VZCZCXRO9668
RR RUEHCN RUEHVC
DE RUEHGH #0035/01 0170831
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 170831Z JAN 07
FM AMCONSUL SHANGHAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5440
INFO RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 0108
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 5788

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 SHANGHAI 000035 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EAP/CM, INR/B, INR/EAP, AND DRL 
STATE PASS USTR FOR STRATFORD, WINTER, MCCARTIN, ALTBACH, READE 
TREAS FOR OASIA - DOHNER/CUSHMAN 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC - A/DAS MELCHER, MCQUEEN 
NSC FOR WILDER AND TONG 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL:  1/17/2032 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PINR KJUS CH
SUBJECT: SHANGHAI STRIVING FOR TRANSPARENCY THROUGH OPENING 
INFORMATION 
 
REF: 2005 SHANGHAI 415 
 
SHANGHAI 00000035  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Veomayoury Baccam, Acting Political/Economic 
Section Chief, U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Department of State. 
 
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 
 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  Two years into the implementation of 
Shanghai's Open Government Information Act (OGIA)--one of the 
few in China--local officials claimed that the act had had 
broadened residents' access to government information and 
improved overall government transparency. They said that a 
forthcoming National Open Government Information Act (OGIA) 
would be based on Shanghai's successful experience.  Despite 
official claims of openness, anecdotal evidence suggests that 
enforcement of the OGIA was less than perfect, with at least one 
high-profile case where a journalist was reportedly intimidated 
into withdrawing his request.  End Summary. 
 
----------------- 
OGIA at Two Years 
----------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Shanghai began implementing the OGIA in May 2004.  The 
act provided citizens and organizations the right to request 
information from government agencies.  While information related 
to national security is excluded, the act established the 
presumption of disclosure, making secrecy the exception and 
established the "right to know," which does not appear in 
China's constitution or any national law to date.  Poloffs met 
with local officials during the initial phases of the acts 
implementation in early 2005.  At the time, officials were 
effusive in their praise for the act and claimed that it was a 
"breakthrough point" in the city's effort to establish 
"law-based government." (see reftel). 
 
¶3.  (SBU) On October 10, 2006, Poloff and Rule of Law 
Coordinator (ROLC) paid a visit to the Shanghai Legislative 
Affairs Office (LAO) to get an update on the local government's 
implementation of the act and its impact on the local 
government.  (Note: The LAO had been key in drafting the OGIA. 
End note.)  According to LAO Institute of Administrative Law 
Director Liu Ping, every government organization had a dedicated 
unit and personnel devoted to making that organization's 
information public.  Liu explained that the LAO and the Shanghai 
Municipal Supervision Commission were in charge of supervising 
the governmental agencies on implementation of the OGIA.  Every 
year, the LAO ranked the agencies on its OGI performance and 
published the ranking internally within the Shanghai government. 
 Liu added that the rankings would be opened to the public in 
the future to allow all Shanghai residents the opportunity to 
supervise governmental agencies' OGI work.  Anyone who lived in 
Shanghai--including foreigners--was allowed to request 
information to be made public. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Skyrocketing Information Requests 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Liu said that in the past, any request for releasing 
government information needed to be approved on a case-by-case 
basis.  Since the OGIA went into effect in 2004, however, 
information--with the exception of administrative information, 
or information about a specific person or business--was presumed 
open unless there was a reason to withhold it.  This had led to 
a more proactive government that had made public 185,317 pieces 
of information during the first eight months of 2006--up from 
50,281 pieces the year before.  Most of the information was 
available digitally on the municipal web site. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The act had also led to a sharp increase in the number 
of requests for information to be made public.  In 2004, the 
government received 8,799 such requests.  Of those, 6,913 were 
approved in full, 479 were approved in part, and 1330 requests 
were refused--about 800 were refused because the information 
requested did not exist.  In 2005, the government received 
12,465 requests to open information, approved 8771 requests in 
full and 365 in part, and rejected 2,654.  During the first 
eight months of 2006, the number of requests doubled from the 
previous year to 25,849 requests with 19,068 approved in full 
and 1,017 approved in part; 4,695 requests were rejected. 
 
 
SHANGHAI 00000035  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU) According to Liu, rejection of a request did not 
necessarily spell the end of a person's options.  For example, 
he said that in 2004: 38 applicants requested reconsideration by 
a higher department within the same agency that had initially 
refused them; six applicants filed lawsuits in court to dispute 
the initial rejection; and 10 applicants took their cases to a 
higher-level government bureaucracy for resolution.  In 2006, 
the numbers through August jumped to 189 requests for internal 
reconsideration, 65 litigation cases, and 25 appeals to a higher 
authority. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Liu noted that there was also an increase in the 
number of individuals searching municipal websites for 
information.  This indicated that the public was increasingly 
concerned about information openness, according to Liu.  During 
the first year of the OGIA's implementation, the municipal 
government's open information website had received 146,197,212 
hits.     Since then the number had shot up and there were 
351,570,910 hits through August 2006.  During the same period, 
public inquiries--aside from requests to open 
information--jumped from 124,129 to 784,144. 
 
