April Fool Joke? Or did Selangor DUN really pass the FOI Act

see earlier post : Not so 'open and transparent' birth of Selangor's FOI

Not so 'open and transparent' birth of Selangor's FOI

I visited the website of the State Legislative Assembly of Selangor (Dewan Negeri Selangor), hoping to have sight of this Freedom of Information Bill, that has been passed - but I could not find it. Even our Malaysian Parliament's website is more transparent and open, and we can always have access of all Bills that are before the Parliament. I hope that Pakatan Rakyat's Selangor government would emulate this better practice, and ensure that in the future all Bills that are being considered, and all State Enactments are easily available to the public at the State Legislative Assembly website. It is most important for everyone to have sight of these Bills, so that they can provide their views, opinions, concerns and other input to their ADUNs to consider and raise. 

I saw the earlier version of the FOI Bill, and it drew a lot of criticisms from civil society and the public, and it is good to note that there have been amendments since - but what were these amendments.

The essence of this Bill is 'openess and transparency' but this Bill has been amended, tabled and passed in a manner that lacked 'openess and transparency', and this is very sad. Lets not cry over 'spilt milk' but look to the future, and hope that there will be greater openness and transparency especially when new law (or policy) is being considered and passed. 

Does anyone know where we can get a copy of this FOI Act that has been passed? 

The Selangor assembly today created history by being the first state assembly to enact the Freedom of Information Enactment 2010.

The enactment was tabled for the third reading today by Tourism, Consumer Affairs and the Environment executive councillor and Bukit Lanjan assemblyperson Elizabeth Wong and was accepted by unanimous vote without amendments.

The proposal was seconded by Sri Andalas assemblyperson Xavier Jeyakumar.

It is understood that all of the recommendations proposed by the select committee, made up of PKR-Seri Setia assemblyperson Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, PKR-Batu Caves assemblyperson Amirudin Shari, DAP-Subang Jaya assemblyperson Hannah Yeoh, PAS-Sijangkang Ahmad Yunus Hairi and the two BN representatives, were accepted in total.

“The process (involving a select committee consisting of experts and members of the public) took nine months... This is a product of the people's courage and conviction in choosing Pakatan Rakyat in 2008,” Wong said.

She added that through the select committee, the initial draft has been improved on and will not be ultra vires.

“What we wanted to do was to have an enactment which is complete but within the bounds of the state's jurisdiction, and does not challenge the federal constitution,” she said.

Wong (right) said that the enactment, which will include information involving state administration, government-linked companies and municipal and city councils, will be a “dynamic” one.

“If we feel that we can improve the enactment in the next five or six months, the Selangor government will be happy to review the proposals,” she said.

She also expressed disappointment in the BN backbenchers' refusal “to take part in history” by failing to attend a single committee meeting since the second reading of the enactment last year.

The two BN representatives invited to the committee and public enquiry were Tanjung Sepat assemblyperson Karim Mansor and Kuang assemblyperson Abdul Shukor Idrus.

Selangor BN had previously opposed the enactment, saying that it is just a ploy to provide more positions for Pakatan Rakyat supporters, and that it is ultra vires and redundant.

Enactment to be implemented in six months

Speaking to reporters later, Wong said that the state now has six months to prepare to implement the enactment, including training information officers, developing procedures for applications, drafting the application form, evaluating costs and forming the state information board.

The state is proposing to seek consultation and training from countries that have implemented similar legislation before.

Wong, however, could not give a ballpark figure for the cost and that this will be tabled in the assembly after it has been finalised.

She added that the state information board is a revised version of the appeals board as stated in the earlier draft and will now consist of those with legal background (former lawyers or judges) who are independent from party politics.

Appeals following rejection of applications and recommendation for improvements would need to go through this board.

Amendments to the draft

Other amendments made following recommendations from the select committee include:

• Changing the preamble from saying that the enactment is an “opportunity for the rakyat” to “the right of the rakyat to reasonable access information”.

• Penalties will no longer only apply to applicants, but also information officers proved to have impeded or obstructed access with ill intentions.

• Applicants who can be proven to have applied for information with ill intentions, other than stipulated in their application, can also be penalised.

• Expansion of the enactment to include government-linked companies and local authorities.

“This has been a labour of love…It is also a challenge, that if Selangor can do it, so can the federal government... (which has) more at their disposal. They even have the entire Attorney-General's Chambers.

“It's about time that we stop hiding behind black curtains, and laws like the Official Secrets Act must be reviewed,” she said.- Malaysiakini, 1/4/2011, First-ever FOI enactment passed

Wikileaks: Open & Transparent -v- 'Official Secrets'?

First, let us look at what really has been disclosed by Wikileaks - they are communications between persons in the US State Department. Some are opinions & some maybe facts especially when it is reporting what some said. It has been exposing the hypocrisy of the US,....and maybe also some other heads of States who say one thing to the people and another thing to their 'close circle', which may no longer include US Diplomats after this leak.

On the whole, the revelations have been good - but sadly the powerful are getting together and reacting to those responsible in disclosing all these information to us.
 
Any advocate for freedom of information, open transparent government will be for an era that governments should not be keeping 'secrets' from the people. And, so they would be in support of revelations of Wikileaks...

But, the 'super powers' (and maybe even other people in power [or those who hoped to be someday]) are really not at all happy about all these disclosures...

Of course, the best strategy is to discredit the source -- and thus the portraying of the main person of wiki leaks as a sex offender... People have forgotten the legal principle that all persons are innocent until proven guilty. Is Julian guilty? Well, for now he must be seen as innocent - until he has had his trial and have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, just because he is a 'celebrity' does not mean  that he is above the law. The victims too, in this case, is suffering because beyond the normal pressure  they are facing additional pressure as a result of this Wikileaks issue. {Charging an opponent with a sex crime is really not new for Malaysians. It was done in the Anwar Ibrahim case....)

The number of persons...countries that are getting 'hit' by these exposures is great...and of late even Anwar Ibrahim and PKR has been hit - but that should not affect of position - i.e. is it a good thing or is it a bad thing.

Well, these documents in UK, US, etc...normally also will be available to the public once it has been declassified many decades later. We learned a lot about Malaysia's early days and the communist party from the recent declassified documents of the UK government, did we not. I believe Dr Kua also wrote a book about this focusing very much on the May 13 1969 incident. What Wikileaks have done is just bring it all out early when the real good guys (or culprits) are still around and active... 

UMNO-led BN government has indoctrinated our minds in believing that there is a real need to keep 'secrets' from the ordinary people   - hence the Official Secrets Act, and we are still slaves  to this culture. Even after Pakatan Rakyat came into power, they have continued to keep 'secrets' from the people. Will they change? Will they learn to be totally open and transparent - will they disclose the detailed income expenditure accounts for their Local Councils?


What do we want? Open, Transparent and Accountable Government ....OR 'a little bit' Open, Transparent and Accountable Government? 

I wait to see how Pakatan Rakyat, PKR and Anwar will react to the recent Wikileaks exposure. I wait to see how you, my fellow Malaysians, will react...

Jaya Supermarket Tragedy : Is the Selangor Government still using OSA to hide the truth?

It has been pointed out by Malaysiakini and others that really the current Selangor government have sufficient power under the existing Official Secrets Act (OSA), even before we get it repealed, to declassify documents/information that have been marked 'secret' by previous governments, and not mark any new documents 'secret' in the interest of accountability, transparency and freedom of information but alas, they still behave like BN ....

Was there a report by the MBPJ on the Jaya Supermarket Tragedy that saw the death of 7 workers....? I have not seen any .... and if any person is aware of it, post it here under comments...or e-mail me at easytocall@yahoo.com {For the record I searched the MBPJ website for the words 'Jaya Supermarket" - and there was nothing about the incident that caused 7 deaths...and then I looked at the Suara Keadilan, but they did not have any search function }

I recall a report in the Nut Graph in June 2009, which is pasted below:-

PETALING JAYA, 5 June 2009: The Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) has failed to disclose documents of public interest relating to a development project in Section 19, Petaling Jaya, even after residents' repeated requests.
"First they told us the documents were classified. Now they say that these documents belong to the developers, and that they would need the developers' consent to disclose them," Section 19 resident Ow Yew Teik told The Nut Graph.

