【明報專訊】THE REMOVAL OF investigation reports and other documents prior to 2023 from the website of the Office of The Ombudsman (hereafter the Office) has sparked widespread concern. Good governance requires paying high regard to transparency, public participation, and accountability. It is utterly wrong to consider sweeping past records of maladministration and the public's complaints under the carpet as a way to "foster social harmony". The Office is the watchdog of public administration first and foremost. As the statutory gatekeeper of the Code on Access to Information, it should set an example of openness and transparency. Such a retrogressive move is unreasonable.
Last week, Ming Pao revealed that the Office has removed all investigation reports, press releases and annual reports before 2023, as well as cases of public complaints filed under the Code on Access to Information from its website. The Office replied that it had done so to "facilitate the search for the latest reports". This week, it reiterated that the purpose of taking down the information was to "ensure the accuracy and relevance" of its website content. The Office argued that in recent years, the recommendations made to government departments and public organisations have generally been implemented within around two years. Therefore, the investigation reports published before April 2023 are "no longer up to date and even misleading to the public"; the removal of those reports can "prevent the website from being inundated with obsolete data and hindering public access to and search for required information", the Office claimed.
Ombudsman Jack Chan denied that the Office had taken an inappropriate move. He said it was to prevent "too much" information on the website from dragging down the browsing speed, and "it is impossible to butter the bread on both sides". However, most of the Office's reports are PDF files, which require little storage space. Even if the server is really running short of storage, relevant hardware does not cost much to add. The Ombudsman's describing the decision to publish more or less information as a "dilemma" was far-fetched. Equally unconvincingly, he said the main function of his office is to handle complaints but not to provide the public with a website to look up previous reports, as if the two functions were contradictory.
The investigation reports by the Office over the years serve the important value of helping people understand the government's shortfalls in public administration and compare the present with the past. The Office should provide the public with as much ease as possible to access the reports online. While the government is putting great effort into building a "smart government" for the convenience of people, the Office is now citing technical difficulties as an excuse for removing a vast bulk of archived reports. To look up those reports now, the public have to file applications in line with the procedures required and go to the Office in person. Such an inconvenient arrangement goes obviously against "smart government".
After taking office as the Ombudsman last year, Jack Chan has put forth a new exposition regarding the working goal of the public watchdog, namely "fostering social harmony", which includes publicising the concept of "perceiving complaints positively". Officials should positively accept complaints and criticisms. However, one can tell from Chan's words that he is asking not the officials, but the public expressing opinions to adopt a "positive" attitude.
The top duty of the Office is to serve as the watchdog of public administration and uphold the public's right to know. Rather than "educating" the public not to "be difficult" with government departments, it should better advocate the latter admitting wrongdoings and not shifting blames. The transparency and openness of public administration is the value that the Office should take the lead to uphold. If even the Office lowers its standards, it may result in a domino effect within the bureaucracy, which will be unfavourable to fostering good governance.
明報社評 2025.05.21：重新上架申訴報告 公開透明莫開倒車
申訴專員公署下架2023年前的調查報告及資料，惹來廣泛關注。良政善治須重視透明度、公眾參與和問責，以為將過去公共行政缺失及市民投訴個案「收收埋埋」，就是「促進社會和諧」，是大錯特錯。申訴署首要角色是監察公共行政，作為把關《公開資料守則》的法定機構，應樹立公開透明榜樣，沒理由開倒車。
本報上周披露申訴專員公署網站移除2023年前的調查資料、新聞稿及年報，並刪除市民以《公開資料守則》申訴個案的欄目，署方回覆稱有關做法是要「方便找到最新報告」。署方本周重申，下架資料是為了「確保網站內容準確合時」。署方辯稱，近年給予政府部門及公營機構的建議一般在兩年多內已落實，故2023年4月之前發布的調查報告已「不合時宜，甚或對公眾有所誤導」，移除可「避免網站上有過多過時資訊阻礙公眾查閱及搜尋」。
申訴專員陳積志稱，網站放「太多」資料，速度一定變慢，認為公署並無失當，只是「針無兩頭利」。然而，公署的報告資料大都是PDF類型檔案，所需儲存空間有限。就算伺服器空間真的不夠用，添置相關硬件，也花不了多少錢，專員卻將「放多些」還是「放少些」資料說成是「兩難」，實屬牽強。專員稱公署主要職能為處理申訴，而非提供網站讓市民查閱舊報告，彷彿兩者是「對立」關係，同樣匪夷所思。
申訴署多年來所做的調查報告，對於了解政府公共行政問題以及比較今昔狀况，具有重要價值，署方應盡可能方便市民在網上查閱。政府致力建設「智慧政府」方便市民，申訴署卻以「技術困難」為由下架大量舊報告，公眾若要查閱，需依程序申請並親赴公署，如此不便的做法，跟「智慧政府」明顯背道而馳。
陳積志去年接任申訴專員後，對公署工作目標有一個新論述，就是「促進社會和諧」，包括宣揚「正面看投訴」理念。為官者應有胸襟正面看待投訴及批評，不過觀乎陳的說法，呼籲對象不是官員，而是認為市民表達意見，應抱「正面」心態。
申訴署首先的職責是監察公共行政，捍衛公眾知情權；比起「教育」公眾不要「刁難」行政部門，公署更應多向政府部門宣揚勇於認錯而非推卸責任的意識。公共行政透明開放是申訴署帶頭把關的價值，若連公署也降低標準，有可能在官場引起骨牌效應，不利於推動良政善治。
/ Glossary生字 /
retrogressive：returning to old-fashioned ideas or methods instead of making progress
obsolete：no longer used because sth new has been invented
far-fetched：very difficult to believe