Hong Kong’s government watchdog has removed decades’ worth of annual and investigative reports, as well as other documents, from its website, saying the move is for “more effective website management.”
Apart from annual reports and investigation reports, the Office of the Ombudsman also removed mediation examples and press releases dated earlier than 2023 from its website.
The Ombudsman’s website currently only shows investigation reports and press releases from April 2023 onwards, while the earliest available mediation examples are dated September 2024.
An archived version of the Ombudsman’s website shows that investigations dating back to 2013-14 were still accessible as of at least January.
Only two annual reports – for the years 2023-24 and 2022-23 – are now available on the website, while previously, annual reports dated as far back as 2003-04 were accessible.
The Ombudsman’s page on cases relating to the government’s Code on Access to Information now redirects users to its Direct Investigation Operations page.
In an emailed reply on Friday, the Ombudsman said, “To maintain accuracy and make available the latest and relevant reports for public information as well as for more effective website management, we have refreshed the content to include information on the latest three years.”
According to the Ombudsman, it will retain and not delete published information, while requests for information not included on the website should be made in writing to the office.
It did not elaborate on the procedure for requesting information.
‘Must be properly preserved’
Addressing the Ombudsman’s move, former secretary for the civil service Patrick Nip said on Friday that good governance “emphasises transparency, public engagement, and accountability.”
“Reports and surveys published by government bureaux and departments, public organisations, and independent commissions are important references,” he said in a Facebook comment replying to veteran journalist Lam Miu-yan’s post on the Ombudsman’s decision.
“Unless there are special reasons, they must be properly preserved and made easily accessible to the public,” Nip added.
Lam herself said she understood that departments and organisations would revise their websites now and then, “but when choosing what to keep, they should retain information of significant reference value to the public, so that the public can browse it free of charge at any time.”
“Even if some information has to be cut to ‘make room,’ it seems excessive to cut records down to three years,” she said.
Lawmaker Gary Zhang shared Lam’s post, saying that the Ombudsman, as a “gatekeeper” for the government’s code, should aim beyond the statutory requirement when it comes to matters involving access to information.
“I really cannot think of any reason that can justify deleting the previous reports,” he said.