"This is ridiculous," Ow said, adding that the information was in the public's interest.

Ow, along with other residents living along the Section 19/30 and 19/27 residential roads, have been requesting development orders, building plans, and other documents related to a development project in their neighbourhood. They have been petitioning MBPJ for the documents since June 2008.

In a letter sent to news organisations, the Section 19 residents group outlined their questions about the development project:

1. why a portion of the land adjoining Jalan 19/30 had been re-gazetted for commercial use, when it was previously gazetted as residential;

2. when the development project, which sits between Jalan 19/30, SS2/72, and Ken 3 Condominiums, was approved; and

3. why the residents of Section 19 were not consulted on the project before approval was given.

"The MBPJ claims they have an approval list from us. But no one gave them consent. Show us proof that they consulted with us," Ow said in a phone interview.

According to Ow, there were many particulars that were questionable about the development project, including the height and close proximity of the buildings.

"What we want is the council to show us the development plans," Ow said. "In the event that everything is legal, we will shut up."

However, if the documents revealed that there were irregularities in the development project, Ow said it was up to the MBPJ to rectify matters.

Councillors acting

Ow revealed that at the last MBPJ full-board meeting held on 28 May 2009, all 24 MBPJ local councillors agreed that the documents should be made available to the public.

"I have written a number of letters to the MBPJ Town Planning Department, instructing them to reveal to residents these documents," local councillor Mak Khuin Weng said in an interview.

Mak, who writes for The Nut Graph, pointed out that the Section 19 case was "not normal".

"In the case of other developments, residents are normally given access to the development plans, and documents such as traffic impact assessments," Mak explained.

"I have given the department a deadline," Mak said, adding that he had hoped the documents would be released without any conditions by 2 June.

"These documents should be released. Failing which, we will have to take the matter up with the menteri besar's office."

However, according to Ow, Section 19 residents still have not received the documents as of 4 June 2009.

The Nut Graph's attempts at contacting MBPJ's town planning department and the legal department since 2 June have not yielded any official explanations.

MBPJ's reticence is in contrast with the Selangor government's commitment to freedom of information. On 19 May, Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim announced that the Pakatan Rakyat (PR)-governed state would table a Freedom of Information Enactment (FOIE) bill by the end of 2009. - Nut Graph, 6/6/2009, MBPJ keeps mum on Section 19 project
 

Has things changed? MBPJ (and other local councils in Pakatan Rakyat's Selangor) has still has not disclosed their accounts for 2008, 2009 - Why are they hiding how much the MBPJ earned, and how did they spend it?

We demand transparency and accountability - no more secrets please...

I wonder whether the same contractors were still allowed to continue with the demolition exercise....and maybe even given other contracts in Selangor, etc... 

 

'Support letters" are sometimes 'directives' that recepients are afraid to not follow - Get rid of it..

On the issue of 'support letters', it saddens me that it is also happening in the Pakatan Rakyat States. Should not an ADUN (State Legislative Assembly Person) and/or Member of Parliament(MP) be acting indiscriminately for all the people in their constituencies. And my concern is with regard to support letters for the purpose of getting tenders and contracts, big companies land conversion approvals, big development projects planning approval, ...

We really are not talking about letters from ADUNs/MPs asking a relevant department to give consideration for this or that person for the purposes of getting some welfare aid, low cost housing, etc. Helping to bring the plight of poor and oppressed to the attention of some Ministry, Department etc so that they are also considered is not the kind of 'support letters'. There are some that try to confuse the issue of 'support letters' to include this...We are essentially concerned with stopping of 'support letters' for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 1 above.

There must also be guidelines placed on all other 'support letters', i.e. that they must be of a nature of just drawing attention to particular cases for the purpose of getting the relevant Ministries, departments to take into consideration the names mentioned, i.e. the said names will be put on the list for consideration. The relevant Ministries/Departments must not take into consideration other irrelevant matters, i.e. who is the writer of the said 'support letter'. No additional weight should be given to a letter from Najib or Anwar or Ronnie Liu... And the failure to 'listen' to these 'support letters' should never be the basis for non-promotion, no re-appointment (for example as a Local Councillor, etc). The absence of any support letter should also not lead to discriminatory treatment by the relevant authorities.

Now, many believe that their application directly to the Welfare Department, Labour Department, for Land, etc will not be successful unless they use 'cables' - i.e. get the support of some strong UMNO-BN politician, not necessarily the duly elected ADUN or MP. In fact, many JKKK members also promote this culture, and take applicants to the local UMNO-BN office to get the relevant support letter. There really is no need for any such letters, because anyone should be able to go to the relevant Welfare Department, Labour Department, Land Office, Immigration Department, etc and make the relevant application and receive the proper service...If there is delay...or non-cooperation from these department, complaint to the Public Complainst body, relevant Minister/Menteri Besar and also to the Human Rights Commission(SUHAKAM)...and I believe all 'bad behaviour'" should cease and there will be 'bersih,cekap and amanah'(clean efficient and trustworthy) service rendered.

What these 'politicians' need to do is to empower people so that they can act on their own with confidence - only when own efforts are resulting in no action...or delay, then you go complaint - and then maybe, the politicians can question why the relevant department is not acting promptly in a clean, efficient and trustworthy manner...If you really want to help people, educate them about their rights ...and where they can access justice. Empower people --- do not continue the old UMNO-BN culture of dis-empowering people and making them dependent on their 'political masters'. 

DAP’s Teng admits issuing letters of support

By Neville Spykerman

August 04, 2010

Teng: Officers don’t want to be blamed if something goes wrong and contractors are caught in a predicament if they don’t get the letters of support. - Picture by Choo Choy May

SHAH ALAM, Aug 4 — Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim has admitted that all Pakatan Rakyat (PR) assemblymen in the state, including himself, had issued letters of recommendations for government contracts to contractors and the public.

But he claimed the practice was slowly being done away with.

“The issuance of recommendation letters are a grey area and is “old culture” which PR inherited from the previous administration,” said the Sungai Pinang assemblyman yesterday.

Teng said PR was caught in a quandary over the issue because he claimed civil servants sometimes insisted on these letters.

“Officers don’t want to be blamed if something goes wrong and contractors are caught in a predicament if they don’t get the letters of support.”

He said this was especially true after PR took over the Selangor administration in March 2008, when work including garbage collection came to a standstill because contracts were not being awarded.

He pointed out this was prior to the appointment of PR local councillors and he had no choice but to issue these letters of recommendations for contracts.

“But my letters of recommendation letters are for work in my constituency and all carry the condition that it should be subject to government policy and regulations,” he said.

Teng also claimed that in some circumstances government forms required the endorsement of PR state assemblyman and MPs. These includes the State Economic Planning Unit (UPEN) forms for new contractors, who want to be listed in their panel of contractors.

In other cases, local governments require endorsements by assemblymen before licenses for cybercafes are renewed in their constituency.

The Selangor PR government is coming under fire after it emerge that DAP councillor Tee Boon Hock had given a support letter to a company in which his son was a partner.

Tee was sacked by DAP’s disciplinary committee.

Meanwhile other PR assemblymen also confirmed that the letters of recommendation were a standard practice but one that they hoped to do away with.

“There are no guidelines now on recommendation letters and I support abolishing it,” said DAP Subang Jaya assemblyman Hannah Yeoh.

She confirmed that the situation was a mess after PR took over Selangor and work on the ground come to a standstill.

“I am not sure if this was because contracts were not being awarded but garbage went uncollected for some time.”

Yeoh pointed out that many government forms also required endorsement from PR assemblyman and MPs.

“Civil servants should just follow procedures instead of relying on endorsements from lawmakers.”

