First in a series

Staff writer

When it comes to information, the government is akin to a black hole -- absorbing massively but releasing little or nothing.

Information is a decision-making ingredient historically monopolized by government, sometimes to the detriment and chagrin of society at large.

For years activists have pushed for a mechanism guaranteeing access to government information. Now legislation mandating disclosure is poised to be submitted to the Diet. However, a number of questions about the bill remain -- the answers to which will have a direct impact on just how easy it will be for citizens to get information held by the government.

"The question is: Will it really provide a practical tool for people to access government information, or will it just be a public relations thing?" asked Lawrence Repeta, an expert on Japanese law and a visiting scholar at the University of Washington.

A key issue in determining the effectiveness of the law will be the clarity of the wording and the breadth of the exemptions, said Repeta, author of numerous articles on law and business in Japan. The bill, due to be submitted to the Diet by the third week of March, is currently being finalized by the Management and Coordination Agency. The ruling alliance started debate on the details Feb. 25.

A major concern is that the bill will leave gaping loopholes for government officials and organs to sidestep information requests from curious or concerned citizens. "The big issue is the scope of the exceptions," Repeta said. "The real breadth of the disclosure depends on how those exemptions are drafted and interpreted by the court."

A fundamental question is whether the law should provide for broad or narrow disclosure, Repeta said, adding that precise wording facilitates broad access while broad wording has the opposite effect. How does Repeta evaluate the Japanese version? "Based on the wording, it appears that the law will provide for narrow disclosure."

The current bill contains six exemptions, but Repeta fears that ambiguity could result in their abuse on the part of the government. Exemptions from disclosure include:

1) Information provided by corporations on condition that it will remain undisclosed;

2) Information the head of a ministry or agency has reason to fear disclosing because it could endanger the nation or damage relations with other countries;

3) Information the head of a ministry or agency has reason to fear disclosing because it would interfere with a criminal investigation, potentially undermining the maintenance of public safety and order;

4) Information that, if disclosed, would impinge on frank discussions among government officials;

5) Information that, if disclosed, would hinder the workings of government organizations.

Exemptions, like the last, have been used by local governments to legitimize withholding information such as entertainment expenses, Repeta said. Local governments have in the past evaded requests for information by arguing that releasing the information could unduly harm the workings of government or invade the privacy of individual officials. "The new language is far more weighted in favor of the (ministries and) agencies," Repeta said.

The preliminary draft said nothing about the opinion of the head of a ministry or agency, Repeta points out, adding, "In drafting the bill that will go to the Diet in March, they have taken a step back from the preliminary draft.

"The language has changed to say that exemptions shall apply when in the opinion of the head of the administrative agency there is sufficient reason to fear that it will cause injury," Repeta said, referring to the exemptions allowing ministers to withhold information pertaining to criminal investigations, defense and diplomacy.