Editorial | Public’s right to information must be protected by law

Transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of good governance. Regrettably, they are not consistently applied across the Hong Kong government, as shown in the Security Bureau’s denial of a request by this newspaper to access the public’s responses to its controversial proposal of allowing the extradition of fugitives to other parts of the country including the mainland. Not only does it fuel further suspicion and distrust over the move, it also goes against the government’s commitment to public access to information.

Officials initially dismissed the need for a formal consultation on the extradition law, but made a U-turn in February to allow public submissions within 20 days. It was said that two-thirds of the 4,500 submissions were in support of the proposals. However, without further details, it is difficult to tell whether the views are representative of public opinion. In any case, the sentiments have changed considerably as public debate has intensified. The high turnout for the protest against the proposals in late April underlines the growing fears that the bill would undermine the city’s safeguards under the “one country, two systems” principle.

The bureau’s refusal to disclose the views on the ground that it had not sought consent from third parties – one of the many reasons by which a request for access can be rejected under an administrative code – is hardly convincing. It is also different from the consultations conducted by other government agencies. As a standing practice, the relevant policy bureau will make clear in the document that all views will be made public unless the respondents object. The submissions on the monitoring of private columbariums and an anti-stalking law were made public following the consultations by the Food and Health Bureau and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau respectively in 2011. The submissions on a national security law were also published in full by the Security Bureau in 2003.

The “opt-out” for disclosure was not provided by the Security Bureau this time. Whether it was a proper public consultation is beside the point. Given the proposed changes to the extradition law are so important and controversial, the bureau should have taken the initiative to disclose the views. It is regrettable that the media have to resort to the code to access what should have been disclosed for public interest, even more so when it was denied without valid reasons. A recent consultation by the Law Reform Commission to enact a proper law on public access to information is a step in the right direction. The non-disclosure by the Security Bureau is a reminder of how citizens’ right to information can be arbitrarily curbed when it is not protected by law.