AP in arms again

The Prime Minister has done the honourable - possibly the only - thing and released the list of Approved Permit recipients. Hurray for him. Full disclosure is the buzzword.

Yet nobody seems happy.

The former Prime Minister says the list is incomplete, the current one asking the Minister for International Trade and Industry to publish everything. Nobody trusts the list to be full, nobody believes that Rafidah Aiz and others in power have nothing to hide.

The root of the problem is the secrecy that has surrounded the issuing of APs. To dispel the air of conspiracy, one quick airing of information is not proving to be enough. The taste is merely giving both public and politicians an appetite.

The public, and the politicians, know that they had no right to the AP list. A moral right, perhaps, but there is no legal right that allows the public to know who benefits, and who doesn't, from the AP system. It hardly counts as a flow of information, more a seepage. Because even if the AP system - for cars, at any rate - is completely above board, even if there are no unworthy recipients, if all those that receive the permits have proven their ability, it doesn't mean that there aren't other systems being abused. Or that information, even on APs, isn't being hidden.

Unless the public has the right to this information, and to other information about how individuals and companies are benefiting from government contracts, the public will remain justifiably suspicious about those who appear to be benefiting from close relations with ministers and senior civil servants rather than their own ability.

The only way to defuse the situation is not to let the public know everything about the AP awards. It is to let the public know everything about every contract or award that is awarded by a public body, how those decisions were made, when, why and how much the contracts or awards were worth.

The decision to reveal this information needs to be taken out of the hands of those who stand to lose from these revelations. It needs to given to the rakyat as a matter of course.

This is the basis of the first principle for freedom of information legislation, which states:

"The government should pass a comprehensive freedom of information law based on the right to information which establishes the principle of maximum disclosure. Access to information is a basic necessity and right, not a luxury, indispensable to the aim of Malaysia to become an information society.

The right to information is relevant to all members of society and their concerns."

The implication is that it would not be the Prime Minister’s or Rafidah's decision to disclose information. The information would automatically be in the public realm.

As the Prime Minister has said, withholding the information only creates "a negative perception". And the basis for that negative perception is because the only reason to withhold the information is to protect those receiving APs.

Why do these people need protecting? If they have legitimately worked to achieve this status, if there is a reasonably equitable distribution of permits, if there is no rent-seeking going on, then there is no need for them to be protected.

It is only if there is something underhand occurring that there is a need for secrecy. There was never any reason for the AP awardees list to be a secret. The question is, how many similar pieces of information are waiting for disgruntled politicians to ask searching questions, before the public learns the truth?

With a Freedom of Information Act, the public no longer needs to depend upon the whims and interests of ministers, but can act as a check upon them. As it should be.