📋 Tender Overview
Amending the Law on Access to Information is not just about amending the sentences but also about changing the management mindset from the mindset of distributing information to the mindset of serving information. Information transparency is the key to building peoples trust in the Party and State, a premise for controlling power and repelling corruption. Download The National Assembly discussed the Access to Information Law Project (amended). Meeting in plenary session at the Hall this morning (April 12), the National Assembly discussed the Access to Information Law Project (amended). Basically agreed with the need to comprehensively amend the law in the context of strong digital transformation, information no longer only exists in the form of documents, records, and paper documents but increasingly exists in the form of digital data, shared databases, and related data. Many people believe that amending the law this time is not just about amending a law on procedures for providing information, but about perfecting the legal foundation for open and transparent governance in the digital era. Information transparency is the key to building peoples trust. Delegate Hoang Thi Thanh Thuy (Tay Ninh delegation) said that the biggest concern for this bill is to handle the harmonious relationship between state management on issues of security, safety and public rights. about transparency and access. The protection of state secrets and information security with citizens right to access information is a dialectical relationship. From the perspective of the conflict between confidentiality and transparency, the wider the information prohibited zone will invisibly narrow peoples access to information. In fact, in recent times there have been cases where individuals, organizations and agencies have abused the protection of State secrets to become an excuse to limit citizens access to information, reducing openness, transparency, democratic rights, peoples supervision and avoiding accountability. From the above analysis, Delegate Hoang Thi Thanh Thuy stated Clearly, amending the Law on Access to Information is not just a matter of changing the wording, but of changing the management mindset from the mindset of distributing information to the mindset of serving information. Information transparency is the key to building peoples trust in the Party and State, a premise for controlling power and repelling corruption. This is also an important driving force in unlocking resources, promoting progress and social justice, creating stability for the countrys development in the new era. Information disclosure in the digital environment must be considered the main method. In principle of exercising the right to access information, in Clause 3, Article 3 of the draft stipulates that the provision of information must be in accordance with the order and procedures prescribed by law, promote the application of information technology, digital transformation, and enhance the provision of information. in the digital environment, ensuring the provision of timely, transparent and convenient information for citizens, referring to this content, delegate Nguyen Thi Viet Nga (Hai Phong delegation) emphasized that unlike some National Assembly delegates who are concerned that the application of information technology can become a barrier for people, this regulation only stops at the orientation level, showing the spirit of promoting and strengthening but does not create clear enough legal obligations. Meanwhile, if we have determined to build a digital State, disclosing information in the digital environment must be considered the main method, not just an encouragement method. The delegate proposed studying and amending Clause 3, Article 3 to better emphasize the responsibility of disclosure in the digital environment, at least for information groups subject to mandatory disclosure according to Article 17 of this law. Regarding cases where citizen information is not accessible in Article 15 of the draft, the delegate believes that this is a very important clause because it is directly related to the boundary between ensuring the right to access information and restricting this right. In Clause 4, Article 15, the draft stipulates that in cases where the law does not stipulate, based on practical conditions, the head of the agency or unit is responsible for considering and deciding on the provision of information. Delegate Nguyen Thi Viet Nga was concerned with this regulation, because Clause 4, Article 3 of the draft itself clearly defines that restricting the right to access information must be prescribed by law. If the law does not stipulate it but assigns it to the head of the agency to consider and decide, in reality it will easily lead to a situation where the agency both holds the information, self-evaluates, and decides whether to provide it or not; Such a design is not very strict. From there, the delegate proposed to review Clause 4, Article 15 in the direction of minimizing the subjective decision space of the agency with information, and where necessary, there must be clearer criteria and stricter control mechanisms. Also in Article 15, Clause 5, which regulates information that belongs to work secrets determined by agencies and units according to the provisions of law, the delegate said that the concept of work secrets is currently not very clear, has not been regulated in the legal system, and can easily become a gray area to expand the scope of information that cannot be provided; We request the drafting agency to continue to clarify or review to avoid overlap, duplication, or even excessive expansion compared to the legal system onprotect state secrets. Regarding the quality of public information in Article 17 of the draft, some delegates speaking at the discussion said that the current issue is not only what to disclose but also how to disclose it so that people can actually access and use the information. In fa
