Whether a government document is a work report or a landscape
blueprint, as long as its release would not infringe an
individual's right to privacy, breach commercial confidentiality or
reveal state secrets, it will soon be open to the public.
A newly passed regulation which will come into force in Shanghai
in May has, for the first time, given local residents the right to
ask the government for any public information they wish to know,
even if it is only to satisfy their own curiosity.
The new regulation also requires local government bodies to
release their so-called "red-titled documents" on official websites
and bulletin boards to ensure easy access and transparency. Hard
copies of these files should be available in the local
archives.
Such wide publicity of government information is unprecedented
in the city, although many local Westerners would consider it
natural.
"Of course they should do that. This is one basic responsibility
of governments," responded Florian Luthi, a newly arrived Swiss
businessman in Shanghai.
Yet many locals still cannot believe the long delayed thaw is
really coming, as from ancient times, officials in China have been
taught that it is better for the government to issue orders instead
of letting people make their own decisions by making information
available.
This was based on the worry that too much information --
especially bad news -- might cause chaos.
Until recently, the common practice of governments was still to
keep all information to themselves. Publicity was considered to be
the exception, but that also needed the approval of many higher
ranking officials.
Info revolution
Due to the lack of information, even the most trivial thing,
such as getting a license plate for a bicycle, may involve
residents in a round of trips to get all the necessary documents
together. This could be avoided if there was a paper setting out
clearly what documents were needed.
Many Chinese have also had the experience of suddenly being
asked to do something or to pay a certain fee because a new
"red-titled document" had been issued which they knew nothing
about.
"The situation has seen much improvement in the past few years
with the government paying more attention to their service
function," said Zhu Mang, a professor with East China University of
Law and Politics. "Yet unfairness caused by the lack of
transparency still exists."
He cited as an example the practice of keeping secret from
ordinary citizens the existence of some "red-titled documents".
However, the heads of state-owned enterprises were allowed to read
the documents because they had official status with the
government.
"This is unfair to the many private companies and foreign
invested ones," Zhu said.
In the new policy, anyone may ask the governments for
information which relates to economy, social management and public
services. At the same time the governments will actively publicize
their policies during the policy-making period and invite the
public to voice their opinions to ensure the policies are soundly
based.
"It is a revolution," said Ma Ling, a local Congress deputy. At
the last Congress meeting in January, she proposed a bill designed
to improve the transparency of government work.
"The government acquires some 80 percent of all the information
in society. Yet the old system, designed to keep a tight lid on
secrets, has put most of this information in a rigid and separated
situation, ignoring the fact that a lot was simply public
information which contained no real secrets as set out in the
country's Secrecy Law."
Yet mingled with the excitement are also worries and doubts.
As fast as Shanghai is in putting forward the new regulation, it
is still lagging behind Guangzhou. At the end of 2002, the capital
of south China's Guangdong
Province took the lead in the country by legislating on the
right of the public to have access to government information. The
openness of the Guangzhou government was widely praised in the
media nationwide.
However, when the SARS outbreak occurred shortly afterwards, the
government did not live up to what was promised under the new
regulation.
This time, the attention has shifted to Shanghai.
Openness in practice
"Most of the transparency work the city did before was more like
an 'image' project, intended merely to put the government in a good
light with little practical meaning," Zhu said.
The new regulation is different. It has for the first time made
the publicizing of information a binding responsibility of
government, giving locals the right to sue the government if it
does not make a written response to a request for information
within 10 days of receiving the application.
However, if officials sometimes don't want to release certain
information, they can still find loopholes in the new rules.
The new regulation asks the government departments to make a
list of all information they hold so as to make it easier for
people to search. Yet what happens if some officials deliberately
keep information off the list?
"We don't lack examples in which officials treat the information
they have acquired as their individual possession, or rather a
commodity which makes money for them," Zhu said.
Yet something worrying him even more is the insufficient
attention in the regulation as how citizens can seek help if their
requests are rejected for no proper reason.
The right of citizens to litigate if they fail to get any
response from government makes up only three of the total 38 lines
in the regulation.
"Without sufficient protection, people's interest may soon die
away, if they experience several instances of being denied
information," he said.
The legislators have also noticed the problem. To ensure the law
is well enforced, the regulation refers to the reporting system in
the US.
The city's Information Commission has to make a public report
before March 31 every year about the previous year's information
release work, including statistics of applications made by the
people, results of litigation and ways to further improve the
system.
"Anyway, as the legislation is still new to China, whether it
merely withers away in the existing system or becomes a real source
of momentum for the country's democracy is still too early to say,"
Zhu said.
(China Daily February 14, 2004)