PAS Hulu Klang Assemblyman Saari Sungib also said he was uncomfortable with the practice.

However he said civil servants themselves initially insisted on it.

“When I confronted them, they told me it was because they wanted to know who my people were.” he said.

He admitted that members of the public and contractors continued to come to his office for recommendation letters.

“But the numbers are slowly being reduced because I have informed everyone that my endorsement is not necessary.”

Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim today also told The Malaysian Insider that the practice was being discouraged.

“It gives a wrong expectation to both receiving the letters of support and those considering the application.” said the Selangor Mentri Besar.

However Khalid stopped short of issuing a total ban on the practice.

Instead he said civil servants would be directed to follow procedures regardless of whether applications came with letters of recommendations. - Malaysian Insider, 4/8/2010, DAP’s Teng admits issuing letters of support

Why are the new Pakatan Rakyat MPs/ADUNs/Politicians doing this? Well, the main reason is the people who come and ask them for it, stating the BN politicians did it before... and if the MP/ADUN/politician does not want to do this, then they say that they are 'useless' and do not want to help, and the BN was better. Hence, many ADUNs/MPs/politicians end up giving in, and issuing these letters of support/recommendation - and in so doing propagate the culture of 'support letters', culture of 'using cables', ....  Well, Pakatan Rakyat and the Opposition parties (and maybe also the BN parties) can stop all this, and change the culture...and also redefine the duty/obligations/relationship between a ADUN/MP/Politician and the people. All you need to do is to speak about this at the Ceramahs, your publications, etc - and educate the people about the proper way of doing things.

Pakatan two-faced over Selangor support letters, says Nazri

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

August 06, 2010

The apparent conflict between Selangor and Pakatan leaders over support letters drew Nazri’s scorn. — file pic

 

SERDANG, Aug 6 — Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz claimed yesterday that the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat (PR) government’s decision to keep the practice of recommendation letters is a direct “contradiction” with the views of its top PR leaders in the state. 

On Wednesday, Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim said that state assemblymen and MPs may continue to issue letters of recommendations and support letters despite calls from within PR for it to be eradicated.

Nazri also took a swipe at DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua, claiming that the contradiction between Pua’s views on recommendation letters and the Selangor government made the DAP man look “stupid.”

“I want to ask Tony Pua a question... how now? PR leaders including yourself go around Parliament, claiming that Barisan Nasional (BN) is corrupt for wanting the practice of support letters to be kept and maintained. 

You say you support Datuk Seri Idris Jala’s stand on what support letters are meant for.

“But now we find that the Selangor state government themselves don’t have the will to get rid of support letters, they want the practice to continue. How now, Tony Pua? How now?” the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department asked pointedly.

Nazri told The Malaysian Insider that recommendation letters needed to be maintained as they were a “basis” from which an elected representative could render assistance to constituents.

“The letters of support are a basis for any wakil rakyat (elected representative) to help their constituents. It is a normal practice.

“Let’s say someone wants help to get their child to enter university, as MPs or elected representatives we are in the position to help,” he added.

Pua has been made to look “stupid”, says Nazri.

 

However, Nazri stressed that recommendation letters did not mean that a lawmaker’s request had to be approved, and that civil servants still had the option to reject such appeals.
“Recommendation letters only mean consideration, it means ‘please consider’, it does not mean ‘you must approve the request or application,’” said the Umno leader.

When asked to comment on how the practice of recommendation letters could lead to forms of corruption, Nazri said that the laws of the country were enough to deter any crime or abuse of process.

“What is not open to abuse in this world? A lot of things are open to abuse. (If) it is open to abuse, we have laws in place to ensure that justice is served.

“If there is corruption in cases of recommendation letters, the law will take its course,” added the law minister.

On Tuesday, Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim admitted that all Selangor PR assemblymen, including himself, had issued letters of recommendations for government contracts to contractors and the public.

But he claimed the practice was slowly being done away with.

Teng said PR was caught in a quandary over the issue because he claimed civil servants sometimes insisted on these letters.

“Officers don’t want to be blamed if something goes wrong and contractors are caught in a predicament if they don’t get the letters of support.”

Teng also claimed that in some circumstances government forms required the endorsement of PR state assemblyman and MPs.

These include the State Economic Planning Unit (UPEN) forms for new contractors seeking to be listed in their panel of contractors.

In other cases, local governments require endorsements by assemblymen before licences for cybercafes are renewed in their constituency.

The Selangor PR government has been under fire after recent reports highlighted DAP councillor Tee Boon Hock had given a support letter to a company in which his son was a partner.

Tee was sacked by DAP’s disciplinary committee last Saturday for that letter to his son’s firm. - Malaysian Insider, 6/8/2010, Pakatan two-faced over Selangor support letters, says Nazri

Some have referred to the Pakatan Rakyat as 'BN Lite' - and one wonders whether we can really expect any changes under the Pakatan Rakyat, other than there being just a new group of people/political parties in power. 

The same old UMNO-BN culture of support letters...recomendation letters...cables.. are still being used by the Pakatan Rakyat government. I am certain that, in Selangor when the Local Councils receive a recomendation or a support letter from Ronnie Liu or some other PR top leader, many will treat it as being an instruction and the supported person will get whatever contract, etc... Even Tee, allegedly using Ronnie Liu's letter head was able to get millions of ringgit worth of projects for his cronnies...that is how powerful Ronnie Liu's letters are. Remember, that he is also the one responsible for chosing and appointing Local Councillors - hence, Councillors who hope to be re-appointed every year will not risk offending the man. That is why we need Local Council elections, or people chosen Councillors, and then their loyalty will be for the good of the people in their constituencies - not the mighty political personalities who choose them. Openness and transparency is also needed - and the public must be aware of the existence of support letters. How many of the projects/contracts of the Local Council and State Government went to those who had these support letters? And whose support letters were these?

I say we need to put an end to these 'support letters'.... especially when it is support of getting some contracts/projects, application for development orders/planning permits, applications for land and/or land conversions coming from big companies/corporations/businesses, etc...and certainly, persons like Menteri Besar's and State Exco members and also leadership of political parties should stop issuing these 'support letters'.

Interesting also to note that Chief Secretary of the UMNO-led BN Government came out with a directive that support letters from politicians are to be disregarded, and that decisions are to be made based on merits. Civil servants were also asked to report to their superior if the received such 'support letters' - but then Khairy was not at all happy with this.

 

PETALING JAYA: Umno Youth has opposed a directive calling on civil servants to disregard support letters from politicians. The directive, issued by Chief Secretary to the Government Mohd Sidek Hassan, told civil servants to make merit-based decisions, and report to their superiors if they received recommendation letters from politicians.

However, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said the wing did not share the same view.

"We are against the perception that support letters are an abuse of one's political power," he stated in a blog posting.

Requesting an explanation from the chief secretary, Khairy challenged Sidek's directive, which described recommendation letters as an “abuse of political power”.

The Umno Youth chief also noted that the majority of recommendation letters from politicians were not based on political requests.


"These letters do not only involve contracts or government procurements, but concentrate primarily on applications for university scholarships, work-related transfers, welfare and housing,” he said.

The Rembau MP stated that recommendation letters were also needed when applicants failed to receive satisfactory service from respective government departments.

"Although most in the civil service work in a professional manner, a small number continue to act like little Napoleons," he said. - Free Malaysia Today, 30/7/2010, Umno Youth: Support letters not an abuse of power

See also earlier posts:-

Ronnie Liu's letter carrys too much weight - when it should not even be a practice in government

Support Letters :- A disempowering tool used to keep people down and promotes dependency

Ronnie Liu's letter carrys too much weight - when it should not even be a practice in government

When letters from Ronnie Liu can cause peole/companies to get Selangor government contracts ....

When letters from Khalid Ibrahim can result in whether you get a contract or not...

When a letter from some politician in government or otherwise can influence a decision whether one gets a contract or not...

