Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative:

Assessing the Reforms

Renu Rana
Department of East Asian Studies, University of Delhi

This article examines the initiatives taken by the government of the Peoples Republic of China towards
ensuring government information transparency. The Open Government Information Regulations (OGI)
which was adopted in 2007 is a landmark in the transparency reforms process in China. The analysis
of this initiative and further reforms becomes vital as China has witnessed newly emerged emphasis on
anti-corruption campaign and rule of law. Though these regulations were adopted in 2007 at national
level, many reforms have been introduced in these regulations in terms of annual guidelines from time to
time. This article analyses the origin and development of OGI; the scope of these regulations; the legal,
political and structural problems obstructing the successful implementation of these regulations; and further reforms towards making China more open and transparent. This work also provides a comparative
analysis of information disclosure initiatives in China and India.

Keywords: Open Government Information Regulations (OGI), Law, Transparency,

disclosure, Secrecy, State secrets, Right to Information Act (RTI), Anti-corruption
campaign

The initiatives taken by the Chinese government for ensuring transparency in governance are not a new phenomenon. Contrary to the common belief that the Chinese
government acts and functions in a secretive manner, the Chinese government has
taken steps to ensure transparency and reforms in statesociety relations over the past
few decades. It is a combination of economic and political motives that has driven the
Communist Party of China (CPC) leadership toward greater transparency (Horsley
2007a). With increasing influence and commitment at international and bilateral
levels in this regard (Horsley 2007a, 2007b), China has felt the need to make the
government more efficient in confronting the challenge of consolidating the Partys

CHINA REPORT 51 : 2 (2015): 129143

Sage Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0009445515570443

130

Renu Rana

legitimacy. This has necessitated the introduction of reforms in the existing information disclosure laws and regulations.
As part of reforms in the transparency laws, the State Council of China issued a
third set of annual priorities for Open Government Information (OGI) in March 2014.
These new guidelines call for some amendments and reforms for better implementation
of OGI Regulation which was introduced first in 2008 as part of its commitment to
bring about transparency and accountability in governance. These guidelines known
as Main Points for 2014 Government Public Information Work give rise to expectations regarding broadening the sphere of freedom of information in China amidst
CPC General Secretary Xi Jinpings anti-corruption campaign.
These reforms in freedom of information legislation are expected to mitigate peoples
grievances against the tradition of secrecy in policymaking in China. The assessment of
these reforms becomes necessary as it will contribute to a better understanding of the
complexities of the Chinese governments commitment to freedom of information.

Origin and Development of OGI

The origin of transparency efforts in the government can be traced back to 1985 when
the Villagers Committee (VC), an autonomous organisation that manages public
affairs at the village level, made fiscal, land use and home planning records available
to interested villagers (Liu 2011: 121). It was adopted in several provinces including
Shandong and Henan but was not codified until 2004 when the General Office of
the Central Committee of Communist Party of China (CCCPC) and the General
Office of the State Council issued the Notice on Open Village Affairs and Democratic
Management in the Countryside (Liu 2011).
Transparency initiatives at the urban level started in the late 1990s when the
Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee issued an official statement proposing
disclosure of all administrative regulations and decisions. In 2002, the General Office
of the CPC and the General Office of the State Council issued the Notice on Further
Openness in the Affairs of SOEs, COEs and their Holding Companies on 3 June
2002. That year, over 250,000 enterprises, including over 190,000 public organisations
(SOEs and COEs) as well as over 57,000 private enterprises, introduced transparent
management (Liu 2011: 34).
The first official legislation on information disclosure appeared in 2003 when
the Guangzhou Municipal Government issued the Rules on OGI of the Guangzhou
Municipality, also known as the 2003 Guangzhou Rules. Similar statutes and rules
were issued by other cities including Shenzhen, Chengdu, Shanghai, Chongqing,
Wuhan, Datong, Hangzhou, Changchun and Ningbo (Snell and Xia 2007: Table1,
46). These rules and regulations governed the information disclosure process in these
cities until 2008, when the first Regulations on OGI were made effective by the
State Council. Since 2008, the State Council has continued to issue its reports and

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

131

guidelines1 to make OGI a success, including Major Work Arrangements in 2012

and 2013 (Zhao 2014: 88), the latest guidelines known as Main Points for 2014
Government Public Information Work.
The Regulations on OGI by the Peoples Republic of China, first adopted by the
State Council on 5 April 2007 and made effective on 1 May 2008 (China Law Center,
Yale Law School 2008), mark a significant shift from the culture of government secrecy
to transparency in China. Although these regulations2 are not a law passed and enacted
by National Peoples Congress, they make the central government as well as the local
governments at various levels legally obliged3 to provide information to citizens on
certain issues of public concern (Horsley 2007a). These regulations define government information as information made or obtained by administrative agencies in
the course of exercising their responsibilities and recorded and stored in a given form
(State Council of China 2007: Article 2, Chapter 1).

