When it was first launched alongside the 1997 "people's" charter, the act was hailed as a new benchmark for Thai democracy. The government of Chuan Leekpai proclaimed the act a standard bearer for an open society and good governance. In today's reality, however, it has been rendered irrelevant.

Back then, the commonly held sentiment was that ordinary people would be empowered to access necessary information, including government-held data, by exercising the right to know granted to them by the act. Armed with this knowledge, it was believed that they would then be able to participate in the decision-making process on public issues and policies and turn Thailand into a democratic model for developing countries. This would then encourage people to effectively take part in the political process by expressing their needs and opinions through public hearings, demonstrations and, of course, elections.

Unfortunately, this was not the case under the reign of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra when the access to information law was turned upside down. Suddenly, Southeast Asia's first information law became an effective tool to shut off government-held information instead of facilitating the disclosure of information as the law mandated.

With all government agencies under Thaksin's influence, public disclosure at all levels was not encouraged as it would have jeopardised the government's populist policies and approaches. That kind of top-down pressure created a culture of fear among bureaucrats, preventing them from yielding on information disclosure, especially as it pertained to high-profile politicians. Therefore, no earth-shaking disclosures were made during Thaksin's two administrations.

During the bird-flu epidemic of late 2003 and early 2004, the Thaksin government was severely attacked because it was dragging its feet on releasing information about the situation.

Soon after the information law was enacted a decade ago, Sumalee Limpaovart's set about on a two-and-a-half-year struggle with the administrators of Kasetsart Experimental School that helped familiarise the public with the law and the public's right to know.

Sumalee fought on behalf of her five-year-old daughter who had been denied admission to the school's first grade class. After she discovered and made public the fact that the school gave priority to children of donors and privileged families, the school abolished its discriminatory system and subsequently influenced others to do the same. Admission was then based on merit. In 1999, former deputy public health minister Rakkiat Sukhthana and two senior officials resigned after they were found guilty of corruption involving the procurement of medical supplies. Thanks to the information law, representatives of non-governmental organisations and grassroots groups were able to dig up the dirt on the scandal and follow the paper trail.

Thaksin himself narrowly escaped a jail term back in 2000 after journalists discovered that he had made a fraudulent declaration of his assets. After a long court battle, he was acquitted by the Constitution Court and went on to become prime minister from February 2001 to September 2006.

From 2001 to 2006, the number of people that used the information law was close to one million, which was double the number of the first five years. This unofficial figure includes those who visited the office of information in their localities seeking or not seeking documents. In this instance, an increased number of people using the law did not lead to an increased amount of disclosure. Statistics show that government officials who felt they were suffering from injustice or receiving unfair treatment comprised the largest number of people attempting to attain confidential records related to their cases both in central and local government agencies. Other stakeholders, especially rural people, still have to be taught how to use the law. The notion that the information law will eventually erode the culture of secrecy is not true, at least for now.

Surprisingly, the number of disclosure requests made by journalists were disappointingly low, to the point of insignificance, compared to those made by bureaucrats at the Education Ministry, who were the top users of the office among all government agencies over the past 10 years.

Journalists have been dissuaded by the delaying tactics used by various committees overseeing disclosure requests. They continue to rely on personal connections and traditional information networks to obtain sensitive information.

To turn the information law into a vanguard of truth, the OIC must be meaner and cleaner - transformed into an independent organisation detached from all political colour and influence. It must be restructured and equipped with new powers to investigate and obtain information from other independent organisations such as the Election Commission, the Counter Corruption Commission, etc. At the moment, the office is operated as an afterthought, a division unit with no policy-making power. Worse, it has little funding - around Bt10 million - down from Bt19 million a few years back, to handle the workload submitted by 8,775 state and local agencies around the country, not to mention private investigations and follow-up activities.

Despite Thaksin boasting of his administration's openness, information concerning his government's activities was not readily handed out, as it would have jeopardised its credibility. Bureaucrats from various ministries and agencies, comprising the OIC and various tribunal committees, are problematic and dogmatic in their views. These officials seldom attended meetings or treated disclosure requests seriously. In the future, representatives from private and civil society organisations must be represented in greater proportion in all of these committees.

Finally, it is time the government punishes whoever impedes information disclosure harshly.

Up until now, nobody has been implicated or punished because of the ridiculous provisions on punishment. Any person who discloses information mistakenly could be fined Bt20,000 and given one year in prison. Those who refuse to cooperate, if caught and sentenced, pay only Bt5,000. That explains why there is so much foot dragging and procrastination.

 Kavi Chongkittavorn