The sacking of Klang municipal councillor Tee Boon Hock's case by the DAP is receiving media attention, and the allegation against him is that he misused letters

On July 28, a day after English-language daily Star reported that a 'rogue' councillor had misused Selangor exco member Ronnie Liu's letterhead and seal to obtain contracts worth a total of RM1 million for 20 companies,....Malaysiakini, 4/8/2010, Tee lied to us, explains S'gor DAP over 'reversal'

The issue here, is the whole usage and impact of such 'support letters' ....and/or support by certain political personalities in ensuring that some get government contracts and others do not.

First, we need to have a look at the said letters....their contents....[Are there letters of support, instructions, directives/orders...?]

Second, we have to look at whether there were similar letters issued by the said Ronnie Liu (or some other PR politician) in the past...and the impact that such letters/support had in getting some people/companies getting government contracts...Why is such a practice still being followed by PR State governments?

Third, we have to really ask why the persons in these decision making bodies/committees are so influenced by such 'support' (or is it 'orders') from certain political personalities? [Is it because you are worried that if you 'disobey', then you may not be re-appointed (or may be dismissed immediately), and further marginalized  by the current government, party or political personality? Is it fear that made these persons to award the contracts to certain persons? Really, we need to re-look at the criteria used by the committee/body that decided to award the contracts to certain parties on the apparent 'orders'/'instructions' of Ronnie Liu (in this case). More importantly, we must look at the independence of decision making bodies, and the criteria being employed in coming to a decision? Does it matter whether one is a PR political party member or has some 'support' whether in a form of letter or 'phone call" coming from a politician of influence - like ...? If there is transparency and openness, plus accountability, surely all these kind of 'bad' practices will stop. Now, we are informed as to who gets the contract...or succeeds in a tender - Maybe we also need to know the "Why?" they got the contract...and why they did not? Really, the only consideration should be (1) the price/cost to do the project within time, (2) their experience/capacity & past record, (3) a policy to spread projects over a larger group of new local contractors/companies...maybe, if there is such a policy which must be if not only the same old companies/persons will get all projects because only they have past experience/achievements...

Tee, if he did use Ronnie's letterhead to get contracts for certain company is definitely wrong...

If Ronnie (or MB, some other prominent person) also used to give support, in the form of letters and/or otherwise, so that certain people get a better chance of getting a contract is certainly a bigger Wrong. [I do not believe, the use of Ronnie's letter would have had the influence it had, if it had not been used similarly before by Ronnie and/or other political personalities...]

Maybe, to ensure loyalty....and that they listen to the instructions of Ronnie (and/or others), be it through letters, phone calls, etc, that is why Local Councillors (and possibly others in other decision making committees/bodies) are appointed for short 1-year terms, and thereafter removed or retained at will by certain politicians in power. [Safeguards for independence of decision making bodies must be put in place, and this include fixed, certainly longer tenure, transparency and openess, election rather than appointments, etc...]

'Using cables... support letters... connections...' were things that we knew were happening when the UMNO-led BN government ruled the State/s, and as such to hear that a similar practice is still continuing when PR is ruling is really disturbing.

Has the only change that we have brought about since the last General Elections in 2008, been just a change in the ruling party/coalition and persons  in power, and nothing more? In Local Councils, previously they filled the post of Councillors with people from their parties...is not the same happening with Pakatan Rakyat?

2 years plus has passed, and the promised 'reformasi' has not really happened where it matters... or has it? One should spend time reading George Orwell's Animal Farm....and wnder whether the same thing has happened

Malaysian Bar: Recognise greater freedom of the people through wider freedom of information

Press Release

Recognise greater freedom of the people through wider freedom of information

 

The Malaysian Bar applauds the much-awaited move by the Selangor State Government to table the Freedom of Information (State of Selangor) Enactment 2010 Bill before the Dewan Negeri Selangor on 14 July 2010.

 

This ground-breaking piece of draft legislation seeks to “enhance disclosure of information for the public interest, to provide to every individual an opportunity to access to information made by every department of the State Government”, to quote from the preamble to the Bill.

 

The Bill promotes greater transparency and more accountability by the authorities of their expenditure of taxpayers’ money and execution of public projects.  By this, both the public and the media will be more aware of the activities of the State Government and will be able to keep a watchful eye.  The kind of public scrutiny that such a Bill would permit is unprecedented in Malaysian history.

 

It will also empower the public by giving them hitherto unparalleled rights of access to information held by the State Government and its departments.  Indeed a freedom of information officer is to be appointed in each State Government department in order to assist the public to have access to the information to which they are rightly entitled.

 

The introduction of the Freedom of Information (State of Selangor) Enactment 2010 Bill is the third of three recent developments in the area of freedom of information.  The first was the passage of the Data Protection Act 2010 by the Malaysian Parliament, which also gives rights of access to the public to information.  However, a significant failing of this Act is that this right of access has not been extended vis-à-vis the Federal and state governments.

 

The second was the 28 June 2010 Kuala Lumpur High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) ruling by YA Judicial Commissioner (JC) Hadhariah Syed Ismail that the water concession agreement between Syarikat Bekalan Air Sdn Bhd (Syabas) and the Federal and Selangor State Governments could be disclosed to the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and 13 other co-applicants.  This ruling extended to an audit report said to have been presented to the Cabinet.  YA JC Hadhariah opined that the information was of public interest and therefore needed to be disclosed so that the public could be informed on the workings of government as well as promote discussion of public affairs.  She further stated that it was nonsensical to treat any information as automatically secret, in relation to Section 2A of the Official Secrets Act 1972.  In this light, the move by the Federal Government to obtain a stay and to appeal the decision is deeply regrettable.  It reflects the failure of the Federal Government to recognise the primary right of the rakyat to information.

 

YA JC Hadhariah added that since water is essential to life, an agreement that affected the supply of water impliedly affected the right to life.  This decision to give greater meaning to the constitutionally-guaranteed right to life and to link it with the right to information is greatly welcomed.

 

While we welcome the move by the Selangor State Government, the Bill can be criticised for being weak in some of its proposals.  An earlier, and more determined, legislative proposal was apparently rejected.  Indeed the Bill defines “information” to exclude a document which has been classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972, which highlights the issue YA JC Hadhariah referred to in her decision in the Syabas case.  The Bill includes many considerations that are still protective of the State Government’s right to effective formulation or development of policy away from public scrutiny, or to safeguard any disclosure that is prejudicial to the administration or security of the State Government.  We therefore welcome the year-long public consultative process that the State Government will embark upon, including the establishment of a Select Committee comprising cross-party representatives from amongst members of the Dewan Negeri Selangor, which will enable feedback to be gathered on the Bill.  We trust that the pro-openness provisions will eventually make their way back into the Bill in place of the pro-State Government protective features.

 

We encourage the Federal Government as well as other state governments to follow the Selangor State Government’s exemplary lead in legislating towards widening access by the public to officially-held information.  Such openness can only be for the greater public good.  By allowing the light of day to shine on the workings of government and those in authority, we can begin to banish the darkness under the cover of which foul and corrupt deeds have been perpetrated in the past.

 

 

Lim Chee Wee
Vice-President
Malaysian Bar

 

15 July 2010

Pakatan Rakyat fails to be Open, Transparent - Now using OSA to keep 'secrets'?

Transparency, Accountability .....these were amongst the promises by the Pakatan Rakyat before the the 2008 General Elections, and still we hear the same calls being made to the UMNO-led BN government at the Federal and State levels - but alas, now it is becoming clear that not only are the using the Akta Rahsia Rasmi [Official Secrets Act] to make more documents secret, but that they are not using also the powers that they do have to declassify documents classified as "Top Secret", "Secret", "Confidential" or "Restricted".

Even more disappointing is  that this "keep the people in the dark" policy also is reflected in their latest 'political gimmick' that Freedom of Information Bill when they define  in Clause 2 the interpretation of the word "information", i.e. that it "..means any documents made by any department of the State Government but does not include document - (a) which has been classified under the Official Secrets Act (1972) ...".