Scope of Open Government Information in China

The regulations on OGI aim to bring about transparency, promotion of administration

according to law and serving peoples livelihood and social and economic development
(State Council of China 2007: Article 1, Chapter 1). There are two methods for
disclosure of information: (a) by government agencies on their own accord; and (b)in
response to demand by citizens within 1520 days.
Articles 10, 11 and 12 of Chapter 2 of the regulations of OGI, 2008 give an
expanded list of disclosure information. The list of disclosure information at county
level and above includes administrative regulations, rules and regulatory documents,
plans for specific projects, plans for regional development and related policies, statistical
information on national economic and social development, reports on financial budgets
and final accounts, administrative fees and matters subject to administrative licensing
and their legal basis and standards, the governments centralised procurement projects,
their standards and their implementation, administrative licensing and their legal bases,
conditions, quantities, procedures and deadlines and catalogues of all the materials
1
Some of the reports and guidelines passed by State Council with regard to OGI include Notice of the
National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Finance on the Standards for Fees
Collected by Administrative Organs for Providing Open Government Information upon Request and Other
Relevant Issues (16 July 2008), and Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Improving the
Work of Disclosing Government Information Upon Request (January 2010). For more information, see
China Law Center, Yale Law School (n.d.).
2
It is to be noted that regulations are different from the laws passed by the legislative body in a country.
In China, regulations enacted by the State Council are subordinate to laws passed by the National Peoples
Congress and its Standing Committee. In terms of law, administrative regulations rank lower in position
than the Constitution and other statutes.
3
Supreme Peoples Court 2011.

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

132

Renu Rana

that need to be submitted when applying for the administrative licensing, and the
handling, information on the approval and implementation of major construction
projects, policies and measures on such matters as poverty assistance, education, medical
care, social security and job creation and their actual implementation, emergency plans,
early warning information, counter measures against sudden public events, information on the supervision and inspection of environmental protection, public health,
safe production, food and drugs and product quality (State Council of China 2007:
Article10, Chapter 2).
The information to be disclosed at the level of cities divided into districts4 and the
county level includes that on major matters in urban and rural construction and management, the construction of social and public interest institutions, land requisition or
land appropriation, household demolition and resettlement, and the distribution and
use of compensation or subsidy funds relating to land requisition and appropriation,
house demolition and resettlement, management, usage and distribution of social
donations in funds and in kind for emergency and disaster relief, special care for
families of martyrs and military service personnel, and assistance to poverty-stricken
and low-income families (State Council of China 2007: Article 11, Chapter 2).
The information to be made available to the public at the township level includes
information on the implementation of rural work policies of the state, fiscal income and
expenses and the management and use of various specialised funds, overall township
(town) land use plans and information on the verification of land to be used by farmers
for their primary residences, information on land requisition or land appropriation,
household demolition and resettlement, and the distribution and use of compensation
or subsidy funds, township (town) credits and debts, fund raising and labour levies,
distribution of social donations in funds and in kind for emergency and disaster relief,
special care for families of martyrs and military service personnel, and assistance to
poverty-stricken and low-income families, contracting, leasing and auctioning of township and town5 collectively owned enterprises and other township and town economic
entities, implementation of the family planning policy (State Council of China 2007:
Article 12, Chapter 2).
These regulations on OGI provide a platform for the citizens involvement in
governance and also represent an increase in transparency in policymaking and
implementation. For instance, the Ministry of Commerce issued 452,000 items of
information in 2013, while the State Administration for Industry and Commerce
released 4,753 items of information on request. The largest amount of information
voluntarily released by a province in 2013 was 980,000 in Shaanxi and 93,000
only in Shandong, a more populous province compared to Shaanxi. However, it is
interesting to note that Shaanxi issued only 3,302 items upon request, compared to
4
Municipalities directly under the Central Government and other large cities are divided into districts
and counties [Article 30 (3), Chapter 1, General Principles in the PRC Constitution (NPC 2004)].
5
Townships and towns in China are referred to xiangzhen (). For more information, refer to Article
30, Chapter 1 of the PRC Constitution (NPC 2004).

