Reproduced below are excerpts from the 28 June 2010 Kuala Lumpur High Court decision that the SYABAS water concession agreement can be made public. The complete grounds of judgment can be read here.
Disclose or ...
1. Perjanjian Konsesi tersebut dikategorikan sebagai “SULIT” …
2. Pemohon-pemohon tiada hak untuk mendapat akses ke atas perjanjian tersebut kerana Pemohon-pemohon tiada priviti kepada perjanjian.
3. Laporan Audit dikategorikan sebagai “RAHSIA” berdasarkan fakta bahawa ia telah dibentangkan dan diputuskan dalam Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri … dokumen tersebut merupakan dokumen “RAHSIA” di bawah seksyen 2A Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972.
4. Pemohon-pemohon juga tidak mempunyai lokus standi untuk mengambil tindakan ini terhadap Responden-Responden.
1. Peruntukan sulit dalam Perjanjian Konsesi tidak mengenepikan atau menghadkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah ini dalam apa cara pun. Selanjutnya priviti kontrek bukanlah fakta yang relevan untuk dipertimbangkan.
2. Tiada bukti Laporan Audit dibentangkan di hadapan Kabinet pada tarikh berkenaan.
3. Laporan Audit tidak terletak di bawah lingkungan Jadual di bawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972.
4. Penzahiran awam Laporan Audit dan segala maklumat yang terkandung di dalamnya tidak dapat membahayakan sekuriti Negara. Sebaliknya maklumat itu berhak diakses oleh warganegara kerana ia mempengaruhi kepentingan mereka.
5. Pemohon-Pemohon mempunyai locus standi atas alasan:
(a) Pemohon-Pemohon tinggal dalam kawasanyang dibataskan oleh Perjanjian Konsessi.
(b) Pemohon-Pemohon memerlukan dan menggunakan air untuk keperluan asas mereka.
(c) Perjanjian Konsessi meletakkan hak pembekalan air yang dirawat secara eksklusif kepada “SYABAS”.
(d) Pemohon-Pemohon tidak mempunyai akses kepada air yang dirawat kecuali melalui SYABAS untuk keperluan hidup mereka. SYABAS telah memperolehi monopoli ke atas pembekalan air didalam kawasan yang dibataskan. Dengansendirinya, Pemohon-Pemohon adalah pelanggan yang berbayar bagi SYABAS.
….
…, I agree with learned counsel for the applicants’ contention that the applicants are persons “adversely affected” and not “busy bodies, cranks and other mischief makers” with the decision of the 1st respondent. Each and every applicant is a paying water consumer within the area covered by the concession agreement.
With SYABAS now in monopoly over the distribution of treated water in the concession area, the applicants do not have an alternative access to treated water. If the water tariff is increased and they have to pay more money for water, they have no real choice to refuse to pay because there is no alternative supplier of water available. In addition thereto, water being essential for life is part of a constitutional right which can be implied under the Federal Constitution. … I, therefore hold the applicants have established they had a locus standi to bring this action.
Essentially there are two issues :
1. Whether the Applicants can be said to be adversely affected by the decision of the 1st Respondent and therefore have a locus standi to bring this action?
2. Whether disclosure of both the documents are detrimental to the national security or public interest?
…
To sum up, the 1st respondent’s refusal to disclose the Concession Agreement and the Audit Report was made without taking into consideration the legitimate expectation of a member of the public who are affected in the decision making process to be treated fairly. The respondents’ decision to allow privatisation of water service and arbitrary increases to the tariff and at the same time invoking the Official Secret[s] Act is disproportionate not only to the aim of the Official Secret[s] Act but also runs counter to the principle of good governance, accountability, transparency and “the interest of the rakyat should come first”. Failure to comply with these principles will inevitably result in this court giving an order compelling the respondents to do so.(emphasis by LB)
For those reasons, I allowed this application with cost.
LB: SYABAS!
Read this first: LB Terms of Use
Pingback: Mempersoalkan Mahasiswa | LoyarBurok