What is wrong with this?

Official Secrets Act (1972) has not only been acknowledged but approved the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat.  For the purposes of State documents, it is Menteri Besar/Chief Minister of the State that is empowered to mark documents as 'secret', etc ...or to declassify 'secret',...documents so that they can be made available.

the Civil society(including opposition parties before) have been campaigning for the repeal of the OSA.

[See earlier posts:-Freedom of Information Bill : Good move but still some shortcomings ]

 2.  Interpretation. [Official Secrets Act]

 "official secret"  means any document specified in the Schedule and any information and material relating thereto and includes any other official document, information and material as may be classified as "Top Secret", "Secret", "Confidential" or "Restricted", as the case may be, by a Minister, the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister of a State or such public officer appointed under section 2B;

And, what are these documents under the said Schedule?

SCHEDULE

(Section 2A)

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;

Documents concerning national security, defence and international relations.

The power to break the seal of secrecy lies with the Menteri Besar or the Chief Minister of a State or the principal officer in charge of the administrative affairs of a State

2C.  Declassification of official secret by a Minister or a public officer.

A Minister or public officer charged with any responsibility in respect of any Ministry, department or any public service or the Menteri Besar or the Chief Minister of a State or the principal officer in charge of the administrative affairs of a State may, at any time, declassify any document specified in the Schedule or any official document, information or material as may have been classified and upon such declassification, the said document, information or material shall cease to be official secret.

At present, sadly the Pakatan Rakyat government seem to be inclined to continue to hide information and documents from the public. They have fallen short from being open, transparent and accountable.

Is the Selangor's Freedom of Information Bill hence is an attempt to delude us into believing that the Pakatan Rakyat (or rather Selangor's Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar and government) really is still true to the call for openness,  transparency and accountability...It is odd that they are only talking about a 3rd reading of the Bill will be not later that April 11 (that is almost 9 months away - and would it not be very close to the next General Elections), and by the time it becomes a Selangor Enactment it will be ..... One wonders whether the number of flaws in the present Bill was intentional --- for very easily feedback could have long ago obtained from the Bar Council and Civil Society, which they did not... Best to pass the Enactment soonest, and then get more feedback and table another Bill to make the necessary amendments.

This freedom of information Act is really a legislation that is setting the procedure for the application of information, documentation..... but really the time between application and getting the information is too long, and the power vested in the information officer is just too much - he/she decides which information/document can be given and which cannot. What we really need is a listing of available documents/information, and most important documents/information should be available on the websites...People should be able to send an e-mail and get information. People should be able to walk in a department and do a document search then and there + make copies. Every department should have a file room...

Budget speeches are available to the public - i.e. with regard to monies that they would like to spend and for what....BUT the statement of accounts (which will show income and expenditure) is marked 'secret' and hidden from the public. This action clearly raises the presumption that there may have been abuses, and there is something to hide. I recently made a request for the Selangor State government accounts, and this is the response that I got - Note that they have indeed used the Official Secrets Act (Akta Rahsia Rasmi) to keep the State accounts hidden from the public.

--- On Wed, 7/14/10, Noor Diana Binti Razali gov.my> wrote:

From: Noor Diana Binti Razali
Subject: RE: Feedback from Selangor portal (Dewan Undangan Negeri)
To: "Webadmin Pusat ICT Selangor" , "Charles Hector" <chef@tm.net. my>, "Mohd Yasid Bin Bidin"
Cc: "G_PAII" , "Siti Salbiah Binti Masri"
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:55 AM

Salam Sejahtera,

Dengan segala hormatnya saya merujuk kepada perkara di bawah.

2. Berhubung dengan Hansard, Tuan boleh merujuk kepada laman web Dewan Negeri di www.dun.selangor. gov.my.

3. Berkenaan pencarian Akta/Enakmen Negeri Selangor berserta Bil yang diedarkan semasa mesyuarat Persidangan, ianya telah diserahkan kepada Y.B. Adun. Tuan adalah dipohon untuk membuat     permohonan rasmi secara bertulis kepada Pentadbiran ini, dialamatkan kepada:-

Setiausaha Bahagian (Dewan/MMKN)
Pejabat Dewan Negeri Selangor
Tingkat 1, Bangunan Annex
Dewan Negeri Selangor
40000 Shah Alam.

4. Akaun Negeri Selangor merupakan perkara rahsia yang tertakhluk di bawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi, sehubungan dengan itu, dukacita dimaklumkan Pentadbiran ini tidak dapat membekalkan maklumat yang dimohon. Sekiranya terdapat sebarang bertanyaan, Tuan boleh berhubung terus ke:

Pegawai Kewangan Negeri Selangor
Pejabat Perbendaharaan Negeri Selangor,
Tingkat 12, Bangunan SSAAS,
40503 Shah Alam.

Sekian, harap maklum.

Noor Diana Razali
Pen. Setiausaha Dewan
Dewan Negeri Selangor
____________ _________ _________ _________ _
From: Webadmin Pusat ICT Selangor
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:48 AM
To: Charles Hector; Mohd Yasid Bin Bidin
Cc: G_PAII; Webadmin Pusat ICT Selangor; Noor Diana Binti Razali
Subject: RE: Feedback from Selangor portal (Dewan Undangan Negeri)

Selamat sejahtera,
Pertanyaan tuan dipanjangkan kepada Bahagian Dewan Undangan Negeri untuk maklumbalas sewajarnya.
Untuk makluman, Hansard bagi sesi persidangan yang lalu disediakan oleh petugas Dewan Undangan Negeri secara online di laman web http://dun.selangor .gov.my. Bagaimanapun laman tersebut sedang diselenggara untuk sementara waktu. Tuan boleh hubungi pegawai di Bahagian berkenaan untuk maklumat lanjut :
Tel. Bahagian Dewan Undangan Negeri : 03-55447613 / 7667
Tel. Operator SUK : 03-55447000

Terima kasih.
-Admin, Portal Selangor
____________ _________ _________ _________ _
From: Charles Hector [chef@tm.net. my]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:29 PM
To: Webadmin Pusat ICT Selangor
Subject: Feedback from Selangor portal

The following were submitted via feedback form 'Pertanyaan' :

Your Feedback :
Di manakah Minit Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor...atau 'Hansard'? Saya sedar kini ada rakaman video tetapi adakah minit secara bertulis bukan sahaja untuk persidangan selepas PR jadi kerajaan tetapi juga sebelum itu.

Di manakah saya dapat mencari Akta/Enakmen Negeri Selangor.... serta Bil baru yang dibentangkan apabila pemindaan atau undang-undang baru dicadangkan?

Akaun Negeri Selangor, bukan Bajet. Di manakah tempat saya boleh mencarinya. Mahu mengetahui s umber dan pendapatan, serta juga cara kerajaan telah membelanjakan duit rakyat.

Freedom of Information Bill : Good move but still some shortcomings

Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government need to be complimented with the introduction...and tabling of the 

In the Malaysiakini report, S'gor tables ground-breaking FOI Bill, there is an interesting sidebar of a provision in the Official Secrets Act - which clearly states that the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister can very easily declassify documents marked 'secret' - Have the Pakatan Rakyat states done this yet, and what are the documents declassified? If you truly want to be open, transparent and make available all information to the people, then you would have done this - and you would have made available to the public - posted it all on websites.

Now, is the Selangor Government ...and the other Pakatan Rakyat ready to be totally transparent, open...or not? Or, is this all just another 'political gimmick'? I believe, what they have done is a very good first step ... but there are concerns about how they did it? And also the contents of the Bill itself.

JUDICIAL REVIEW - just like the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional, they too are attempting to oust access to the Judiciary. The final decision is an 'executive decision' - and persons not happy can take the matter up for judicial review to allow the courts to review the validity of the decision to refuse to give the sought after information (or to allow to give it.) Let us not forget that the Judiciary is an important 3rd branch of government, and it has a very important role, one of which to determine the correctness of a decision by the executive. Today, many of the Malaysian laws passed under the UMNO-led BN majority in Parliament denies access to judicial review - No one is permitted the decision of the Minister.And sadly, this Selangor FOI Bill has a similar provision. Clause 14(13) must be removed - so that the right to go for a judicial review shall be returned to the people.

