[Editorial] Is `Law on Opening of Information to the Public` Retrogressive?

The government`s review and pass of the `revised law on the opening of information of the public institutions`, which has a potential to further restrain the opening of information of the public institutions, is creating a stir. We cannot but ask why the government tries to make such a revision.

The revised law passed by the cabinet meeting on Tuesday added the list of information which is not to be open to the public. The list includes information that may cause public confusion, information that may damage the neutrality of opinion decision, and information which may inflict huge damage to those who participate in the decision making or those whose interests are involved when the interest of the majority is sharply divided. Regarding this, the Ministry of the Government Administration and Home Affairs explained that the revised law defines information that is subject not to open to the public more in detail since the current law defines such information simply as information that `may remarkably hinder the fair execution of work`.

If the revision is to `state the law regulation more in detail`, which is abstract and inclusive, there is no reason to object to the revision. The law regulations should be more concrete and more detail as possible as they can to prevent the arbitrary interpretation and application of law by the powerful group. In that sense, it is true that the existing law on the opening of information to the public needs to be corrected in many ways. However, the revised law passed by the cabinet meeting is more retrogressive.

What kind of information is information that `may cause public confusion` and what is the concrete criterion to define such information? The Ministry of the Government Administration and Home Affairs ambiguously connects the sentence, which says `public confusion`, to the `public interest`. The government can have a legal ground that can deny to provide information anytime based on such a setup of concept, thus, encouraging the expediency of the government administration, because the statement, which says `[information] that may cause public confusion`, can be always arbitrarily interpreted.

People`s right to know and the transparency of the government administration are the values and goals that the democratic society should constantly emphasize and aspire. Small government and open administration are the characteristics of the democratic nation. The more the government has secrets the bigger the power increases, and the distance between the government and the people becomes far. This is why the current law on the opening of information to the public states in article 1, "…to secure people`s right to know and the goal is to insure people`s participation in the state affairs and the transparency of the government administration."

The government should remind itself of the basic spirit of such law. We hope that the government should begin the right process of correcting the revised law right away.