theborneopost.com

Soo suggests Sarawak government increase sales tax on petroleum products to 20 per cent

Lina Soo

KUCHING: The Sarawak government should consider increasing the sales tax on all petroleum products to 20 per cent to finance its development programmes.
State Reform Party Sarawak (STAR) president Lina Soo said this in response to the statement by the Sarawak Consultative Committee on MA63.
She, however, supported the Sarawak government’s resolve to carry through with the five per cent Sarawak sales tax on petroleum products and the proposal to the federal government to lower the 38 per cent Petroleum Income Tax.
     “In view of the federal government now attempting to cut off its allocations with inadequate funding for our schools, federal roads and bridges, the answer lies in increasing the Sarawak petroleum sales tax to 20 per cent,” she suggested.
“There is no reason why Sarawak as landowner is getting much less revenue from its oil and gas compared to the federal government.”
STAR also supports the four non-negotiable rights – immigration, state legislation vis-à-vis federal laws, Sarawak’s territorial sovereignty (border and sea), and resources.
        As landowner, Soo maintains that Sarawak is entitled to all property rights and economic rights of its resources, including oil and gas, over its land and territory.
However, Soo regretted that the declaration of the Sarawak Consultative Committee on MA63, though excellent in principle, fell short on specifics.
      “The committee has failed to convince, on how the Sarawak government will take the necessary constitutional steps to safeguard Sarawak’s territorial integrity and claim ownership of its oil and gas for future generations,” she stressed.
Since the discord with Petronas over the state’s oil and gas rights emerged, STAR has consistently urged that the Sarawak government pass a law in the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) to repudiate the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) and Territorial Sea Act (TSA).
     “This constitutional provision must be formalised and gazetted by DUN to lock in our sovereignty over our natural resources for our future generations. If as what CM (Chief Minister of) Sarawak has said that he believes silence means consent, our silence on both Acts may be construed as consent and acquiescence. This would be fatal to our future generations,” she warned.
On Petronas’ position in Sarawak, Soo says that the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) is very clear and that all oil mining companies exploring, prospecting and mining oil and gas in Sarawak must apply for the necessary permits and pay all dues.
      “It is as clear as daylight that no oil mining company can operate without observing our Sarawak laws, as no oil mining company can be bigger than the State of Sarawak,” she stressed.
Soo reiterated her call to enforce the regulation that non-Sarawakians must produce their passports upon entry in the state and departure.
    “This is the clearest signal of our immigration autonomy,” she said.
On the issue that Sarawak land placed under the Federal Land Commission be returned to Sarawak, Soo fully supports and looks forward to the return of the huge parcel of land at Matang allocated to the federal government which is now a grass-growing eyesore.
      Also on the return of assets under federal control back to Sarawak, Soo proposed that the Sarawak government take over the federal-owned Bintulu Port as it had done for Bakun Dam.
   “After all, Bintulu Port is used to ship out Sarawak’s oil and gas, which is a Sarawak resource.”
     Soo urged Sarawakians to support the government’s stand as laid out by Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg, a wish coming true if indeed the federal government accepts and respects Sarawak’s rights.
  “In fact, Sarawak rights rest with the Sarawak government and no one else, as it is the duty of the Sarawak government to formulate, legislate and enforce the law on Sarawak rights in the interests of the people and for future generations, which has been blatantly ignored for all of 56 years.”
    Doubts and concerns may be cast upon the effectiveness of such proposal taken so far as to warrant its legitimacy as it has taken both federal and state governments 56 years to acknowledge the failure to comply with MA63; and as without the participation of the principal signatory, the British Government, this may mean the MA63 has fallen into disuse and is no longer binding. After all, MA63 is an international treaty and bound by the International Law on Treaties, concludes Soo.

What do you think of this story?