Clause 14(13) - Without provisions for judicial review, the Minister ...or this An order by the Appeal Board on an appeal before it shall be final, shall not be called into question in any court, and shall be binding on all parties to the appeal or involved in the matter [The Bill is in Malaysiakini]

APPEAL BOARD - there is supposed to be a Charman and a Deputy Chairman  & up to a maximum of 6 other persons. 

How are they selected? It is by the State Authority - what about an independent selection committee? What about people having a part to play in the process? It is odd that civil society (and also the Opposition Political Parties) have been campaigning for a more transparent independent appointment process for Judges, etc... and here, it just again following the UMNO-led BN style.

Security of Tenure - This is one of the safeguards to ensure independence of persons sitting in a judicial capacity, like this 'Appeal Board', and the Bill states that their term is 'for such period not exceeding 3 years..' (Clause 14[3]). What does this mean? 1 year...6 months..3 years - Let us be very definite, and say that it shall be for 3 years. There really should be no provision for re-appointment - as this may affect their 'independence' as they may be 'pro-State Authority' because they want to be re-appointed. A fixed definite term is best. Remember that there is the possibility of  removal of a member of  the Appeal Board

Removal of Member of the Appeal Board - in the Bill, they call it 'revocation of appointment'. Look at Clause 14[4] - the State Authority can do it at any time 'without assigning any reason therefore'. Arbitrary or what? Surely, there must be a proper procedure for removal of a member of the Appeal Board which provides for a fair opportunity to defend oneself, and a right to know the reasons for such removal. Grounds for removal should also best be stated - i.e. misconduct, non-disclosure of interest, etc...or maybe because he jumped to another party..mmm

When it sits, it is an undemocratic Appeal Board - and all power rests with the Chairman.  Look at Clause 14(9) - "Every decision shall be made by the Chairman..." Even if the other 2 members of the sitting Appeal Board says that the information shall be provided, the Chairman can still decide that the applicant shall not be provided with the said information. Only time, the Chairman has to give reasons is when the other 2 is against him. This is a mockery. All members of the panel shall have one vote and the majority wins. The present operation of the Appeal Board is certainly undemocratic - and it is so feudal. 

Chairman of Appeal Board chooses the other 2 - see Clause 14(6). Should it not be random? We could get a situation where the same 2 members are chosen, and that pro-transparency members of the Board are always side-lined...because the Chairman did not choose them. Is that the idea? I just believe that they did not apply much thought when the drafted this clause.

Appeal Board can't even see the relevant 'document' - see clause 14(10)(d). Person applies for Document A. Information Officer says cannot. Person appeals to Appeal Board - but it looks like the Appeal Board also cannot have sight of the said document, and if so how does it review the decision of the Information Officer. How will it decide whether the rejection was acceptable or not. Even, in Criminal Procedure, when the accused is not provided with statements made by witnesses, they could apply for statement for the purposes of impeaching the witness, and the court will look at the statement (whilst not providing it to the accused) and make a decision. But, here even those 'judges' in the Appeal Board do not have a right to see the most relevant document that is the subject of the appeal.

There are other comments that I would like to make about the said FOI Bill of Selangor, which I shall leave for a later date.

It is disappointing that the Bill was not circulated first for feedback and comments - and was suddenly tabled in the State Legislative Assemble. They could have even asked the Malaysian Bar to help...and I am sure that the Bar would have been ever ready to assist. There are so many human rights activist (and ex-human rights activists), lawyers, etc in the government and the party who should really have been consulted before coming out with this Bill.

As I mentioned earlier, the intent is praiseworthy - but really, there much work to be done on the Bill.. The access to information must be easy, uncomplicated and swift. There also is a need for a list of available documents made available somewhere....and some of these must already be available to the public in the relevant websites...

The Selangor government has tabled the much-touted Freedom of Information Bill. If passed, it would guarantee public access to state government documents.

In tabling the Bill for its first reading today, state exco member Elizabeth Wong (left) said this is a significant step for the state and is part of Pakatan Rakyat's efforts to instill good governance and transparency.

“Through this Bill, the people of Selangor will be restored their rights, which were theirs to begin with,” she said.

“Every citizen has a right to get information from all state government departments. We don't deny that this is a heavy responsibility for the government and its administration, but this is what having 'ketuanan rakyat' and reform means.”

The summary of the Bill describes it as a move to 'enhance disclosure of information for the public interest, to provide every individual an opportunity to access to information made by every department of the state government'.

The Bill seeks to create the post of one information officer for each state department, to assist the public in accessing the requested documents.

The information officer will be required to respond within 30 days or in urgent cases, within seven days.

Public access to state government information will be limited to any relevant written law, such as the Official Secrets Act.

Opposition: FOI 'unconstitutional'

The Bill is expected to go through the first and second readings during the ongoing state assembly sitting, before it is forwarded to a select committee for public consultation, research and study.

The select committee will be chaired by Saari Sungib (PAS-Hulu Kelang) who will be assisted by six committee members.

The committee members are: Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad (PKR-Seri Setia), Dr Ahmad Yunus Hairi (PAS-Sijangkang), Amiruddin Shari (PKR-Batu Caves), Hannah Yeoh (DAP-Subang Jaya), Dr Karim Mansor (BN-Tanjung Sepat) and Abdul Shukur Idrus (BN-Kuang).

The select committee is expected to table its findings, recommendations and any revisions on the Bill to the House for the third reading no later than April next year.

Debating the Bill, Sulaiman Abdul Razak (BN-Permatang) said the proposed law is unconstitutional and violates the government's rights to keep secrets.

Sulaiman (right) said such powers should be vested in the federal government and that the state should have no say. - Malaysiakini, 14/7/2010, S'gor tables ground-breaking FOI Bill

The Freedom of information (FOI) legislation however does not apply to federally-controlled departments in Selangor and documents classified under OSA.

What is freedom of information?

Freedom of information (FOI) legislation sets rules on access to information or records held by government bodies. In general, such laws define a legal process by which government information is required to be available to the public. FOI legislation is supported by many around the world as a means to promote transparency and curb corruption.

Over 70 countries around the world including China, India and Thailand have implemented some form of such legislation, and other countries are working towards introducing such laws. Malaysia remains one of the last that has not implemented a national FOI law.

What does the Freedom of Information (Selangor) Enactment 2010 provide for?

The enactment acts to "enhance disclosure of information for the public interest, to provide to every individual an opportunity to access to information made by every department of the state government." It serves to enhance, enable and facilitate access to information held by the state.

Note, that this enactment only applies to the state government of Selangor and its subsidiary departments. It does not apply to federally-controlled departments in Selangor or bearing the Selangor name. Documents classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) will remain as such.

How are applications for information made?

Every government department is to have an information officer who shall serve as an intermediary between the department and the public in order to assist access to information.

Applications for information are made to the respective information officers, who have to respond within 30 days, or within seven days for urgent cases. Applications have to state a reason and purpose. A reasonable fee may be necessary for duplication of the document.

Is personal information protected under the proposed bill?

Personal information of individual third parties is protected under the Bill. A department can refuse to release information, or refuse to reveal the existence of information, if it is the personal information of a third party.

For example, one's personal address, information involving an actionable breach of confidence and trade secrets cannot be disclosed. This does not apply should the third party consent to the release of said information.

Are there any special provisions for applications by the illiterate or disabled?

Yes. Anyone who is unable to provide a written application because of illiteracy or disability can make an oral application.

Are there any restrictions on the information available?

Yes. If the information sought is subject to any written law, then access to that information shall be subject to such law(s). The Official Secrets Act, for example, still applies. However, it should be noted that the OSA does not cover all government information.

