About

Share

About the Index

Asian Parliamentary Openness Index (APOI) is an assessment tool developed by the Asian Alliance for Parliamentary Openness (AAPO), a regional network of parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) in Asia-Pacific, to assess their respective parliaments on openness, transparency, accountability, and citizen participation.

The main objective of the index includes establishing internationally recognised standards and providing a benchmark for evaluating Asia-Pacific parliaments’ openness, probing into both regional and national gaps, and providing independent, evidence-based assessments from a civic standpoint. The index also doubles as an advocacy mechanism for network members to push policy reforms based on nationally comparable evidence.

3 dimensions

The index consists of three dimensions for thematic assessment.

Openness on Information

Examines how proactively a parliament discloses comprehensive legislative, financial, administrative, and procedural data in accessible formats. Key indicators cover session proceedings, schedules, and voting records; draft laws and budget documents; MP profiles and parliamentary spending; and legal frameworks for freedom of information.

Openness on Accountability

Examines the extent to which individual legislators are held responsible for ethical conduct and the legislative institution remains answerable to the public for its governance and laws. Key indicators cover MP integrity mechanisms (codes of conduct, asset disclosures, and conflicts of interest), pre- and post-legislative scrutiny of laws, and systemized handling of public queries.

Openness on Citizen Participation

Examines the extent to which citizens can meaningfully engage in and express their opinions about parliamentary processes. Key indicators cover physical and digital access (including disability accessibility standards) and public consultation mechanisms across all stages of the legislative lifecycle.

Index structure

Dimension
Dimension relevance
Indicator
Question

Each dimension breaks down into relevances, each relevance into indicators, and each indicator into one or more questions — the level at which every chamber is actually scored. Scores roll back up the same hierarchy to produce indicator, dimension, and overall results.

Who is this for

NGOs & civil society

Plan advocacy activities and prioritize reform efforts using indicator-level evidence.

Parliamentarians & staff

Identify institutional shortfalls and strengthen parliamentary openness practices.

Academics & researchers

Analyze relationships between parliamentary openness, governance quality, democratic health, and public trust.

The press

Report on transparency gaps to raise public awareness and hold parliaments accountable.

Methodology

Scope and objectives

Effective democratic governance requires that legislatures operate with meaningful openness and accountability to the citizens they represent, yet the extent to which parliaments meet these standards often remains difficult to assess in a systematic, comparable manner. The Asian Parliamentary Openness Index (APOI) addresses this gap by providing a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of parliamentary openness across Asia along three core dimensions: access to information, accountability mechanisms, and citizen participation. The Index is designed to serve as both a diagnostic instrument and an advocacy tool, enabling Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations (PMOs) and other stakeholders to ground reform demands in verifiable, cross-nationally comparable evidence.

Methodological foundations

The APOI indicator framework builds on three established international precedents. The Latin American Index for Legislative Transparency (LAILT) , administered by the Latin American Network for Legislative Transparency, served as the primary methodological reference, providing the foundational architecture for APOI's design and demonstrating how a shared assessment standard can be constructed across a politically diverse region. The Africa Open Parliament Index contributed further insight drawn from the experience of building cross-national indicators across African countries with diverse democratic trajectories. The Inter-Parliamentary Union's Parline database — covering over 190 national parliaments globally — informed both the thematic scope of the indicators and serves as a global baseline for contextualising APOI findings. Directorio Legislativo of Argentina was engaged as international advisor, providing technical guidance on adapting these frameworks to the Asian regional context.

Indicator co-construction process

APOI's indicators were developed through a participatory co-construction process. Beginning in November 2024, member organisations engaged in structured monthly online deliberations over nearly one year, submitting written inputs in advance of each session via a standardised online form. Each meeting was dedicated to one dimension of the framework. In September 2025, members convened in Tokyo, Japan for an in-person consensus workshop to complete the first draft of the indicator set. Subsequent monthly meetings refined the indicator language and questionnaire design, with the framework formally finalised in June 2026.

Assessment framework and scoring

The APOI framework comprises three dimensions and 32 indicators. Dimension One — Openness on Information (22 indicators) — examines the proactive disclosure of meeting agendas, session recordings, verbatim transcripts, members' voting records, MP salaries and allowances, draft bills, budget documents, parliamentary expenditure, and the existence of a freedom of information framework. Dimension Two — Openness on Accountability (3 indicators) — assesses public disclosure of members' assets, conflicts of interest, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny of laws, and formal channels for tracking public queries. Dimension Three — Openness on Citizen Participation (7 indicators) — evaluates formal mechanisms for citizen engagement across the legislative process and the physical and digital accessibility of parliamentary resources.