• Great (70%)

malaysiakini.com

Don't you owe us RM2.5b? - Lim fires back at S'wak minister

Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng has taken aim at a Sarawak minister for claiming the federal government neglected to pay the state its share of 2018 tourism tax revenue, despite purportedly owing the former over RM2.5 billion.
        "It would be wise for the Sarawak government to not make slanderous statements concerning the RM2.7 million in tourism tax disbursement considering, as at Nov 30, 2018, the state government still owes the federal government over RM2.5 billion, with arrears close to RM50 million.
         "Considering Sarawak has such huge reserves, why can't it settle its debt with the federal government?" he said in a statement today.
         Lim was responding to Sarawak tourism, arts, culture, youth and sports minister Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, who claimed that Putrajaya owed the state RM2.32 million for its share of taxes collected from January until September last year.
        Karim (photo) also said that Sarawak is owed a further RM439,731 for collection between September and December 2017.

          He also alleged that Sabah had received its share of the tourism tax revenue, which he said he was informed of after meeting with Sabah tourism, culture and environment minister Christina Liew.

'Inciting anger'

       Lim denied that the Pakatan Harapan government was prioritising any particular state at the expense of Sarawak, and clarified that payments have not been made to any state.
       The finance minister further accused Karim of making the allegation to incite the anger of Sarawakians.
      "The accusations by Karim are untrue.  A Sarawak minister should not have to rely on such slander just to find the space to criticise the federal government.
      "The Finance Ministry would like to stress that no other state, including Sabah, has received the tourism (tax) distribution, as claimed by Karim."

        Lim stated that his ministry is still in the midst of finalising the accounts for the 2018 tourism tax revenue, and that 50 percent of this will be distributed back to the states as promised in the Budget 2019 speech.

        He also took Karim to task for allegedly saying that tax distribution amount was the "right" of the state government, and must therefore be paid by Putrajaya.
        "Tourism tax, by law, is federal government revenue and (the issue of) the rights of any state government to receive it does not arise.
        "Even so, the Harapan government announced in the Budget 2019 speech to share 50 percent of tourism tax revenue collection received from the state beginning in 2019.
        "The accounting of the tourism tax revenue for 2018 will be finalised soon and, courtesy of the federal government, 50 percent of the tourism tax revenue will be distributed to each state government by the first quarter of 2019."

My comments: 

        It is really true that Sarawak is just a colony of Malaya.  Annually, Malaya has plundered, exploited and robbed Sarawak of billions of dollars on gas and oil revenue.  In the pretext that the manifesto is not a bible to deny the payment of oil and gas revenue to Sarawak.  Now he has another excuse to deny the sales tax of petroleum product.  Sarawakians are ready to stand up to kick out the Malaya colonial masters for good. I think that FM Ling Guan Eng is so mean and disgusting.