The FOI Bill facilitates public access to other such information provided it does not jeopardise the reasonable and secure operation of the state or its departments. Applications may be refused if the person is not entitled to such information (legally or otherwise), or if the information does not exist or is not under the control of the department.

Vexatious, unreasonable or repetitive applications can also be refused.

Can appeals be made against refusals of applications?

Yes. A Board of Appeal shall be established comprising of ex-judges and/or advocates or solicitors with suitable qualifications and experience. Appeals are to be made within 21 days of decision.

When will the bill come into effect?

The process for the bill is as follows:

1) tabled for first and second readings at the July 2010 State Assembly;

2) public consultation, research and study via a select committee;

3) the select committee will table its findings, recommendations and/or revisions to the House for the third reading. This is expected to be no later than April 2011.

The final bill will therefore be a product of the executive, the legislative, and the people of Selangor.

Source: Selangor government - Malaysiakini, 14/7/2010, Now everyone has the right to know...

I have copied and pasted the Bill below - but you can always go to the Selangor Government's Portal, and download both the English and Bahasa Melayu version of this Bill

A BILL
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (STATE OF SELANGOR) ENACTMENT 2010
______________
ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
______________
PART I - PRELIMINARY

Clause
1. Short title and commencement
2. Interpretation

PART II - INFORMATION OFFICER
3. Appointment of Information Officer
4. Control of information

PART III - ACCESS TO INFORMATION
5. Access to information
6. Application for information
7. Response to application
8. Refusal to application
9. Appeal to Board of Appeal
10. Modes of access to information
11. Information not in possession
12. Vexatious, unreasonable or repetitive application
13. Personal information of an individual third party
 

PART IV - THE APPEAL BOARD
14. The Appeal Board

PART V - GENERAL
15. Offences
16. Prosecution
17. Power of State Authority to make regulations

 A BILL
i n t i t u l e d
 

An Enactment to enhance disclosure of information for the public interest, to provide to every individual an opportunity to access to information made by every department of the State Government.
[ ]
ENACTED by the Legislature of the State of Selangor as follows:
 

PART I
PRELIMINARY
Short title and commencement
1. (1) This Enactment may be cited as the Freedom of Information (State of Selangor) Enactment 2010.
(2) This Enactment shall come into operation on a date to be appointed by His Royal Highness the Sultan by notification in the Gazette. 

Interpretation
2. In this Enactment, unless the context otherwise requires —
.document. has the same meaning as defined under the Evidence Act 1950
[Act 56];
.department. means any department of the State Government;
.information. means any documents made by any department of the State
Government but does not include document –
(a) which has been classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 [Act 88];


(b) which has the information obtained –
(i) from a third party and to communicate it would constitute an
actionable breach of confidence;
(ii) in confidence from a third party and it contains a trade secret or
to communicate it would, or would be likely to, seriously
prejudice the commercial or financial interests of a third party;
or
(iii) in confidence from another state or international organization,
and to communicate it would, or would be likely to, seriously
prejudice relations with that state or international organization;
(c) where if disclosed would, or would be likely to –
(i) cause serious prejudice to the effective formulation or
development of the State Government policy;
(ii) seriously frustrate the success of the State Government policy,
by premature disclosure of that policy;
(iii) cause serious prejudice to the administration of any department
or the State Government;
(iv) cause serious prejudice to economy development or security of
the State Government;
(v) significantly undermine the deliberative process of any
department by inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice
or exchange of views; or
(vi) significantly undermine the effectiveness of a test or audit
procedure used by any department; or
(d) any other documents which may be specified, from time to time, by the
State Authority by notification in the Gazette.
.Information Officer. means any person appointed under section 3 of this
Enactment.



PART II
INFORMATION OFFICER
Appointment of Information Officer
3. (1) The State Authority may by Gazette appoint an Information Officer for
every department.
(2) The Information Officer shall, in addition to any obligation specifically
provided for in other sections of this Enactment, have the following responsibilities:
(a) to enhance within the department the best practices in relation to
maintenance, archiving and disposal of information;
(b) to provide training for the department in relation to maintenance,
archiving and management of applications for information; and
(c) to serve as an intermediary to the department for receiving
applications and assisting individuals seeking information.
Control of information
4. (1) Every department shall have control over all informations made by the
department.
(2) Every Information Officer is under an obligation to maintain information
under his control in accordance with the instruction and guidelines which is in
effect.
PART III
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Access to information
5. (1) Any person may be given access to information made by every
department.
(2) If the information sought to be accessed by any person is contained in a
document disclosure of which is subject to any written law, access to such
information shall be subject to such written law.


Application for information
6. (1) Any person who applies to access information shall make an application
to the department in a form prescribed by the State Authority.
(2) An application under subsection (1) shall —
(a) be addressed to the Information Officer;
(b) state the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence;
(c) describe the information applied; and
(d) state the reason and purpose for application.
(3) Every application shall be submitted together with payment of fee as
prescribed by the State Authority.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions under subsections (1) and (2), any person
who is unable, because of illiteracy or disability, may make an application orally,
and the Information Officer who receives an oral application shall, reduce it into
writing and give a copy of the application form to the applicant.
(5) An Information Officer who receives the application shall acknowledge
the application and provide the applicant with an acknowledgement receipt.
Response to applications
7. (1) Every department shall response to the application made under section 6
within thirty (30) days from the date of acknowledgement of the application.
(2) Notwithstanding provision of subsection (1), any application for
information which relates to the life or liberty of an individual, a response shall be
made within seven (7) days from the date of acknowledgement receipt of such
application.
(3) If there is no response as specified in subsections (1) and (2), such
application shall be deemed to be rejected.
(4) An access to the information shall be given when —
(a) the application to access information has been approved; and
 (b) fee under subsection 6(3) has been paid.

Refusal to application
8. (1) The application to access information may be refused by the department
when —
(a) the applicant is not entitled to access the information; or
(b) information applied does not exist or not under the control of the
department.
(2) When the application to access information is refused under subsection
(1), the Information Officer shall inform the applicant of such refusal and shall –
(a) state the reasons of the refusal to the application; and
(b) state the name of the Information Officer making such decision.

Appeal to Board of Appeal
9. Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Information Officer
shall, within twenty one (21) days after the date of receipt of the notice informing
such decision under subsection 8(2), appeal against such decision to the Board of
Appeal by submitting written representation.

Modes of access to information
10. (1) Access to information may be in the following manner:
(a) in the situation where the information is an article or thing from
which sounds or visual images are capable of being reproduced, an
appointment may be made for the applicant to hear or view those
sounds or visual images; or
(b) in the situation where the information are words in the form of
record which are capable of being reproduced in the form of sound
or words in the form of shorthand writing or in codified form, the
department may reproduce the information in the form of a written
copy.

(2) Access to information may be given in the form or manner that is most
practical to the department, subject to the form of the information itself.


(3) If access to information applied by the applicant –
(a) would interfere unreasonably with the operations of the department;
(b) would be detrimental to the preservation of the information or, after
having regard to the physical nature of such information, would not
be appropriate; or
(c) would involve an infringement of copyright (other than copyright
owned by the State Government) subsisting in the information,
the access may be refused and access may be given in another form subject to
subsection (2).
(4) Any person who is unable, because of illiteracy or disability, to access
information in the form in which it is stored or copied, shall be given an option to
have the information communicated to him in an alternative form in which he can
access to it.

Information not in possession
11. Any Information Officer who receives an application and finds that the
information applied for is not in the possession of the department, shall inform the
applicant of the matter in writing.

Vexatious, unreasonable or repetitive applications
12. Every department is not required to comply with an application for information
which is vexatious, unreasonable or a similar application from the same person
which has been complied with.

Personal information of an individual third party
13. (1) Every department may refuse to indicate whether or not it holds an
information, or refuse to communicate information, where to do so would involve
the disclosure of personal information of an individual third party.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if –
(a) the third party has effectively consented to the disclosure of the
information; or
 (b) the person making the application is the legal guardian of the third
party, the legal next of kin or the legal administrator of a deceased
third party.

