To fight graft, Freedom of Information Act must be overhauled

The 1997 Freedom of Information Act should cover this, but its implementation has been seriously flawed. Officials remain reluctant to make full disclosure of details of purchases, acquisitions and bidding processes that have been the largest sources of bribery and conflicts of interests.
Whatever the purpose of the law, government officials have been able to keep vital information confidential. The press has largely failed to make use of the law to pursue stories that may reveal illegal practices and shady deals among politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen.
Past governments have paid lip service to providing transparency. They have yet to be strict about offering the public full access to information on transactions that have come under suspicion. Neither have successive governments provided adequate budget for the Office of the Official Information Commission (OIC) to carry out its mission of keeping the people informed of exactly how their tax money is spent and how the public can monitor the spending patterns to catch thieves.
The major flaw in the law is the provision that allows officials to define “information that doesn’t have to be disclosed”. The wording is ambiguous and there are no clear criteria to define what can and what can’t be made public. 
In fact, once any part of an official document is stamped “confidential” or “can’t be disclosed”, that particular set of details should come under scrutiny, because a veil placed over any official information should suggest suspicious circumstances.
Punitive measures are stipulated in the law for officials making public any information considered “confidential” while no such clause exists to punish civil servants who refuse to divulge information vital to the public interest. There lies the lack of incentive for officials concerned to make all-out effort to make sure that the public is kept abreast of what really happens to their tax money.
In the end, even if officials fail to provide the necessary public information and thereby subject themselves to legal action under the criminal or civil law, the extent of the punishment for “failure to perform duties” is still much lighter than that imposed upon officials who disclose what is considered confidential.
Besides, the process is long and complicated for any effort to press government agencies to make public any information they try to keep secret. A subcommittee for this purpose usually takes months if not years to hand down a ruling, and even when a decision is made, it’s not final. The ministry or agency concerned still has the last word on whether it will offer access to the information requested by the public.
The law, therefore, needs to be rewritten if the government’s pledge to fight corruption is to be taken seriously.
A research team at the Thailand Development Research Institute led by Dr Duenden Nikhomborirak has proposed several major changes to the law.
The most important proposal is to make disclosure of public information a “duty” of the government rather than a “burden” or an “optional decision”.
Officials should get a higher degree of legal protection for improving access to information for the public, while those trying to block the flow of public information should face more severe punishment.
It is also crucial to increase the categories of information that must be made public automatically, while the principles and process of seeking public information must be improved to make them simpler and more easily understood.
Most important is to “depoliticise” the Official Information Commission to ensure independence and professionalism and to ensure it has enough budget and staff to be able to genuinely represent public interest, rather than protecting political and bureaucratic shenanigans.