Legal And Policy Frameworks To Overcome Public Information Lock Up In Malaysia

Research Design

This study is classified as fundamental research since its aim is to develop a legal and policy frameworks to overcome public information lock up in Malaysia. This study is further classified as legal research as its research problem stems from the absence of constitutional protection and sui generis law for citizens’ right to information, apart from the presence of conflicting laws which impede citizens’ right to information in Malaysia. This study employs a mixed modes approach involving field work and library based research. A primary data was collected using survey questionnaires with 40 respondents.

Instruments

Survey questionnaires was used as an instrument to answer the first research question. The survey questionnaires are divided into seven separate sections. The first section (Part A) was designed with the purpose of obtaining the demographic information of the respondents by using nominal data. The remaining sections of the survey (Part B – Part G) were designed to meet the objectives of this study. The section which surveyed on legal and policy measures on information lock-up contains 19-variables, based on five-point Likert scale ranging from the lowest to the highest (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Not Sure, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree). The variables were derived from the legal and policy measures to overcome public information lock up which are currently adopted in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and New Zealand.

Sample

For the purpose of comparison, the UK, Canada and New Zealand have been selected as sample countries. While admittedly there are over 96 countries with the right to information legislation (Trapnell, 2014), these three countries are the best countries for the purpose of comparison with Malaysia since they share similar legal system with Malaysia. Like Malaysia, Canada and New Zealand are former colonies of England, which inherit Common Law system and similar colonial era legislations. However, unlike Malaysia, the UK, Canada and New Zealand have taken appropriate legal and policy measures to overcome legal impediments to citizens’ right to information.

As for the survey, the target population for the survey are representatives of the government agency, independent statutory body, civil society and academia. A stratified, purposive sampling is used to select the respondents among the population of this study. The criteria for selections are legal officers who are currently attached with the Attorney General’s Chambers and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, as well as civil rights activists and academics who are experts in constitutional and human rights laws.

Data Collection

Data collection for this research is mixed-modes approach comprising field work to collect primary data and library based research to collect secondary data. Secondary data was drawn from primary legal sources in the form of legislative texts comprising of statutes and codes (collectively referred as ‘the Laws”) and regulations and non-legislative texts such as policy, procedures and guidelines (collectively referred as “the Policies”). The laws and policies were collected from the official websites of the government of selected countries. Altogether 3 laws and 7 policies were collected for analysis, listed below:

For primary data, a cross-sectional data was collected from the survey population. Data collection was conducted between 2 January 2017 until 1 April 2017. Survey was conducted with 20 respondents from the Attorney General’s Chambers and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. For the purpose of triangulation, 20 respondents who are civil rights activists and academic experts in constitutional law and human rights law were also surveyed. Self-administered survey questionnaires were distributed by the researchers to the target population by hand using stratified, purposive sampling techniques. The language of instruction for the survey is English and each respondent was allocated approximately thirty minutes to answer the survey questionnaires. The completed survey questionnaires were then collected by the researchers themselves.

Data Analysis

For qualitative data, a legal, doctrinal and policy analysis were made on the primary and secondary legal sources. Further, a comparative analysis was made on the laws and policies from the UK, Canada and New Zealand based on three criteria’s: similarities, differences and special/unique features of the legal and policy measures adopted in the selected countries. The scope of comparison is pertaining to the legal and policy measures which overcome public information lock up in the selected countries. A normative analysis approach to determine what the laws and policies ought to be, was applied to answer the second research questions. The normative analysis approach which requires analysis of both the primary and secondary data is important as the aim of this study is to develop a legal and policy framework to overcome public information lock up in Malaysia.

As for quantitative data, the survey data was analysed using descriptive analysis. The nominal data was analysed to find the Mode. The ordinal data was statistically analysed to rank and to find the Median for each variables in the Likert scale and the Means was used to describe the scale.

What are the legal and policy measures most appropriate to overcome public information lock up?

The figures below illustrate the findings of the survey conducted with 40 respondents for the purpose of determining the legal and policy measures most appropriate to overcome information lock up in Malaysia. Nineteen (19) variables asked in the survey serve as the legal and policy measures to overcome public information lock up. Likert scale is used to depict the appropriateness of the legal and policy measures to overcome public information lock up. The Likert scale used are as follows: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Not Sure, 4= Agree, 5=Strongly Agree. The summary of the analysis result is as presented in Table(s) and Figure(s).