freemalaysiatoday.com

Why TAR UC should still receive government funding

Tajuddin Rasdi

I read with sadness that this year, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College (TAR UC) will not be getting some of the financial assistance it received over the past 50 years.
The Pakatan Harapan government, on Dec 6, said in Parliament that the government would only provide TAR UC with a development fund of RM5.5 million, not the RM30 million matching grant it had been getting under the previous Barisan Nasional government.
        The reason for this retraction of funding was that TAR UC has political ties with MCA. My utmost respect to the principle behind the reason given, as well as to Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng who has foiled critics who would like us to think that he favours one race.
        But I would like to go on record to say I believe the funding for TAR UC should be continued. My reasons are as follows.
        Firstly, TAR UC has never indulged in any extremist activities that would destroy our nation-building efforts to create a harmonious society.
I have read that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia once held a seminar attacking the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, while Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) held a conference attacking our fellow Christian citizens. Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia also held a forum on the conditions to kill Malaysian citizens who are considered, under Pahang mufti Abdul Rahman Osman’s classification, “kafir harbi”.
        These three shameful acts of bigotry and extremism have no place in a Malaysia where tolerance and respect for diversity form its two main anchors of co-existence. I do not remember TAR UC acting in this shameful manner, which is a testament to its commitment to producing level-headed Malaysians devoid of a sense of bigotry or racial and religious extremism.
        Secondly, TAR UC has been providing high quality education at a most affordable fee that has put hundreds of thousands of young Malaysians into the job market and created a good and tolerant society.
        Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Minister Salahuddin Ayub is one such character.  A man of strong Islamic faith and commitment, he follows the true path of Islam, not the brand touted by his former party, PAS, which supports leaders who have been tainted with massive corruption and hurtful messages of extremism.
I, too, sent my niece and daughter to TAR at one time. My niece was studying for a certificate in fashion design and my daughter took a diploma in Mass Communications.  Both have turned out to be well-rounded citizens.  My niece once worked in the office of former Skudai assemblyman Dr Boo Cheng Hau while my daughter became a journalist with BFM and is now a full-time lecturer at First City University College, having obtained a masters degree from Monash University.
Neither of them ever said a word to me about being discriminated against while they were there.  Both enjoyed studying there and have no qualms about recommending TAR to other Malay families.
        For that, I wish to credit MCA for being a party that has put the interest of the country above any racial ideology, although the party is one which supports a race-based philosophy.
        I would like to go on record again to say that I am against any race-based or religious party and would not hesitate to support a law that disallows any political party to be based on religious or ethnic grounds. I would not hesitate to sign a memorandum outlawing the existence of parties like Umno, MCA, MIC, PPBM and PAS.
        Although each of these political parties, except for the new PPBM, has made great contributions to its members and the country, we must move on and disregard these entities as we enter a new future.  Having said that clearly and in no uncertain terms,  I praise MCA for being a moderate party which contributed greatly to nation-building during Malaya’s formative years, and for its sacrifice in setting up and sustaining TAR UC until now.
        With respect to Lim’s principle that TAR UC can be given funding if it severs ties with MCA, I would say that while the minister’s principle is most admirable and idealistic, non-political interference in some universities in Malaysia is impractical.
As long as UiTM exists, there will always be political interference.  As long as public universities have 80% funding and not 50%, there will be interference simply because these entities belong to the people of Malaysia.
        Private universities have no political interference because their owners are private citizens.  TAR UC is an entity created by a political party and in that sense, I see no difference between it and UiTM.  The huge elephant in the room is that TAR UC was gracious enough to allow my niece, daughter and my friend Salahuddin to study at an affordable price while the other allows in only one race.
        I therefore have no problem with TAR UC being “politically connected” to MCA.  Has MCA ever raised a sword in the halls of TAR UC, shouting slogans of abuse against Malays and Islam?  Have its vice-chancellors spoken to derail our nation-building efforts by uttering statements that would jeopardise national harmony?  I seem to recall one vice-chancellor of UiTM indulging in racial statements that, to me, were totally unbecoming of a civil servant of the nation.
        Finally, if for nothing else, I wholeheartedly believe that TAR UC’s funding should be continued in memory of the father of our nation, the humble and easy-going but hardworking Tunku Abdul Rahman.  The Tunku was a unique individual who did not indulge in building mega projects such as the Petronas Twin Towers, the Penang Bridge or a whole city called Putrajaya.  His simple sense of tolerance, compassion and balanced political experience brought him the trust of all communities. There were other leaders during his time but they were too “ultra-Malay” to gain the trust of the whole nation of diverse faiths, cultures, languages and expectations.
        The simple concrete building of TAR UC boasts no special architectural characteristics.  The landscaping of the campus boasts no requirement of maintenance like Putrajaya. The students drive Kancils and Myvis as opposed to the Vios and Civics seen at other private universities. The whole atmosphere of the campus is compact, full of simple life and gurgling with enthusiasm for study towards an assured future.
        The Tunku promised that we would live a life of calmness, dignity and happiness in a moderate existence of financial stability, social respectability and political honesty.  TAR UC, in my opinion, speaks volumes of the legacy of the Tunku.
       Let us all continue to support TAR UC as a manifestation of the true spirit of Malaysia.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

My Comments:
Professor Tajudding Rasdi has shown to us the situation fairly Of TAR UC that new Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng tries to focus to correct unfairly.  Truth is truth which can always stand straight and tall to the test from all sides.  FM Ling Guan Eng made a scene of TAR UC which he harped for so long and only he himself thinks to be loftily correct.  He self-righteousness crushes and collapses when the funding to TAR UC and University Technology Mara being so lopsided for the same reason of having political interference but they are treated so differently.  It is hard not to feel the chill of FM Ling's behaviour which has shocked the whole Chinese community in Malaysia federation.