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

133

33,306 items of information by Shandong (Tatlow 2014). Most of the information

released has been on matters related to budget and environment.6
The State Council has tried to increase the scope of OGI 2008 by issuing the new
guidelines in 2014. The issuing of the third set of regulations on the OGI in March
2014 indicates the limitations of the original regulations in ensuring transparency in
the governance. It is important to look at the main provisions of the original regulations
that were introduced in 2008 and what led to the limited success of these provisions
and which resulted in another set of regulations, and how far this new set of priorities is going to make OGI more productive and a successful tool of transparency in
government rule in China.
The third set of annual priorities issued by the State Council in March 2014 calls for
the expansion of the disclosure of government information by introducing a set of eight
guidelines in the field of business, commerce, education, culture, land, taxes, environment
and food safety. The 2014 guidelines emphasise the strengthening of public work and
full implementation of the regulations; promotion of administrative operating authority
in the field of licensing, penalties, infringements, sustained manufacturing; disclosure
of financial funds (budget, fund accounts); strengthening of public resource allocation
information disclosure (land procurement budget of the government and construction
project information); strengthening of public service information disclosure in areas of
public college admissions, science and technology information disclosure management
and project funding, public health sector, increased medical charges, employment information, timely disclosure of plans to promote employment, state owned enterprises,
social security information disclosure; environment information disclosure, full text of
public construction projects and reports of their impact on environment, key national
pollution monitoring corporate information disclosure; strengthening of information
disclosure training, and strict implementation of information disclosure mechanisms
and strengthening of institutions responsible for information disclosure.
These guidelines have not altogether broadened the areas of information to be
made public, but have broadened the scope of information within the areas already
mentioned in earlier documents on OGI. The 2014 Guidelines state,
By the end of 2014, each region and each department should file with the General
Office of the State Council a report on the implementation of the outlines of
information disclosure work. The General Office of the State Council will
supervise and inspect the implementation of the outline in due time and report
the result thereof.
It emphasises more the implementation of OGI regulations than merely the structure
and processes involved in information disclosure. These new guidelines are remarkable
6
Most of the information related to budget has been initiated by government bodies. On the other
hand, there has been huge demand from public for the release of information on environment statements.
In particular, Chinas environmentalists and environment groups have been very active in using the OGI
and pressuring local governments to release environment impact statements.

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

134

Renu Rana

for their commitment to ensure the implementation of OGI by making all localities
and departments of the State Council submit their reports annually. Besides, it also calls
for a timely inspection of the implementation of OGI reflecting changing statesociety
relations in China. The Chinese government has emerged as more responsive to the
peoples demands for transparency by making departments responsible for information
disclosure. For instance, the Supreme Peoples Court in China in a press conference
on 12 September 2014, released statistics and ten open government information cases
under Chinas OGI Regulations (Finder 2014a). These cases were related to release
of information on environment statements, investments in real estate, expropriation
of land and compensation and so on. The Supreme Peoples Court revealed that in
2013, it had dealt with almost 5,000 open information cases.
Although the Guidelines which were issued in 2014 expanded some areas, they are
very few in number. These include cases of Individual Property Rights (IPR) violations,
manufacturing and sale of substandard products, case details, penalties and evidence
which have to be made public via government websites, bulletins, press conferences,
radio, television and newspapers. These new areas to be added to the list of information to be disclosed under OGI can contribute to transparency and are expected to
help in the promotion of the development of a credit services market (Horsley 2014).
As Zhao Zhengqun puts it:
It also demonstrates that open government information not only is of value in protecting citizens legitimate rights and interests, restraining and monitoring abuse of
administrative power but also has the value and function of protecting fair competition, maintaining the order of market economy, and promoting the modernization
of a countrys governance system and governance capacity. (Zhao 2014: 90)
Another positive development to be observed in the new guidelines (2014) is the inclusion of provisions for the requirement of some level of justification from the revealing
authority for refusing to disclose information.
A thorough inspection and comparison of the new guidelines issued by the State
Council in March 2014 with the original Regulations of OGI (2008) reveals the new
governments commitment7 towards making OGI a success and mitigating the shortcomings of the previous regulations.
7
In November 2012, Hu Jintao, then General Secretary, said that combating corruption and promoting
political integrity is a clear-cut and long-term commitment of Communist Party of China (China Daily
2012). The Chinese government has underlined its commitment to combat corruption from time to time
in political speeches as well as in its White Paper on Chinas Efforts to Combat Corruption and Build a
Clean Government which was issued in 2010. On 22 January 2014, during a speech at a plenary meeting
of the CPCs Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), current General Secretary Xi Jinping,
stressed that the fight against corruption is a long-term, complicated and arduous task. Anti-corruption
efforts must be consistent and will never slacken (Xinhua 2013).