--------------------------- 
Still Some Bugs to Work Out 
--------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (C) Liu noted that despite the success of the implementation 
of the OGIA to date, there was still room for improvement.  He 
said that the lack of a clear definition on what constituted 
"government information" often led local government agencies to 
question whether some of the requested information should be 
disclosed.  Part of the problem surrounded the often blurred 
line between party information and government information. 
Party information needed to be opened as well, but that to do so 
would require a separate set of laws, according to Liu. 
Shanghai was also considering the question of charging a nominal 
fee for information requests to keep people from abusing the 
system.  (Note: Liu did not say if he thought there were 
currently people who were abusing the system.  End note.) 
 
------------------------------------------- 
Following Shanghai's Path: A National OGIA? 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Liu told Congenoffs that that although the idea for an 
OGIA had first been implemented in Guangzhou, Shanghai had been 
the first provincial-level government to adopt one.  Since 
Shanghai enacted its OGIA in 2004, eight other provincial-level 
governments had adopted similar legislation.  Shanghai, however, 
remained the example for others to emulate. 
 
¶10.  (C) Indeed, the central government was currently 
considering a draft national OGI law, which, Liu noted with 
obvious pride, was based on the Shanghai model.  Moreover, 
Beijing's drafting team had held several workshops in Shanghai 
to learn from Shanghai's experience.  Liu understood that the 
national OGI law would follow the format and principles of the 
Shanghai OGIA. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
Credit Belongs to Shanghai Party Secretary Han Zheng 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶11.  (C) Liu was also effusive in his praise for acting Party 
Secretary and Mayor Han Zheng.  According to Liu, Han was 
 
SIPDIS 
responsible for providing the initial thrust for the OGIA.  In 
2004, Han told the Planning Bureau that it needed to make more 
of its information public and the idea spread from there.  When 
Han was elected Mayor in 2003, his motto was "a government of 
service, a government of responsibility, and a government of 
law."  Liu said that the fact that the pension scandal that 
brought down former Party Secretary Chen Liangyu came to light 
proved that there was no problem with openness in Shanghai. 
With Han now overseeing the Party, Liu was confident that he 
would push for even greater transparency and openness. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
And the Lawsuits? Nothing to See Here 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) On May 18, 2006, one of the first real tests of the 
OGIA happened when Ma Cheng, a Chinese journalist with the 
Shanghai-based newspaper Jiefang Daily, sued the Municipal Urban 
 
SHANGHAI 00000035  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
Planning Bureau after the bureau refused on several occasions to 
disclose government information related to a story he was 
investigating on urban planning.  This case represented the 
first time a journalist had sued the government in China for 
denial of the access to information and garnered wide interest 
from all over China.  A Shanghai local district court accepted 
the case only to have Ma withdraw it five days later. 
 
¶13.  (C) In an article posted on the Xinhua website in June 
2006, Ma refused to explain why he withdrew his suit, saying 
only that he "hoped in the future to have the chance to discuss 
the issue with reporters."  However in an explanatory letter to 
the Chinese Journalist Association cited in the article, Ma 
hinted that he had come under government pressure to withdraw 
the case.  Ma wrote that "some government bureaus have used 
illegal and non-routine methods to restrict" his investigative 
reporting.  Zhao said that the LAO was aware of the case.  Liu 
claimed that Ma had withdrawn the case because, in the end, the 
government gave him the information he had requested, not 
because the government had employed coercive tactics.  Ma has 
not made any further comments on the case.  (Comment: 
Congenoffs remain highly skeptical that Ma ended his suit 
because the government capitulated to his demands. End comment.) 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Liu said that in most cases where the plaintiff 
dropped the suit, they did so because the agency in question had 
reversed its initial decision.  Such had been the case with the 
very first lawsuit filed under the OGIA by Dong Ming (see 
Reftel).  In her case, the court upheld the agency's refusal 
because it found that Dong was looking for the information from 
the wrong agency.  However, the government agency that Dong had 
sued, then helped her figure out which agency had the 
information she was seeking.  With the former defendant agency's 
help, Dong was reportedly able to get all of the information she 
had been seeking. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶15.  (C) While there is a need for classifying government 
information in any country, the default in the Chinese system 
has been to label most all information a "state secret," leaving 
most people in the dark on even the simplest of issues. 
Shanghai's OGIA could be an important step towards creating a 
more transparent bureaucracy.  However, given the limitations of 
the system--a broad prohibition on "administrative information," 
a poor definition of "government information," and the often 
ambiguous distinction between party and government 
information--there is still significant room for improvement. 
End comment. 
JARRETT