Each indicator is worth 1 mark, except for one indicator in the Openness on Information dimension, which is worth 3 marks. A full score is awarded when an indicator's requirements are fully met, a score of 0 when they are not met at all, and an intermediate score when they are only partially fulfilled. Certain items may include response options that do not apply to a given country's context; in such cases, the item is excluded from calculation and marked as "N/A." This graduated approach captures meaningful distinctions across the full range of openness, generating actionable diagnoses for reform.

De facto assessment approach

A defining methodological principle of APOI is its focus on de facto practice rather than de jure provision. While many legislatures operate within frameworks that nominally guarantee transparency, significant gaps frequently exist between formal obligations and actual implementation. APOI distinguishes three categories of transparency deficit, each implying a distinct reform pathway: where neither legal requirement nor practice exists, foundational legislation is required; where provisions exist but are not implemented, the priority is enforcement; and where good practice lacks legal backing, entrenchment is needed to safeguard against political regression.

Survey implementation and dissemination

In each country, the assessment is carried out by local PMOs or independent think tanks, with academic experts engaged to verify and validate the findings. All responses are derived exclusively from publicly available information. Critically, APOI is not a parliamentary self-assessment; it constitutes an independent, external evaluation from a civic standpoint, providing an objective appraisal of actual parliamentary openness.

Findings are published in an inaugural report, first launched at an international press conference in Bangkok, Thailand in 2026, with subsequent editions released on a regular cycle, designed to support peer learning and evidence-based advocacy. Cross-national comparison enables parliaments to identify areas of comparative strength for regional knowledge exchange, while surfacing clear priorities for reform. AAPO believes that structured, evidence-informed dialogue among Asian parliaments transforms the pursuit of openness into a collective regional endeavour. Beyond Asia, APOI aspires to serve as a bridge connecting PMOs across Asia, Latin America, and Africa — facilitating dialogue and mutual learning among the three regional transparency indices and contributing to a broader global movement towards legislatures that are more open, more transparent, and more genuinely accountable to the people they serve.

Assessment cycles

Every 2 years, during July–August.

Result: 2026

Submit Your Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the accuracy, relevance, and usability of the index. You can submit feedback in one of the four categories below. Please provide as much detail as possible so the relevant team can review and respond appropriately.

Feedback form

1. Feedback on a country’s index score

Choose this option if you believe the index score for a specific country does not accurately reflect the current situation or available evidence.

You may submit feedback if you believe that:

  • The score does not reflect the reality of the country.
  • The score or underlying information appears to be incorrect or inaccurate.
  • The score or supporting data needs to be reviewed or revised.
  • You have relevant information or evidence that may help clarify the assessment.

What happens next?

Your feedback will be shared with the responsible survey respondent for the country concerned. They will review the information and, where appropriate, recheck the assessment and make adjustments through the relevant review process.

2. Feedback on index questions, indicators, or methodology

Choose this option if your feedback concerns how the index is designed, measured, or calculated rather than the score of a particular country.

This includes feedback on:

  • An index question or assessment criterion.
  • A specific indicator within a dimension.
  • Whether an indicator is relevant to the scope of its dimension.
  • Whether a question or indicator is applicable across different countries.
  • Whether an assessment criterion is realistic or practical to apply.
  • The methodology or calculation used to determine scores.

What happens next?

Your feedback will be shared with the AAPO Leading Committee, which is responsible for overseeing and improving the index. The committee will review the feedback and may discuss, propose, or revise the questions, indicators, or methodology to ensure that the index remains relevant, practical, and reflective of conditions across different country contexts.

3. Feedback on the website and user experience

Choose this option if you encounter an issue with the website or have suggestions for making it easier and more intuitive to use.

This includes feedback about:

  • Website functionality or technical issues.
  • Problems with displaying data, scores, charts, or other content.
  • Incorrect or unclear text displayed on the website.
  • Website behaviour or responsiveness.
  • Suggestions for improving the overall user experience.

What happens next?

Your feedback will be sent to the website development team for review. The team will investigate the issue and, where appropriate, make improvements to provide a more accessible, intuitive, and user-friendly experience.

4. Other feedback

Choose this option if your feedback is important but does not clearly fit into any of the categories above.

