前几天收到英文时事评论网站UPI Asia.com副编辑Sulu Shen的邮件。他说想把拙文「《政府信息公开条例》不如暂时作废」翻译成英文，并通过他们的网站推介给英文世界的读者，并问我同不同意。我当然没有不同意的理由。刚才，我又收到了译后并发表的网页。真巧，今天是《政府信息公开条例》施行一周年，就把这篇译文转帖在这里，也算是一种纪念吧。

­

自从20年前混过大学英语四级之后，我再也没有碰过英语。为了应付高考而死记硬背的一点“哑巴英语”基本上忘得一干二净，以至于连职称英语考试都不敢参加，这也是我放弃评职称的直接原因。编辑说，在翻译的过程中可能会有所删减，反正我是看不出来。

­

By Sheng Dalin Guest Commentary     Published: April 30, 2009

­

Zhengzhou, China — Several journalists angrily walked out of a conference on environmental protection in China’s northeastern province of Heilongjiang recently, after authorities refused to reveal the names of local enterprises exceeding legal pollution levels. The authorities insisted they had the right to “maintain secrecy” on the issue.

 

The requested data was unpublished and confidential and couldn’t be provided to the media, staff from the province’s Environmental Protection Department said at a working meeting on enforcing environmental regulations and managing emergencies, to which local media had been invited. Some of the reporters in attendance said they could not understand such an attitude and walked out in anger.

­

China’s Ordinance on Governmental Information Disclosure stipulates that officials must release information to citizens if the requested information involves the vital interests of citizens, corporations, the judiciary or other organizations; or if it involves a situation that requires the awareness or participation of the general public. Information concerning compliance with environmental rules can be considered to meet both conditions.

­

Further, the ordinance prescribes that issues related to environmental protection, public health, production safety, food and medicine or product quality should be “emphatically publicized.” But ironically, information about environmental protection, which should have been readily and voluntarily disclosed, was treated as “internal and confidential.”

­

There is nothing new about this attitude among Chinese authorities. For example, the results of an investigation into the publication of a falsified photo of a tiger in southern China “could not be announced.” It was “not good to disclose” details of the allocation of the state’s economic stimulus package of 4 trillion yuan (US$586 billion). And it was “not convenient to publish” the final report on government spending for the past year.

­

It seems that all the information ordinary citizens are most concerned about and most want to know is classified as “state secrets.”

­

Not long ago, several members of the National People’s Congress requested China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine to make public a report on quality inspections, but they were turned down six times.

­

Last May, a lawyer named Yan Yiming asked the Environmental Protection Department of Anhui province to reveal the province’s major polluting enterprises, but he was repeatedly refused. Yan reported this to the Ministry of Environmental Protection, but obtained no substantial results. He then reported to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Supervision, requesting an investigation into the Environmental Protection Department of Anhui province and threatening to report the case to the provincial government and the Provincial People’s Congress.

­

Half a year later, the province’s Environmental Protection Department finally released a list of 132 enterprises guilty of discharging heavy pollution. The government information disclosure regulation requires officials to reply to requests within 15 days after receiving an application for information.

­

Disclosing the names of the heavy polluters – after the authorities’ long delays and evasions – did not cause the sky to fall. It is merely that many local governments prefer to operate from within a block box, and are simply in the habit of hiding information.

­

The Ordinance for Government Information Disclosure was passed in January, 2007, but was not implemented until May 1, 2008. The gap of more than one year was to allow local governments to prepare for this new rule. Nevertheless, those who sought information under the ordinance were still frustrated at every turn – the local administrations and departments could easily fabricate excuses to label information as “state secrets.”

­

According to the ordinance, all levels of government should publish an annual report by March 31 of each year. The first deadline for these reports passed on March 31 this year. But a random check of official websites – like the Ministry of Finance, the Forestry Department of Shanxi province and the Environmental Protection Department of Anhui province – will reveal that few have carried out this policy.

­

Only the Environmental Protection Department of Anhui posted its annual report for last year, including many hedging words. For example, it claimed to have replied to information requests “on average” within 15 days, with no delays. Considering that the law requires a response within 15 working days, does it make sense to report compliance “on average?”

­

On the website of the Ministry of Finance other sections opened normally, but the section marked “Catalogue of disclosures” led to a “page not found” notice.

­

This Friday will mark the first anniversary of the implementation of this ordinance. How should the Chinese people uate the past year with regard to this law? Some will say the ordinance was nothing more than a scrap of paper; others will describe the authorities’ compliance as “extremely awkward.”

­

In many situations in China there are no laws to abide by – this exposes the imperfection of the legal system. In other cases the laws are not fully observed – this also damages the authority and dignity of the legal system.

­

Since the information disclosure ordinance has already been issued, it should be strictly put into practice. It would be better to have no such regulation than not to take it seriously. Therefore, the angry withdrawal of the reporters at the Heilongjiang conference is fully understandable. If the state has no intention of requiring compliance with the ordinance, it would be better to just void it temporarily.

­

--

­

(Sheng Dalin is a well-known media critic, writer and senior lawyer based in Zhengzhou city of Hubei province. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia.com; the original can be found at http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_53e839d20100d6u5.html ?Copyright Sheng Dalin.)