Analysts: Bersatu needs to break ‘old patronage’ culture

thestar.com.my

Analysts: Bersatu needs to break ‘old patronage’ culture - Nation |

The Star Online    by clarissa chung

PETALING JAYA: The clash over the “old patronage” of giving government contracts reflects a deep division within Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, say political analysts.

        “Bersatu is seeing a divide between the old politicians and young activists in the party,” said Universiti Sains Malaysia political science lecturer Dr Azmil Tayeb.

        “They are from two completely different political backgrounds and culture.

        “The young people are more cosmopolitan, while the old guards may be stuck in the nationalist mindset, so there is the conflict.”

He said it was difficult to say what the division might mean for the party in the long run.

                “For now, the main motivation for the party seems to be to shore up Malay support for the next general election, so it may be that the contracts are one way to do it,” he said.

        He, however, said Bersatu needed to address the issue on the “old patronage” culture as there had been fears that Bersatu would turn into Umno.

        “Pakatan Harapan supporters are afraid that Bersatu will be a reincarnation of Umno.

        “The Umno culture persists and old habits die hard.   If it’s business as usual, it will be a disappointment,” he said.

        Dr Azmil said the contracts should be made accessible to everyone, instead of being awarded to party members or close associates.

        “They have access to government resources and this should be made available to everyone.

        “This is the people’s resources, taxpayers’ money, not for a particular party to tap into.

        “You could still do good development work, but the issue shouldn’t be politicised,” he said.

        Universiti Teknologi Mara Sabah political science lecturer Mohd Rahezzal Shah said the patronage culture must also be addressed at the grassroots level.

        “There is the assumption that for you to be a politician, you must have a lot of money to service your constituents, which is wrong,” said Dr Azmil.

“There are high expectations of certain constituents for monetary assistance from their division chiefs, who also ask for contracts and money from top leadership.

        “It is a vicious cycle which must be broken.”

        He said division chiefs should instead help constituents apply for help via government institutions and proper systems.

        “Party members who are granted contracts must be qualified and capable,” he said.

        “It’s all right if party members who compete for projects are businessmen, so long as the process is transparent and done via open tender.”

My comments:

        Mahathir, this devil, is so evil-minded.  He created the culture of corruption and collusion during his 22+years as Prime Minister in the federation of Malaysia.  Now, he wants to revitalise it again but the time is up for him to do freely and autocratically because the people from every walk of life are watching him.  The local or foreign mass media are focusing him and exposing him. 

Sunshine laws in Finland[edit]

