. Foreign television and radio
services, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, broadcast in Laos without disruption.
Internet penetration rose to just over 14 percent of the population in 2014, and the number of
Facebook accounts has reportedly grown from 60,000 in 2011 to over 500,000 in 2014. The
government is concerned that the youth population is increasingly using social media to discuss
sensitive political and social issues. Nevertheless, the government is eager to boost Laos’s
information and communication technology capabilities, and in March 2014 Laos’s first state-funded
nationwide underground fiber optic network was completed.
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."