RIGHTS-JAPAN: Groups Using Access to Information Law to the Hilt

By Suvendrini Kakuchi Reprint | | Print |

Suvendrini Kakuchi

TOKYO, May 13 2003 (IPS) - Tsunefuke Kurayama is a member of an unusual group in Japan – one that has taken 10 policemen to court for embezzling public funds to the tune of 4 million yen (about 35,000 U.S. dollars). It is not the first time either.

Tsunefuke Kurayama is a member of an unusual group in Japan – one that has taken 10 policemen to court for embezzling public funds to the tune of 4 million yen (about 35,000 U.S. dollars). It is not the first time either.

In May 2002, Kurayama’s group, the Settai Shimin Ombudsman – which monitors the use of public funds for entertainment – had three policemen cornered, with a judge ordering the officers to return 12,000 dollars of public money they had embezzled by filing false records.

These are small victories but significant ones for civil society in Japan. After all, the 20-member group based in the large northern city of Sendai used the Information Disclosure Law, which came into effect in April 2001, to find material that enabled them to trap the corrupt policemen.

Kurayama wants to make full use of the new law, which he is an enthusiastic advocate of. He said that being able to monitor the use of taxes, and having access to documents that earlier would have been off-limits is making a difference.

For his group, the difference lies in “making sure the authorities play a responsible role in society” and in ensuring that “police must be accountable”.

The misuse of tax revenue plays a large role in corruption in Japan, which is why it is at the top of the agenda among the civic-minded.

The numbers prove it: a survey conducted in 2002 by the Public Management, Home Affairs, and Posts and Telecommunications Ministry show that the number of requests for disclosures reached 30,000 that year, and the bulk of these – more than 18,000 – were filed with the National Tax Agency.

But it took a 20-year struggle – and intense lobbying by activists, academics and consumer organisations – to get the law framed and passed. Now, under the Information Disclosure Law, a citizen can file a request for classified information from government agencies, local governments, national hospitals and other public institutions.

Furthermore, if the holder of the information requested for denies the request, the citizen can file a complaint with an independent panel of judges. It is a sea change from the secretive lack of public accountability of only five years ago.

“There is no doubt that the change of government, from the conservative-led Liberal Democratic Party to one controlled by the socialist parties, played a part in the birth of the new law,” said Yukiko Miki of the Information Clearing House, a grassroots organisation.

Traditionally, Japanese society has trusted the government, and the law and its growing use have begun to challenge the top-down nature of Japan’s socio-political structure, for the better, as experts argue.

“The concept of authority is firmly entrenched in Japanese society, which is why bureaucrats have long controlled information to promote group harmony above individual rights,” explained Miki. “This system fails when there are scandals and blatant human rights abuses, which is why freedom of information is vitally important in Japan.”

The disclosure mechanism is far from ideal, as activists acknowledge. Among the irritants is the independent panel, which is composed of 12 members from all parties, appointed by the prime minister, and approved by both houses of the Diet, Japan’s parliament.

Currently the panel has sitting on it scholars, former judges, lawyers, a media representative, and a certified public accountant. On the surface the procedure appears fair, but civil society activists say that the controlling hand of the government is apparent.

Although panel members serve a three-year term, activists complain that the panel’s decisions are not legally binding. This, they say, must be corrected, as also the absence of a provision that directs authorities to supply requested information to a deadline – as the law now stands requests can be and are being delayed.

Emboldened by the law, Japanese activists are now demanding information on a number of subjects. They are even tackling the highly sensitive issue of child rights by asking that the law cover the right to inform adopted children about their biological parents, which is also related to the increasing number of births through infertility treatments.

Atsuko Nomura, head of the Kansai Information Exchange Group, a citizens’ collective, said the law has greatly helped the group gather important information to protect individual rights.

“Among the many issues that concern us, we have now started to demand information from public schools on the use of public funds at schools and by local mayors in a bid to make sure our taxes are used effectively and not for personal gain,” she explained.

Similarly, requests for information on nuclear waste disposal sites were filed by the Citizens Net Gifu, a citizens’ group. They wanted to know precisely where the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute plans to build new sites for the disposal of radioactive waste, particularly given the history of public protest against the sites.

The group was partially successful – the locations were released but not the names of candidate municipalities – and Citizens Net Gifu has now filed a suit seeking full disclosure.

Tax misappropriation, school funds, nuclear waste and public health are all issues close to the citizens’ hearts now benefiting from the new law.

There have, for example, been a number of calls for the disclosure of medical records to protect patients’ rights.

Those demands have been supported by a recommendation from the independent review panel, which has asked the health ministry to make public reports of medical accidents at national hospitals and to include the name of doctors in charge, a very significant move in a country that rarely questions authority.

The next step, said Miki, is to ensure the participation of the public before a law or budget is passed, rather than demanding information retrospectively. “This would pave the way for a better society that respects the right of individuals to know more about decisions that affect them,” she said.