       In Finland, the Laki yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta 9.2.1951/83 (Act on the Openness of Public Documents of 1951) established the openness of all records and documents in the possession of officials of the state, municipalities, and registered religious communities.  Exceptions to the basic principle could only be made by law, or by an executive order for specific enumerated reasons such as national security. The openness of unsigned draft documents was not mandated, but up to the consideration of the public official.  This weakness of the law was removed when the law was revised in the 1990s. 
        The revised law, the Laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta 21.5.1999/621 (Act on the Openness of Government Activities of 1999), called in short "Publicity Act" (Finnish: Julkisuuslaki) also extended the principle of openness to corporations that perform legally mandated public duties, such as pension funds and public utilities, and to computer documents.^[62]
        The Publicity Act establishes a process by which any person may access any record in possession of an authority.  The person may ask the authority for the document in person or in writing.  When making the request, the requester needs to specify the document so that it can be identified.  However, the authority is liable to assist the person with its document registers and indices in this task.  After receiving the request, the authority has two weeks to give the document.  If the decision is negative, and document is withheld, the requester may appeal to the administrative court.  The document may be given orally, for reading and copying in the authority's premises or as an electronic or paper copy, as requested by the person. However, the copying may be declined if it would be unfeasible because of the large number of documents or otherwise technically difficult.  There are also a number of limitations on the release of electronic documents designed for the protection of the individual privacy.^{[63]:§§13, 14, 15}
        The reasons for withholding a document are listed in the article 24 of the Act. They may be grouped to three categories: automatic non-openness, conditional non openness or conditional openness.  The documents where automatic non-openness is prescribed remain withheld in all cases.  In the case of conditional non-openness, the reasonability of the non-openness is reviewed case-by-case by the authority and, if appeals are made, by the court.  In the third category, openness is a rule, and the reason for non-openness needs to be established by the authority.^[63]:§24
        The absolute reasons for non-openness are (subpoint of Article 24 in captions)^[63]:§24

• Documents of the foreign policy committee of the Council of State, foreign policy memos of the foreign ministry on political status, negotiations with foreign governments or organisations and diplomatic cryptograms, unless released by the ministry (1)
• registers held by law enforcement for investigation and prevention of crimes, as well as passport or ID card photos and biometric information on them (4)
• statistics and other documents on economic policy that might affect financial markets, until they are released to public (13)
• documents handed over to a statistical authority for the compilation of statistics and documents handed over voluntarily to an authority for purposes of research and statistics (16)
• documents containing medical information, information on sexual orientation or information pertaining to a customer of labour administration or of social services (25)
• documents containing information on a judicial psychiatric examination or on certain personal investigations relating to execution of prison sentences and similar custodial sentences (26)
• documents containing results or information from individual psychological testing (29)
• documents relating to the care of students, as well as any student evaluations containing verbal information on the personal qualities of the student (30)
• documents containing a secret phone number, or the location of a mobile communications device (31)
• documents identifying an anonymous witness (31a)
• documents containing information on individual's political opinions, hobbies, personal habits, membership and activities in associations, family life or opinions uttered within private life. However, information on having held positions of responsibility held or having been a candidate for them is public, as well as being aa founding member of a political party or electoral association. (32)

Conditional non-openness is mandated for the following categories of documents, unless it is "obviously clear" that the protected interest is not endangered^[63]:§24.1

• documents concerning international relations of Finland, Finnish institutions or Finnish persons, unless it is obviously clear that no harm will befall on Finnish foreign relations now or in the future (2)
• documents concerning criminal investigations or pending prosecutions until the investigation is over or the prosecution has pleaded, unless it is obviously clear that the investigation or the prosecution is not harmed and no private person will suffer material harm nor suffering (3)
• documents on security of buildings, facilities, communications or information systems, unless it is obviously clear that the security is not endangered (7)
• all documents of Finnish Security Intelligence Service and other documents concerning state security, unless it is obviously clear that state security is not endangered (9)
• documents concerning national defence or military intelligence, unless it is obviously clear that national defence is in no way harmed or endangered (10)
• documents, records and data used as a basis for or concerning an academic thesis, scientific or scholarly research or product development, unless it is obviously clear that the research, development or study, their proper evaluation, the student or the researcher or the funder of the work are not harmed (21)
• documents concerning a refugee or an applicant for a visa, residence permit or an asylum, unless it is obviously clear that the person or his loved ones are not harmed (24)
• information contained in the criminal register and in other registers held by authorities overseeing the execution of punishments, as well as documents of authorities if they contain personal information on persons who have lost their personal freedom or who participate in witness protection programme, unless it is obviously clear that the security, future employment and social reintegration of the person will not be endangered and there is a valid reason for releasing the specific information in question (28)

Conditional openness is prescribed for the following categories of information:^[63]:§24.1