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

135

Problems and Drawbacks

The important characteristics of the original Regulations on OGI can be summarised

as an initiative for transparency with no major outlines on implementation. It has a
limited scope and many of its provisions were not clearly defined. Any information that
is incomplete information, disturbs social stability, and social management (Article
6 & 8), reveals state secrets (Article 14) or pre-disclosure coordination clause (Article
7) cannot be disclosed. On a number of occasions, government officials have denied
the disclosure of information on various matters on these bases. The limited success
of OGI 2008 led to improved provisions being added to the regulations on OGI in
terms of annual guidelines in 2014, which aim at expanding the scope and depth of
the citizens access to government information.
The important question thus arises: does this new set of annual priorities for OGI
actually broaden the scope of OGI? If so, then to what extent?
It has been argued by officials that the new guidelines on OGI certainly expand
the scope of information disclosure by putting forth a clear list of items included in
information disclosure that is, licensing, penalties, budget, public health schemes,
employment information, state-owned enterprises, environment information, full text
of construction projects and information on their impact on environment, etc. Yet
the new guidelines fail to address the shortcomings of the regulations of OGI, 2008.
The criteria for denial of information disclosure that is, state secret, public security,
economic security and social stability are still there.
There have been no efforts to define state secrets. Any agency, on its own discretion or on directives from higher authorities, can deny disclosure of any information
which they consider falls under the category of state secrets. The 2010 Law of the
Peoples Republic of China on Guarding State Secrets, and 2014 Regulations on
the Implementation of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on Guarding State
Secrets fail to define state secrets and also provide very vague criteria for declassification of state secrets. The 2014 regulations on guarding state secrets (Government of
the Peoples Republic of China 2014a: Article 16) put the declassification and extension of secret guarding periods within the scope of the revealing organs and units
discretion. Even the Interim Provisions on Management of State Secrets Classification
issued in March 2014, are intended to clarify procedures for state secrecy officials
rather than to provide procedural protections to those seeking to challenge overly
broad classification of state secrets (Finder 2014b). The classification regulations
of 2014 (Government of the Peoples Republic of China 2014b) fail to define state
secrets, provide a very vague scope of the matters not to be classified (Article 19) and
no clearly defined criteria for declassification (Article 31). This is definitely a hurdle
in implementation of OGI.
There were many other exemptions made in 2008 in the regulations on OGI such
as matters that threaten social stability, social management order, state security, public

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

136

Renu Rana

security and economic security.8 These exemptions have not been addressed in the new
guidelines. Any information being asked for will be vulnerable to be denied under the
above categories unless these categories are clearly defined (Kaiser and Liu 2009).
There have been many instances when government officials refused to disclose
information. For example, a 2010 regulation requires provincial-level environmental
protection bureaus to disclose enterprises that are major emitters of dioxins. Only four
of 31 bureaus have made the disclosure. Even after receiving an OGI request, none of
the remaining 27 bureaus provided the information (Caragliano 2012; Tatlow 2014).
In another instance, Qu Shaoshens request for the release of Guangzhous regulations on the use of government and Communist Party vehicles from Guangzhous
Administration of Industry and Commerce (AIC) under Chinas OGI regulations, was
declined by the Guangzhou AIC on the grounds that the regulations are classified as
a state secret with the decision later by the Tianhe District Peoples Court and by the
Guangzhou Intermediate Peoples Court on appeal (Finder 2014b).
Another shortcoming of the OGI in China is that it is merely a regulation and
not a law. It does not have the backing of the Constitution. It is a mere provision for
openness and not a right to know, as administrative agencies can not only limit
the scope of disclosure within the given list, but also enjoy broad discretion to decide
whether specific data even falls within the given list because crucial definitions remain
unsettled (Liu 2011: 1819). Thus OGI, while a major breakthrough in bringing
some transparency in statesociety relations in China, nevertheless falls short of its
promises. It has very limited scope. OGI is aimed at increasing levels of transparency
in government, but in practice, low levels of compliance have negated its effectiveness (Caragliano 2012).