PART IV
THE APPEAL BOARD
The Appeal Board
14. (1) For the purposes of this Enactment, there shall be constituted an Appeal
Board.
(2) The State Authority shall, by notification in the State Gazette, appoint -
(a) a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman of the Appeal Board, being ex-
judges or advocates and solicitors of the High Court or former
members of the Judicial and Legal Service of Malaysia or who have
had judicial experience or other suitable qualifications and
experience; and
(b) such number of fit persons, not exceeding six persons, as the State
Authority considers adequate, to be additional members of the
Appeal Board.

(3) A person appointed under subsection (2) shall, unless he sooner resigns
his office or his appointment is sooner revoked, hold office for such period not
exceeding three(3) years as the State Authority shall specify in the notification of
appointment, but shall be eligible for reappointment.
(4) The State Authority may revoke the appointment of a member of the
Appeal Board without assigning any reason therefore.
(5) When the Chairman is unable to exercise his functions owing to illness,
absence from Malaysia, or any other cause, the Deputy Chairman shall exercise the
functions of the Chairman; and in exercising those functions, the Deputy Chairman
shall, for the purposes of this Enactment, be deemed to be the Chairman of the
Appeal Board.
(6) Whenever a need arises for the Appeal Board to be convened, the
Chairman shall call upon any two of the members appointed under subsection 2(b),
to serve with him on the Appeal Board; and it shall be the duty of every members so
called upon, to serve on the Appeal Board, unless he is excused by the Chairman, on
such grounds as the Chairman considers reasonable, from so serving.


(7) A member of the Appeal Board having an interest in any matter before it
shall, as soon as he is aware of his interest, disclose the fact and nature thereof to the
Chairman and shall take no part or further part in the proceedings of the Appeal
Board relating to the matter.
(8) Every disclosure of interest made under subsection (7) shall be recorded.
(9) Every decision of the Appeal Board shall be made by the Chairman after
considering the opinions of the other two members, but in making the decision the
Chairman shall not be bound to conform to the opinions of the other two members or
either of them, but if the Chairman dissents therefrom, he shall inform his reasons for
dissenting.
(10) In respect of an appeal before it, the Appeal Board-
(a) shall hear the appellant and the Information Officer;
(b) may summon and examine witnesses;
(c) may require any person to bind himself by an oath to state the truth;
(d) may compel the production and delivery of any document that it
considers relevant or material to the appeal but not including
document which is rejected by the Information Officer;
(e) may confirm, vary or reverse the order or decision appealed against;
and
(f) may make any order whether or not provided for by, and not
inconsistent with, this Enactment.
(11) Every person summoned by the Appeal Board to attend its proceedings
is legally bound to attend at the place and time specified in the summons, and every
person required by the Appeal Board to produce or deliver any document to the
Appeal Board or to any public servant is legally bound to so produce or deliver the
document.
(12) All summonses, notices and orders issued, made, or given under the
hand of the Chairman shall be deemed to be issued, made, or given by the Appeal
Board.
(13) An order made by the Appeal Board on an appeal before it shall be
final, shall not be called into question in any court, and shall be binding on all parties
to the appeal or involved in the matter.


 (14) For the purposes of the Penal Code [Act 574], the Appeal Board shall be
deemed to be a court and every member thereof shall be deemed to be a public
servant.
(15) The State Authority may make rules to prescribe the procedure of appeals
to the Appeal Board and the fees payable in respect thereof, and to regulate the
proceedings of the Appeal Board.
(16) Members of the Appeal Board shall be paid, from the State Consolidated
Funds, such allowances as the State Authority may determine.
PART V
GENERAL
Offences
15. (1) It is an offence if a person —
(a) uses any information obtained under this Enactment contrary to the
reason and purpose of such application is made; or
(b) gives false information in the form under subsection 6(1).
(2) Any person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable
on conviction, to a fine not exceeding RM50,000.00 or to imprisonment not
exceeding 5 years or both.
Prosecution
16. No prosecution shall be instituted for an offence under subsection 15(1)
without the consent in writing of the Public Prosecutor.
Power of State Authority to make Regulations
17. (1) The State Authority may make such rules as may appear to it to be
necessary or expedient for carrying out the provisions of this Enactment.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations may be
made for all or any of the following purposes:
(a) to prescribe forms and fees for the purpose of this Enactment;


 (b) to prescribe the responsibilities of the Information Officer; and
(c) any other regulations as it deems fit and expedient by the State
Authority.
_______________
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This Bill is intended to enhance disclosure of information for the public interest, to
provide to every individual an opportunity to access to information made by every
department of the State Government.
PART I
2. Part I of this Bill provides for preliminary matters.
3. Clause 1 contains short title and power of His Royal Highness to appoint a
date the proposed Enactment shall come into operation.
4. Clause 2 defines certain words and expressions used in the proposed
Enactment.
PART II
5. Part II of this Bill provides for the appointment and responsibility of the
Information Officer.
6. Clause 3 provides for the appointment of the Information Officer by every
department. This Clause also provides for the additional responsibilities of the
Information Officer.
7. Clause 4 provides for the control of the department over the information and
the obligation of the Information Officer to maintain information under his control.
PART III
8. Part III of this Bill provides for provisions relating to access to information.
9. Clause 5 provides for an access to information under control of the department
and if the disclosure of any documents is subject to any written laws, an opportunity
to get access is also subject to such written laws.
10. Clause 6 provides that an application shall be in the prescribed form and the
informations that need to be filled in such form. Oral application can be made by an
illiterate or disable person and the Information Officer shall reduce it into writing
and make an acknowledgement receipt of such application and give a copy of the
application form to the applicant.
11. Clause 7 provides for response to application that shall be made by the
department within thirty (30) days from the date of acknowledgement receipt of such
application. If it relates the life or liberty of a person, a response shall be provided
within seven (7) days from the date of acknowledgement receipt of such application.
If there is no respond, such application shall be deemed to be rejected. An access to
the information shall be given when the application is approved and fee has been
paid.
12. Clause 8 provides for refusal of an application when the applicant is not
entitled to access the information or when such information does not exist or not
under the control of the department. The refusal shall be informed to the applicant
together with the reasons of the decision and the name of the Information Officer
making such decision.
13. Clause 9 provides for appeal to the Appeal Board that shall be made within
twenty one (21) days after receiving the notice informing the decision. The appeal
shall be made by submitting written representation.
14. Clause 10 provides for modes to access to information.
15. Clause 11 provides for information not in possession of the department and the
Information Officer shall inform of the matter to the applicant.
16. Clause 12 provides for vexatious, unreasonable or repetative applications and
the department is not required to comply with such applications.
17. Clause 13 provides that the department may refuse to unreasonable disclosure
of information including personal information of a third party and its exceptions.
 

PART IV
18. Part IV of this Bill provides for provisions relating to an Appeal Board.
19. Clause 14 provides for the establishment of an Appeal Board together with its
powers to hear an appeal from the applicant. Further, any order made by the Appeal
Board shall be final, shall not be called into question in any court and shall be
binding on all parties to the appeal or involved in the matter. Allowances to the
members of the Appeal Board, as may be determined by the State Authority shall be
paid from the State Consolidated Funds.

 PART V
20. Part V of this Bill provides for general provisions of the proposed Enactment.
21. Clause 15 provides for offences and sentences.
22. Clause 16 provides for prosecution that shall not be instituted without the
consent in writing of the Public Prosecutor.
23. Clause 17 provides for powers of the State Authority to make regulations for
carrying out the provisions of the proposed Enactment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This Bill will involve the State Government in additional monetary expenditures
which the amount cannot be determined at this present time.
SHAH ALAM
Dated 30 June 2010

[PU.SEL.AM0063/10/AA]
DATIN PADUKA ZAUYAH BE BT. T. LOTH KHAN
State Legal Adviser
Selangor