• technical and tactical methods of police, Finnish Border Guard and prison authorities, if their release would make the work of such authorities more difficult (5)
• administrative complaints during their handling, if their release would harm investigation or be likely to cause suffering or harm to a party in the matter, unless grave reasons exist for release of information (6)
• information on civil defence or rescue preparations and on safety investigations, if the release would endanger rescue work, civil defence preparations, safety or security or their continued development, or would endanger getting information in future safety investigations, or would hurt the victims of an accident, their memory or their loved ones (8)
• information on financial, monetary, labour or fiscal policy measures or their preparations or pre-studies if the release would defeat the purpose of such measures, endanger the negotiation position of the state or otherwise cause great harm to the management of such policies (11)
• studies conducted by regulatory authorities of financial and pension institutions, if the studies include information on the regulated bodies and the release would endanger the proper functioning of financial markets (12)
• documents containing information on endangered species or valuable natural areas, if the release would endanger their preservation (14)
• documents pertaining to an investigation or other control measure by an authority if the release would endanger the regulatory control measure or its purpose (15)
• detailed returns of political candidates on their campaign funding (15)
• business and professional secrets of public bodies, if a competing the body would suffer economic harm, or a public or private body pursuing competing or similar activities would gain a competitive advantage by the release or if the possibilities of a body bound by the Publicity Act to make advantageous purchases or other financial arrangements would be harmed (17)
• documents used by a public body in a collective bargaining or labour action if the release would harm the public body as the employer (18)
• documents used for preparation of a legal action, if the release would harm a public body as a party to a suit (19)
• documents containing information on entrance examination or other examination or test, if the release would defeat the purpose of the test or exam or prevent its future use (22)
• documents containing sensitive information on the private life of a suspect, plaintiff, witness or other party to a criminal investigation, or information on the victim that would hurt the victim's memory or her loved ones, unless the release is necessary to conduct the work of an authority (26)

        Non-open information remains non-open for 25 years after it was created or obtained by an authority.  Documents that are non-open to protect the privacy of an individual remain non-open for 50 years after the protected individual has died.^{[63]:§31.2,31,5}
        If information is still, after 25 years, valid and describes a security measure of a building, facility, system or method or it is still part of a plan used for national defence or civil defence, it remains non-open as long as the information is pertinent for the purpose. The same indefinite non-openness applies to all documents under international security obligations, if the release might still affect Finnish foreign relations negatively. The non-openness of other documents may be prolonged up to 55 years by the Council of State, if necessary to safeguard a protected interest.^[63]:§31.3–

The practice of Sunshine laws in Denmark

Denmark[edit]

Access to Public Administration Files Act of 1985 is a Danish act passed by the Folketing concerning public access to governmental records. The Act came into force in 1987 and repealed the Public Records Act of 1970.^[31] New version of the Act came into force on 1 January 2014.^[32] Denmark is considered to be a historic pioneer in the field of FOI along with Sweden, Finland and Norway.^[33] There is no constitutional basis in the Constitution of Denmark for the right of the public to information.^[34] Denmark scores 64 points in Global Right to Information Rating.^[35]

Scope[edit]

According to the Act of 1985, Section 4 Part 1 “any person may ask to see documents received or issued by an administrative authority.”^[36] Information concerning administrative matters of the public administration; electricity and heating utilities as well as private bodies receiving public funding or performing public function can be acquired. Yet, the information concerning activities of judicial branch and legislators is not accessible.^[37][38]

Procedure[edit]

Reasons do not have to be given while making a request; however, the authorities can ask for additional information regarding document.^[38] The requests are supposed to be handled as soon as possible; if within period of 10 days response to an application was not provided, the authority has to inform on reasons for the delay as well as expected date for a decision.^[39] More detailed procedures are not laid down in the Act.^[38]

Exceptions[edit]