Calling for Further Reforms

There have been diverse responses to OGI in China from various sections of society including intellectuals, dissidents, professors, government officials and lawyers.
Demands for transparency reforms have come from both citizens as well as government
officials. This demand for transparency has increased manifold with the ongoing transitions in Chinas governance including the introduction of the anti-corruption campaign
by the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Without transparency and other institutional
reforms such as an independent judiciary, and other checks and balances in government, the anti-corruption campaign might end up as mere rhetoric or lead to abuses
(Anderlini 2014). A large number of political dissidents, activists, lawyers and others
have been demanding transparency in government structure. Professor Wang Xixin
from Peking University believes that hot issues that the public pays attention to are
8

These terms are not properly defined legally.

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

137

often sensitive issues and that some authorities deny information disclosure on such issues
on the basis of the provision concerning state secrets (Tatlow 2014). It cannot be denied
that thegovernment has shown commitment to making the system more transparent in
the last few decades (Branigan 2013), yet the lack of compliance by government officials
in disclosing the information and the crackdown by the government against activists
have raised many questions regarding the commitment of government.
Rights activist and lawyer Xu Zhiyongs arrest in January this year, on the one
hand, and Xi Jinpings anti-corruption campaign, on the other hand (Oster 2014),
reflect the duality of the Chinese governments commitment and efforts towards freedom of information for its citizens. Xu is a lawyer and founder of the New Citizens
Movement. The New Citizens Movements main demand was to compel officials to
disclose their assets. Xu was sentenced to four years jail in April 2014 for taking up
the corruption issue outside the official initiative (Lo 2014; Kaiman 2014). Three
more anti-corruption activists were sentenced in the province of Jiangxi to six and
a half years in June 2014 despite the official drive against corruption. Activists Liu
Ping and Wei Zhongping were sentenced to six and half years and Li Sihua to three
years on the charge of disrupting public order when they were founded holding banners urging government officials to disclose their assets. These incidents reflect the
Chinese governments dual approach to bringing about transparency in government.
Though the Chinese central government has come up with an anti-graft drive and
information disclosure initiative, it is not very accommodative of the public demand
for the same (AsiaOne News 2014). No law can be successful until it has the support
and participation of the citizens. Liu (2011: 10) has argued that there is need for a
well-informed citizenry. There is need for continuous peoples pressure on the government agencies so that they implement these regulations properly and disclose
the required information on time. Another important task before the government
for the implementation of these regulations is to provide the required infrastructure
(Suzanne et al. 2009). Governments need to utilise information technology to integrate
the task of information disclosure with government websites so that the problem of
duplication of demands for the same information can be addressed and the disclosure
procedure can be made more transparent.
As stated before, OGI regulations are merely regulations and do not possess the
attributes of laws which can be enforced by the judiciary. In the event of contradictions
between a regulation and a law, it is the law that takes precedence over the regulation.
For instance, any information being asked is vulnerable to be denied by resorting to
the law on state secrets. There is a need to make it a law so that it would be taken more
seriously by the government and administrative bodies.
The 2014 guidelines provide for six important mechanisms to strengthen the
infrastructure of the OGI system. These guidelines call for strengthening of information disclosure training, implementation of mechanisms for recognising the source
of information being disclosed, strengthening of the construction of mechanisms to
examine the secrecy of the information to be disclosed, mechanisms for updating
China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

138

Renu Rana

the information disclosure catalogue, strengthening various aspects of OGI such as

inspection, social appraisal, accountability, supervising and guaranteeing information disclosure and strengthening of the construction of institutions and staff
responsible for information disclosure. These guidelines, however, fail to provide
an effective redressal mechanism in case of refusal of information disclosure by
any administrative agency. In the case of countries like India, where the Right to
Information Act has been used by a great number of citizens and activists, there is
provision for redressal which has helped to keep information disclosing authorities
more responsive to the peoples demands for information; there is no such mechanism
in the case of Chinas OGI regulations.
In order to make OGI a success, therefore, it is necessary to establish a mechanism
to look into the issue of refusal of information by government agencies. Though these
guidelines provide for mechanisms to examine the secrecy of information to be released,
there is no information about an institutional body which might examine the validity
of the bases for refusal of information by disclosure agencies. The establishment of
such a body with the greater involvement of the judiciary and ordinary citizens would
strengthen the OGI system.
The most important task before the government in reforming the freedom to
information regulations is to revise some other laws which are in contradiction to
the regulation of OGI such as State Secret Law,9 Archives Law 1988,10 and 2005
Civil Servants Law. There is need to provide more appropriate and exact definition
of some terms such as state secrets. The Chinese government needs to maintain a
balance between secrecy and transparency so that state secret laws are not an obstacle
in ensuring transparency in government.