You can use this category for:

  • Issues or concerns that fall outside the other feedback categories.
  • Suggestions or observations about the index or website that you believe are important to share.
  • Other matters that may require attention from the AAPO or website teams.

What happens next?

Your feedback will first be reviewed by the website development team. The team will assess the issue and forward it to the person, team, or committee best placed to address it.

Thank you for helping us continuously improve the index and make it more accurate, relevant, and useful.

About Contributors

Asian Alliance for Parliamentary Openness (AAPO)

We are a regional network of civil society organizations committed to parliamentary monitoring and democratic advocacy across the Asia-Pacific. Together, we have launched the Asian Parliamentary Openness Index (APOI), a collaborative initiative designed to assess and promote transparency within parliaments throughout the region.

contact@aapo-apoi.com
Beyond monitoring, we actively promote civic participation, encouraging citizens to engage with parliamentary processes and contribute to democratic governance. By fostering dialogue between the public, parliaments, and legislators, we aim to bridge the gap between institutions and society.

Our initiatives include regional transparency surveys, civic tech tools, public campaigns, and capacity-building efforts—all designed to make parliaments more accessible and understandable to the people. We believe that an open parliament, shaped by both institutional cooperation and active public involvement, is key to building public trust and strengthening democracy across Asia.

Our team

Our members bring diverse strengths, including expertise in parliament monitoring, civic technology, data visualization, and public policy advocacy. Through these combined skills, we work collectively to push for more open and accountable legislative bodies.

Indonesia

Indonesian Parliamentary Center (IPC)

Indonesian Parliamentary Center is an independent non-governmental organization based in Indonesia, committed to promoting parliamentary reform, democratic deepening, and active citizen participation. Since its establishment, IPC has worked to enhance transparency, accountability, and the quality of legislation, aiming to build a more open and responsive parliamentary system.

igedeokaa@gmail.com

Indonesia

Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia / Indonesian Centre for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK)

The Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK) is a research and advocacy institution dedicated to legal reform in Indonesia, with a particular focus on legislation, justice and civic space. In the field of legislation, PSHK carries out three main activities, namely legislative monitoring, legislative assessment, and legislative drafting.

bugivia.maharani@pshk.or.id

Japan

PoliPoli

PoliPoli Inc. (Japan) — a private civic technology company operating a policy platform connecting citizens, legislators and government agencies. PoliPoli provided factual information and contextual input for the Japan section. It does not conduct parliamentary monitoring, and its contribution should not be understood as an institutional evaluation or endorsement of the Index or its findings.

takuya.nakaizawa@polipoli.io

Malaysia

MYMP

MyMP aims to make learning about Malaysian MPs fun and interactive. They collect more data than ever before and present it in creative, engaging ways. Their project features 8-bit avatars for each MP and an RPG-style stat system, based on objective data and observations from volunteers at MCCHR, Sinar Project, and Undi18.

chak@mymp.org.my

Malaysia

Sinar Project

Sinar Project is a civic tech initiative using open technology, open data and policy analysis to systematically make important information public and more accessible to the Malaysian people. It aims to improve governance and encourage greater citizen involvement in the public affairs of the nation by making Parliament and Malaysian Government more open, transparent and accountable.

sam@sinarproject.org

Mongolia

National Center for Comprehensive Development (NCCD)

The National Center for Comprehensive Development (NCCD) is an independent Mongolian civil society organization established in 2011. It promotes parliamentary transparency, accountability and citizen participation through research, monitoring and evidence-based advocacy. Since 2021, NCCD has worked to improve public access to parliamentary information. It operates UIH.mn, a civic information platform that provides accessible information on parliamentary activities and helps citizens monitor their elected representatives. NCCD also leads the Right to Know campaign, advocating for public access to Members' voting records, legislative information and greater parliamentary accountability. Its work combines independent monitoring, public engagement and institutional reform advocacy.

