The 2010 OECD Investment Policy Review contains a quite comprehensive assessment of Indonesia’s regulatory and investment policy. For those of you who areinvestment lawyers, Chapter 2 discusses in depth, Indonesia’s  implementation of international investment principles. Other aspects such as competition policy, infrastructure, and corporate governance were also addressed. A sneak peak of the book is available in Google Books . The book dedicate a sub chapter on water infrastructure (ch 5.6) and cited my newspaper Article (Indonesia Needs a Strong Water Services Law). The analysis on water related investment is not really in depth, but it agrees that vague laws and regulations could be a deterring factor for foreign investment in this sector. The book’s executive summary is available for a free download, but the complete hard and soft copy versions are not free.

What do whistleblowers, transparency fighters, file sharing activists and defectors have in common? They may all possess the same personality trait: a rejection of authority. According to Esther Dyson in project syndicate:

But you probably need to be a bit weird and callous to devote your life to transparency for others. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the imprisoned ex-CEO of what was Russia's largest oil company, is another example of a flawed, uncompromising person who challenged the flawed people in power and their unaccountability. Such people do not die for our sins; Rather, they sin on our behalf, so that we may live comfortably while they afflict the authorities at great personal risk and in disregard of (authorities' interpretation of) the law and sometimes even ethics.

Information is always used to impose and safeguard an established authority. Because knowledge is power, only the priest are allowed to read the scriptures. This is evident in the ancient Mayan civilization who restricts the ability of reading and writing into a small circle of elite class. The spread of the printing press in the European history allows the Bible to be studied by commoners and along with Luther’s writings, paves the way to protestanism, ending the Catholic church monopoly to human salvation in the Christian world. 
Within the psyche of these leakers – whistleblowers, journalists, spies-- whatever you wish to call them, is the hidden desire to achieve some sort of equilibrium and a resentment to authority. These people are anarchists.

The Jakarta Post reported several months ago, that the State Audit agency (BPK) cease the publication of companies financial audit report due to blackmailing concerns. According to the article:

The Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) has stopped publishing online reports, to the dismay of freedom of information proponents. The agency said the state institutions it audited had complained that it was “too open”. BPK provided reports through the Internet even before the 2008 Law on Freedom of Information was implemented this year.

….

But reports of blackmail prompted the agency to close the online access, requiring information seekers to submit official letters to obtain a hard copy of reports. A public relations staffer of BPK, who requested anonymity, said, “The state institutions have been complaining that we were too open.” “[The institutions] said the reports had been used to blackmail them,” the source said recently.

Why fear blackmail if you are right? One of the possible reason is the corruption witch-hunt. The eradication of corruption in Indonesia is somewhat turning into a witch-hunt (a colleague in the UK is researching this for his Ph.D in Anthropology). Dealing with KPK and the Prossecutor office is cumbersome. This provides a disincentive for being transparent.

How do we handle this? Well, we need to provide more incentive for being more transparent. Transparency should not be used only for displaying the rotten apples of an organization, but also in highlighting the hidden jewels. This is what expert called a ‘targetted transparency’, which are conducted through, among other, publication of performance target benchmarked against certain a set of indicators.

 
Img source:mediaindonesia.com

In the wake of wikileaks, the Australian government recently issued a booklet titled “The Insider’s Threat to Business: A Personnel Security Handbook”. The booklet elaborate precautionary approaches that a business organization may employ in order to prevent the leak of confidential business information.

One of the legal method to prevent leaks (this is not explained in the booklet) is through the signing of employee confidentiality agreement. My research however indicates that the power of confidentiality agreements differs across jurisdiction. In the common law jurisdiction, confidentiality carries more weight due to the operation of obligation of confidence under the English equity law. The obligation of confidence protect the imparting of information in a ‘trust’ environment, such as between a doctor and its patient, or between a employer and employee. As such, the obligation may be enforced irrespective of agreement.

This is not the situation in continental legal system. I have yet to find any obligation to keep secret, independently of an agreement. Hence, an employee signing confidentiality agreement in a continental jurisdiction will be bound only to the extent of the agreement. When he decide to disclose the information one day, it would amount simply to a breach of (an employment) contract.

Determination of access level and the use of Digital Rights Management are therefore the most appropriate precaution. You will find some details about this in the booklet.