Conclusion

The new guidelines of 2014 do not actually lead to broadening of the OGI regulation
in terms of areas of information to be disclosed. Yet, these guidelines contribute to
the process of making OGI more accessible to the people by emphasising the establishment of monitoring authority and strengthening system infrastructure. Robert
Williams (2014) comments that the Chinese government is selectively expanding
freedom of information in the wake of reforms introduced in various laws including
9
The Law on Guarding State Secrets (enacted in 1989, revised in 2010) defined state secrets broadly,
to encompass matters that affect the security and interests of the state and, as specified by legal procedure,
are entrusted to a limited number of people for a given period of time. These state secrets include secrets
concerning major policy decisions on state affairs, secrets in national economic and social development
and secrets of political parties that conform with the provisions of the preceding clause of this Article
(Liu 2011).
10
At the state level, the average term of declassification of a document kept by the State Archives is
30 years.

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

139

OGI regulations and steps announced at the Fourth Party Plenum, while keeping tight
control over freedom of expression, judiciary and other constituents of transparency
process in any country.
Making OGI into a law might lead to a far more effective and transparent government but this seems to be a distant prospect considering the rate of progress in
freedom of information in China. Though OGI presents a weak freedom of information initiative compared to other countries where the right to information has been
implemented such as US, India and some European countries, it provides a platform
for increased citizens participation in governance and transparency if we look at the
long history of the secrecy culture in policymaking in China. OGI in China and Right
to Information (RTI) in India came up around same time. RTI was enacted in 2005
in India whereas OGI regulations were passed in 2007. Despite being different political systems, the aim of information disclosure initiatives in both countries is similar:
disclosure of government information. Both have similar rules on the procedures for
applying for information disclosure.
Despite these similarities, RTI and OGI are different in nature, scope and implications. The OGI emerged in China as part of a bottom-up process11 initiated not
by civil society but by government bodies (Murugkar and Xu 2012). Though the
journey of the Right to Information Act in India also started at the bottom level, the
actors here were civil society members and organisations12 with both the government
and judiciary later playing important roles in enacting the law. The RTI in India is a
formal law passed by Parliament whereas OGI in China is merely an administrative
regulation. The scope of RTI includes information from all the public institutions
including administration, legislative and judiciary as well as organisations funded
by government and independent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) whereas
OGI provides information only from administrative organs. RTI in India has very
few and clearly defined exemptions from information disclosure. Any information,
which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,
strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead
to incitement of an offence; which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any
court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
which would cause a breach of privilege of parliament or the state legislature; which
include commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, which would
harm the competitive position of a third party; cabinet papers including records of
deliberations of the council of ministers, secretaries and other officers; which would
11
OGI was first passed as local administration regulations and laws by provincial level governments,
then after 20 years gaps was introduced at central level by State Council.
12
These include, for instance, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) movement in Rajasthan
in 1993, Consumer Education and Research Council, Ahmedabad (CERC) in 1993 but no serious
considerations were given to these efforts until MKSS movement gave rise to the National Campaign on
Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI) which led to central government in India giving a serious thought
to this campaign.

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

140

Renu Rana

impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders etc.,

would be deemed unfit for disclosure on Right to Information Act (Xu 2008). In case
of non-disclosure, reasons have to be provided by the authorities.
In China, there are many exemptions from release which are not even clearly defined
as state secrets, such as confidential commercial information, protecting an individuals
privacy, etc (Horsley 2009: 02). The redressal mechanism in case of RTI is very strong.
The reply has to be provided within a stipulated time and there is provision for penalty
in case any official is found guilty of not implementing the RTI whereas there is no
such provision in the case of OGI. Despite the fact that information disclosure initiatives were taken in China in the 1980s by local governments and in India this started
only in the middle of 1990s, the number of applications demanding information filed
annually in India and the amount of information provided by the government is very
high compared to China.
This comparison of information disclosure initiatives in China and India has
significance in trying to assess the success of information disclosure laws in any country. The nature of a political system cannot in itself be considered an obstacle in the
path towards greater transparency of public institutions and processes. Rather it is a
combination of both state structure and social awareness and participation that can
lead to the success of any initiative that aims to bring about transparency. Though the
information disclosure structure in India is not devoid of shortcomings, it clearly is
far ahead of OGI. This can be attributed to active civil society participation, judicial
independence and other factors.
The OGI guidelines issued in March 2014 and the new steps introduced at the
Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC13 in October
2014 provide hope for a better future of OGI regulations in China but a mere set of
guidelines and targets cannot lead to change unless implemented properly. With the
increased level of awareness among citizens about information disclosure mechanisms
in China, the government also needs to introduce improved mechanisms for performance monitoring so that it leads not only to more transparency in the government but
also to mitigation of increasing public grievances. The issuing of new guidelines for
better implementation of OGI does reflect the new governments desire to promote
accountability and transparency. Improving and deepening of the scope of information
by defining the bases of exemption and more positive involvement of the government
should result in better governance, an improved climate for the market and a check
on corruption and might provide greater legitimacy to the Chinese government. If
implemented properly with the required modifications, OGI can complement the
anti-corruption campaign and result in a more open China.
13
During the Fourth Party Plenum, the Chinese government focused on building a law-abiding
government and promoting transparency of government affairs. However, PRC government emphasised
that the general target is to form a system serving the socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics
and build a country under the socialist rule of law (Xinhua 2014).