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

Based on the descriptive analysis, it is found that the highest Mean value is 4.35 (publication of data and information about government’s aid spending and contribution programs), followed by 4.33 (Publication of legislations, standards and policies). The lowest Mean value is 3.58 (online publication of Prime Minister’s correspondence with the Cabinet Ministers). There are 11 variables which recorded a Mean value above 4.00, while 8 others recorded Mean values between 3.58 to 3.98. There are 3 variables with equal Mean value of 3.98; i) open access to federally funded scientific research publication and data; ii) online publication of government agencies’ performance index; and iii) statutory duty to update/review publication scheme of dataset, bulletin subject to request for information. There are also variables: i) Mandatory reporting/disclosure of payments made to government related for sales and commercial development of oil, gas and minerals; and ii) open data publication of government budget/spending/expenditure which recorded equal Mean value (4.20). Another variable which recorded same Mean value are: i) online release of data and information resources of business value; ii) open data publication for government contracts and procurements (4.08). The Mean values for all the variables surveyed range between 3.58 to 4.35. The findings indicate that the respondents of this survey mostly agree as to the appropriateness of the legal and policy measures to overcome public information lock up in Malaysia.

Analysis of Median value based on organization attached, found that a Median value of 3.50 is recorded from the respondents of the government agency for the following variables: i) online publication of government agencies’ performance index; and ii) publication of dataset and information on the websites and in an electronic form which is publicly accessible and capable of re-use. As from the respondents representing independent statutory body, the highest Median value is 4.50 for: i) constitutional protection of the right to receive information; and ii) publication of legislations, standards and policies. The lowest Median value of 2.50 is recorded from the respondents of the independent statutory body for prohibition against public authority charging fees in connection with making the copyright work available for re-use. As for respondents representing civil society, Median values above 4.00 are recorded for: i) constitutional protection of the right to receive information (4.50); ii) open data publication of government budget/spending/expenditure (5.00); iii) open data publication for government contracts and procurements (4.50); iv) mandatory reporting/disclosure of payments made to government related for sales and commercial development of oil, gas and minerals (4.50); v) public register of foreign companies dealing/purchasing property or bidding of government contracts (4.50); and vi) publication of data and information about government’s aid spending and contributions programs (5.00). A high Median value is also recorded from the academia whereby Median value 5.00 is recorded for: i) open data publication for government contracts and procurements; ii) mandatory reporting/disclosure of payments made to government related for sales and commercial development of oil, gas and minerals; iii) public register of foreign companies dealing/purchasing property or bidding of government contracts; iv) publication of data and information about government’s aid spending and contributions programs; and v) publication of legislations, standards and policies. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the academia and civil rights activists are more receptive to the legal and policy measures to overcome public information lock up compared to the respondents of the government agency and independent statutory body.

See Full Size >

In terms of Mode value for each variable, publication of data and information about government’s aid spending and contributions programs recorded the highest Mode value of “Agree and Strongly Agree” at 97.5%. The lowest Mode value for “Agree and Strongly Agree” response is prohibition against public authority charging fees in connection with making the copyright work available for re-use (62%). This is followed by response for i) online publication of Prime Minister’s correspondence with the Cabinet Ministers (63.2%); and ii) offences involving acts which deny right to information/acts with the intention of preventing the disclosure of public record and information at 67.5% who “Agree and Strongly Agree”. Other variables recorded Mode values for “Agree and Strongly Agree” response between 80% to 87.5%. From the above findings, this study observes that overall the respondents either “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” as to the appropriateness of the legal and policy measures to overcome public information lock up. Therefore, all 19 variables are appropriate for adoption as part of the legal and policy frameworks to overcome public information lock up in Malaysia.

How should a legal and policy frameworks be developed to overcome public information lock up in Malaysia?

The main purpose of developing a legal and policy framework is to provide constitutional and legal rights to overcome public information lock up in Malaysia. In developing the frameworks, findings of the survey reported above are given prime consideration. The variables which record high Mean, Median and Mode values are adapted into the legal and policy frameworks. Established principles of citizen’s right to public information are also incorporated as part of the frameworks.