Enkhbadral@nccd.mn

Philipines

Legal Network for Truthful Elections (LENTE)

The Legal Network for Truthful Elections (LENTE) is a non-partisan network of lawyers, law students, paralegals, and grassroots volunteers working to promote electoral integrity and meaningful democratic participation in the Philippines. In the Bangsamoro region, LENTE monitors parliamentary transparency, accountability, participation, and accessibility, while engaging Members of Parliament, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders to strengthen parliamentary rules, procedures, and practices. LENTE also conducts election monitoring, voter education, and electoral reform advocacy to promote transparent, accountable, and inclusive democratic institutions.

lente.philippines@gmail.com

South Korea

The Center for Freedom of Information and Transparent Society (CFOI)

The Center for Freedom of Information and Transparent Society (CFOI) is a civil society organization based in South Korea, working to advance the public's right to know and promote government transparency and accountability. We advocate for legislative reform of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), campaign for more democratic and transparent decision-making, and disclose information through data projects. Through our OpenWatch project, CFOI leads citizen-driven monitoring of South Korea's National Assembly and all 243 local assemblies, collecting and publicly releasing data on elected officials' backgrounds, political funding, and conflict-of-interest disclosures.

joeun@opengirok.or.kr

Sri Lanka

Verité Research (Pvt) Ltd

Verité Research is an independent interdisciplinary think-tank which aims to be a leader in the provision of information and strategic analysis. It contributes actively to research and dialogue in the fields of economics, politics, governance, media and legal practices. It operates Manthri.lk, a unique parliamentary monitoring platform, which uses an impartial coding system to score and rank MP performance - helping make parliament more relevant, answerable and transparent.

Buddima@veriteresearch.org, Faiqah@veriteresearch.org, Tasha@veriteresearch.org

Taiwan

Citizen Congress Watch (CCW)

CCW founded in 2007, is a coalition of 48 organizations dedicated to supervising the legislature, promoting transparency, and improving congressional culture. Through legislator scorecards, public forums, press initiatives, and volunteer training, CCW advocates for a more accountable, efficient, and ethical parliament focused on serving the public good.

ccw@ccw.org.tw / policyshuo@ccw.org.tw

Thailand

WeVis

WeVis is a PMO based in Thailand. We are a civic technology group aiming to empower people to meaningfully participate in politics through technology and open data.
Our parliamentary monitoring and civic partivipation tools include: Parliament Watch https://parliamentwatch.wevis.info , Open Budget https://openbudget.wevis.info/ , Dream Con https://dreamcon.wevis.info

team@wevis.info

Academic and technical partners

Asian Civil Society Research Network

The Asian Civil Society Research Network is an international collaborative academic initiative dedicated to advancing the study of civil society across the Asia-Pacific region. Moving beyond Eurocentric frameworks of liberal individualism, the network re-conceptualizes civil society through the diverse cultural, historical, and political realities of Asian societies. It examines multifaceted dynamics, ranging from democratic solidarity and regionalization to authoritarian and illiberal challenges. Led by Professor Akihiro Ogawa at the University of Melbourne, the network fosters cross-disciplinary collaboration and produces impactful scholarship, including a recognized Routledge book series that captures the varieties and transformations of contemporary Asian civic life.

akihiro.ogawa@unimelb.edu.au

University of Melbourne Research Cluster on Asian Civil Society

The Research Cluster on Asian Civil Society at the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute employs an interdisciplinary approach to examine the dynamically expanding role of civil society across contemporary Asia. Moving beyond Western frameworks, the cluster investigates how distinct cultural values, traditions, and political environments shape state-society relations and influence regional policies. Working closely with the Asian Civil Society Research Network, its scholars explore pressing issues ranging from grassroots activism and transnational networks to authoritarian constraints and human rights advocacy. Through high-impact research, journal special issues, and influential edited volumes, the cluster fosters critical insights into Asia's diverse civic landscapes.

akihiro.ogawa@unimelb.edu.au

Directorio Legislativo (DL)

Directorio Legislativo (DL) is a Latin American non-partisan, non-profit organization committed to strengthening democratic institutions by promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. DL works to strengthen PMO alliances across the globe, fostering regional cooperation and advancing parliamentary openness and civic engagement as essential components of democratic progress.

jkrahl@directoriolegislativo.org

Supporters

We sincerely appreciate every contribution that makes our work possible.

  • Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project (LP250200541), 2026–2029, Project: Guarding Asia’s Democratic Pillars Against Backsliding
  • Social Science Research Council (SSRC) Abe Fellows Network Collaborative Grant, 2025, Project: Empowering Asian Legislatures: A Transparency Initiative Leveraging Japan’s E-Government Expertise
  • National Democratic Institute (NDI), Strengthening Parliament Monitoring Efforts in the Asia-Pacific Region (CCW-PMO Network Program), 2024–2025
  • Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD), 2026, Asian Alliance’s Advocacy For Open Parliament In Thailand
  • Open Society Foundation (OSF), 2026-2029, Advocacy Program: Empowering Parliamentary Openness & Constitutional Dialogue