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

141

References
AsiaOne News. 2014. China Jails Anti-graft Trio: Lawyer, 19 June, http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/
china-jails-anti-graft-trio-lawyer (accessed on 26 June 2014).
Anderlini, Jamil. 2014. Xi Jinpings Anti-corruption Drive in China Takes Autocratic Turn, Financial
Times, 23 June, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9b645f40-fac1-11e3-8959-00144feab7de.html
(accessed on 26 June 2014).
Branigan, Tania. 2013. Xi Jinping Vows to Fight Tigers and Flies in Anti-Corruption Drive, The Guardian,
23 January, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/22/xi-jinping-tigers-flies-corruption (accessed
on 26 June 2014).
Caragliano, David. 2012. Chinas Transparency Reforms: Is It For Real?, The Atlantic, 6 November, http://
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/chinas-transparency-reform-is-it-for-real/264609/
(accessed on 17 June 2014).
China Daily. 2012. China Pledges Unremitting Efforts to Combat Corruption, 8 November, http://www.
chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-11/08/content_16091580.htm (accessed on 25 September 2014).
China Law Center, Yale Law School. n.d. Open Government Information, http://www.law.yale.edu/
intellectuallife/openinformation.htm (accessed on 17 June 2014).
. 2008. Regulations of the Peoples Republic of China on Open Government Information, 1 May,
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Ch_OGI_Regualtions_Eng_Final_051607.
pdf (accessed on 17 June 2014).
Finder, Susan. 2014a. Open Government Litigation in China-an Oxymoron?, Supreme Peoples Court
Monitor, 13 September, http://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2014/09/13/supreme-peoples-courtissues-10-typical-open-government-information-litigation/ (accessed on 17 September 2014).
. 2014b. How China Classifies State Secrets, Supreme Peoples Court Monitor, 23 December, http://
thediplomat.com/2014/12/how-china-classifies-state-secrets/ (accessed on 25 December 2014).
Government of the Peoples Republic of China. 2010. Law of the Peoples Republic of China on Guarding
State Secrets, translated by HRIC, http://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/law/20101001statesecretslaw-en.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2014).
. 2014a. 2014 Regulations on the Implementation of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China
on Guarding State Secrets, translation by James Horsley, China Law Centre at Yale, with modification
by HRIC, http://www.hrichina.org/en/implementation-regulations/2014-regulations-implementationlaw-peoples-republic-china-guarding-state (accessed on 26 December 2014).
. 2014b. Interim Provisions on Management of State Secrets Classification, State Secrecy Bureau,
9 March 2014, https://chinaspc.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/classification-regulations-translation.pdf
(accessed on 26 December 2014).
Horsley, P. Jamie. 2007a. China Adopts First Nationwide Open Government Information Regulations, The
China Law Center, Yale Law School, 9 May, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/
Ch_China_Adopts_1st_OGI_Regulations.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2014).
. 2007b. Toward a More Open China?, in Ann Florini (ed.), The Right to Know: Transparency
For An Open World. New York: Columbia University Press, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/
Intellectual_Life/CL-OGI-Toward_More_Open-English.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2014).
. 2009. Some Thoughts on Typical Exemptions from Government Information Disclosure,
The China Law Center, Yale Law School, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/
CL-OGI_Horsley_Some_Thoughts_on_Typical_Exemtions_from_Govoernment_Information_
Disclosure_2009.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2014).
. 2014. China Deepens Its Disclosure Regime, 4 April, The China Law Center, Yale Law School,
http://www.law.yale.edu/images/IntellectualLife/Freedom_Info.pdf (accessed on 17 June, 2014).
Kaiman, Jonathan. 2014. China Upholds Four Year Sentence of Activist Xu Zhiyong, The Guardian, 11
April, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/china-upholds-sentence-activist-xu-zhiyong
(accessed on 26 June 2014).