Access to information is limited by “the obligation to maintain secrecy.”^{[40]:Ch.4, S.14} Considerations of State security, defence, foreign policy, external economic interests as well as public financial interests can limit the granting of access to the information.^{[40]:Ch.3, S.13} Registers and records processed electronically are excluded from the administrative documents that can be given access to.^{[40]:Ch.2, S.5.2} Section 10 outlines other areas excluded from access, such as records of meetings of the Council of State, minutes, as well as documents prepared for such meetings; correspondence between ministries concerning legislation and material used for scientific research or public statistics.^{[40]:Ch.3, S.10}

Appeals[edit]

Decision to grant or not to grant access can be appealed.^{[41][40]:Ch.4, S.15.2} Decisions can also be appealed externally to Folketingets Ombudsman.^[41][42] Ombudsman can also deliver opinions and review decisions; however, these are not binding even though generally followed.^[42] Ombudsman receives 200-300 complaints annually; approximately 15 percent of complaints are ruled in favour of appellants.^[42]

Revisions[edit]

The exemption regarding EU documents was taken out of the Act in 1991.^[43] Amendments were also made in 2000; they concerned data on the employees of the Government.^[43] In January 2014 new Public Records Act was enforced.^[44] The new act was highly debated since it was considered to limit transparency in the Government and legislative proceedings; Denmark received one point less in the category of Political Environment when compared with the Freedom of the Press report of 2015.^[45] The new legislation caused demonstrations and protests.^[45] It can be regarded as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.^[45] After the Public Records Act of 2013 came into effect, public access to information regarding the Intelligence Services instead of falling under the Public Records Act is now managed by the Act on the Security and Intelligence Service as well as the Act on the Defense Intelligence Service.^[45] In addition, the access to legislative process was further restricted.  According to the new Act documents in the drafting stage are not to be accessed as well as “other corresponding political activities,” so restriction is not concerning only Bills.^[45] In the future, it will not be possible to find the calendars of ministers being published.^[45] Nevertheless, the Act was created while keeping in mind the strengthening the project of the Open Government; the list of institutions covered by the Act was extended as well as list of public-private institutions and companies.^[45]
 

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of information laws by country

Freedom of Information laws (FOI laws) allow access by the general public to data held by national governments. The emergence of freedom of information legislation was a response to increasing dissatisfaction with the secrecy surrounding government policy development and decision making.^[1] They establish a "right-to-know" legal process by which requests may be made for government-held information, to be received freely or at minimal cost, barring standard exceptions. Also variously referred to as open records, or sunshine laws (in the United States), governments are typically bound by a duty to publish and promote openness. In many countries there are constitutional guarantees for the right of access to information, but these are usually unused if specific support legislation does not exist.

Introduction[edit]

        Over 100 countries around the world have implemented some form of freedom of information legislation.^[2][3] Sweden's Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 is the oldest in the world.^[4][5]
        Most freedom of information laws exclude the private sector from their jurisdiction thus information held by the private sector cannot be accessed as a legal right.  This limitation has serious implications because the private sector performs many functions which were previously the domain of the public sector.  As a result, information that was previously public is now within the private sector, and the private contractors cannot be forced to disclose information.^[6]
        Other countries are working towards introducing such laws, and many regions of countries with national legislation have local laws. For example, all U.S. states have laws governing access to public documents belonging to the state and local taxing entities.   Additionally, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act governs record management of documents in the possession of the federal government.
        A related concept is open meetings legislation, which allows access to government meetings, not just to the records of them.   In many countries, privacy or data protection laws may be part of the freedom of information legislation; the concepts are often closely tied together in political discourse.
        A basic principle behind most freedom of information legislation is that the burden of proof falls on the body asked for information, not the person asking for it. The person making the request does not usually have to give an explanation for their actions, but if the information is not disclosed a valid reason has to be given.
        In 2015 The UNESCO General Conference voted to designate Sept. 28 as “International Day for the Universal Access to Information” or, as it is more commonly known, Access to Information Day.  The date had previously been celebrated as “Right to Know Day” since 2002.   The UNESCO resolution recommends approval by the UN General Assembly.^[7]

Legislation by country[edit]

For countries by example in details, you may read them on your own.