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

142

Renu Rana

Kaiser, Tod and Liu Rongkun. 2009. Taking the Pulse: The One-Year Anniversary of Chinas Open
Government Information Measures, August, A China Environmental Health Project Research Brief, http://
www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/taking-the-pulse-the-one-year-anniversary-chinas-open-governmentinformation-measures (accessed on 26 June 2014).
Liu, Wenjing. 2011. Approaching Democracy through Transparency: A Comparative Law Study on
Chinese Open Government Information, American University International Law Review, Vol. 26, No.
4, 9831007, http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1720&context=auilr
(accessed on 17 June 2014).
Lo, Alex. 2014. Jailing of Xu Zhiyong a Disgrace, South China Morning Post, 28 January, http://www.
scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1415313/jailing-xu-zhiyong-disgrace (accessed on 26 June
2014).
Murugkar, Milind and Xu Zhiyong. 2012. Stepping towards Transparency: Indias Right to Information
Act and Chinas Open Government Information Regulation, India China Institute, http://
indiachinainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SteppingTowardsTransparency-REVIEWERREADY.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2014).
National Peoples Congress. 2004. Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China, http://www.npc.gov.cn/
englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm (accessed on 17 June 2014).
Oster, Shai. 2014. President XIs Anti Corruption Biggest since Mao, Bloomberg, 4 March, http://www.
bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/china-s-xi-broadens-graft-crackdown-to-boost-influence.html
(accessed on 26 June 2014).
Snell, S. Rick and Xia Weibing. 2007. Freedom of Information Returns to China, Public Administration
Today (Jan-March 2007). http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/CL-OGI-SnellWeibing-English.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2014).
State Council of China. 2007. Regulations of the Peoples Republic of China on Open Government
Information, 5 April, 2007, effective 1 May, 2008. The China Law Center, Yale Law School, http://
www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Ch_OGI_Regualtions_Eng_Final_051607.pdf
(accessed on 17 June 2014).
. 2014. Main Points for 2014 Government Public Information Work, 17 March.
Supreme Peoples Court. 2011. Provisions for Several Issues Concerning Hearings of Administrative
Cases Related to Government Information Disclosure, http://chinaelectionsblog.net/ogi/wp-content/
uploads/2013/03/SPC-Interpretation-of-Open-Government-Information-Regulation.pdf (accessed
on 27 December 2014).
Suzanne, J. Piotrowski, Yahong Zhang, Weiwei Lin and Wenxuan Yu. 2009. Key Issues for Implementation
of Chinese Open Government Information Regulations, 1 December, Public Administration Review,
http://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/publications/Piotrowski%20et%20al%20PAR%20
Dec%202009.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2014).
Tatlow, K. Didi. 2014. Chinese Government Expands Freedom of Information, New York Times, 2
April, http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/chinese-government-expands-freedom-ofinformation/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 (accessed on 3 May 2014).
Williams, Robert. 2014. Chinas Transparency Two-Step: Reform and Control in the Wake of the Fourth
Plenum, November, http://journal.georgetown.edu/chinas-transparency-two-step-reform-and-controlin-the-wake-of-the-fourth-plenum/ (accessed on 27 December 2014).
Xinhua. 2013. Xi Jinping Vows Unswerving Fight Against Corruption, 22 January, http://news.xinhuanet.
com/english/china/2013-01/22/c_132119843.htm (accessed on 18 September 2014).
. 2014. Highlights of Communique of 4th Plenary Session of CPC Central Committee, 23
October, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-10/23/c_133737957.htm (accessed on 29
November 2014).
Xu, Zhiyong. 2008. Comparing Information Openness in China and India, 20 May, http://www.eeo.com.
cn/ens/Observer/2008/05/20/100365.html (accessed on 11 September 2014).

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143

Chinas Information Disclosure Initiative: Assessing the Reforms

143

Zhao Zhengqun. 2014. New Progress of Open Government Information in China (20122014)With a
Series of Documents Released by the General Office of the State Council as a Clue, translated by Zhang
Meichang, The China Law Center, Yale Law School, http://www.law.yale.edu/images/IntellectualLife/
Zhao_Zhengqun_New_Progress_of_OGI2012-2014.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2014).

China Report 51, 2 (2015): 129143