More documents have been declassified, but the debacle surrounding the declassification underlines the importance of making all documents available to the public, away from the politicking that has surrounded the bridge controversy.
The controversy was unnecessary. If the documents had been public from the start, the current Prime Minister's position would have been, by and large, uncontested. The secrecy was what fed the controversy, what gave the former PM the opportunity to claim wrong-doing by the current administration.
A similar debacle resulted from the Approved Permits issue. Something became an issue because of secrecy. Had the secrecy not existed, there would have been no controversy.
So there are two options for the PM to prevent a recurrence of this scandal. He can employ a clarivoyent. The fortune-teller will be able to tell him, in advance, which documents need to be declassified to prevent political challenges to his position. Or he can declassify as many documents as possible.
While the seer option has undoubtedly got more class, the comprehensive declassification of documents relating to contracts and tenders is more likely to yield results. The question then is who decides which documents are revealed, and which documents should remain classified.
The current system puts control of the documents under those most likely to have reason to keep them classified. This undermines the credibility of information when it is released as well as minimising the possibility of detecting corruption.
Credibility is undermined because the release of information can be politically timed, material can be hidden and it is possible not to release all pertinent information. It may be the truth and nothing but the truth, but the general public have no way of telling whether it is the whole truth, or not.
The information, complete or otherwise, can also be manipulated for maximum political advantage. And it will only be released if it is in the interests of the person who decides on the declassification. This is particularly obvious in the dispute over sand, sovereignty and the crooked bridge. Dr M's allegations fall flat when Abdullah has released the information. Partly because we are all convinced that he would not have released it, if it had been in any way incriminating.
At the same time, there is some information that should not be made public as soon as it is gathered. For example, if there is a police investigation on, it's in society's best interests that the police can keep it secret. At least while it is going on.
So, again, who gets to decide what information should be made public and what shouldn't? In the UK, this is the job of an independent Information Commissioner. If a member of the public is denied access to information, and they aren't happy that the reasons given are valid, they appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner will investigate the validity of the secrecy. If it is for one of the reasons defined by law as being allowed, the information remains a secret. If it is being withheld for personal interest or gain, the information is released. Short-term bad publicity gives way to long-term accountability and respect.
The Information Commissioner is also given the power to fine individuals for NOT releasing information. This means that if you refuse a request for information, and the Commissioner is not satisfied that you had valid reasons for withholding the information, you, personally, can be held responsible. There is no passing the buck. If you have to get the request approved, then the person denying the request is responsible. This also implies a default setting of 'transparent', because you can be punished for secrecy.
If this was put into place, through a freedom of information act, it would be a major step towards combatting corruption, but it would also safeguard the PM from malicious yet unfounded attacks on his administration.
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Tell us more
The current spate between the current and the former Prime Ministers could be easily resolved. Just show us the files. Abdullah did it with the Approved Permits, there seems little reason not to follow that precedent. Because until we see the files, it's going to be the word of one heavyweight against the word of the other. And the general public is going to end up losing faith not only in them but also in the system, a system which seems systematic only in its failure to prevent its own abuse.
Politically, both men are being wounded by the posturing. But only Abdullah has the power to stop the pain, and to ensure that similar issues are not exploited for political ends in future. Its the power to initiate and bring into being legislation.
Abdullah isn't in an easy position. His best friends are eyeing him with distrust, the NGOs he has so assiduously courted are concerned that they are seeing too few results. The only institutional change that is on the books is the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) and some recent changes to the Legal Professions Act, there's little new in terms of tackling corruption, protection for whistle-blowers, or even, administratively, making it easier for political NGOs to register as non-profit societies rather than companies. And the actions that we see belie the words. Rather than liberalisation of religion, the State is intruding further into people's private lives. Books and films are being banned, sometimes in extraordinary ways. The administration claims to be inviting criticism, but then has taken action against the most vocal of the critics, the Chinese media. And he's suffering a legitimacy deficit. We all know how he came to power. It wasn't through the will of the people, or even the will of Umno, but the will of Dr Mahathir. Now that support, that fount of his legitimacy, has been withdrawn.
But, as said before, he is holding the trump. He is the one in power. After years of centralising affairs into the office of the PM, Dr Mahathir is now suffering from a lack of Parliamentary sovereignty.
One of the first things Abdullah has to do, is show us, not just tell us, that he is right. Show us the papers, show us the agreements. And then show us just how different your regime is. Agree to allow all future, and past, documents to come under the spotlight. Disarm not only this conflict, but any other conflicts that this or any other rival might instigate.
This can be done through a Freedom of Information Act. It empowers the citizen, not just the politician, to ask informed questions of their elected representatives. No more political mileage could be made over the Approved Permits, MAS, Matrade or sand for Singapore. If Dr Mahathir alleges that bad deals have been struck, we'll be able to look into the archives and agree, or not. Neither Abdullah nor Mahathir (nor Daim, Rafidah, Anwar or anyone else) will be able to hide behind the Official Secrets Act.
This is not just vital to breaking Mahathir's stride (and assuring that, if all Abdullah's administration says is true, he won't be able to get into stride again). It is also vital for the PM to show that he is serious about his election promises, serious about tackling corruption, about openness and transparency. Because right now, the civil servant is only ever penalised when they reveal information, when they act on the Government's pledge to be transparent and open. They aren't penalised for keeping secrets. A Freedom of Information Act reverses this, providing incentives for transparency and openness, and lifting the veil on corruption and secrecy.
If Abdullah wants Dr Mahathir to run out of ammunition, and places that stock it, this initiative would be equivalent to permanent disarmament.
Politically, both men are being wounded by the posturing. But only Abdullah has the power to stop the pain, and to ensure that similar issues are not exploited for political ends in future. Its the power to initiate and bring into being legislation.
Abdullah isn't in an easy position. His best friends are eyeing him with distrust, the NGOs he has so assiduously courted are concerned that they are seeing too few results. The only institutional change that is on the books is the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) and some recent changes to the Legal Professions Act, there's little new in terms of tackling corruption, protection for whistle-blowers, or even, administratively, making it easier for political NGOs to register as non-profit societies rather than companies. And the actions that we see belie the words. Rather than liberalisation of religion, the State is intruding further into people's private lives. Books and films are being banned, sometimes in extraordinary ways. The administration claims to be inviting criticism, but then has taken action against the most vocal of the critics, the Chinese media. And he's suffering a legitimacy deficit. We all know how he came to power. It wasn't through the will of the people, or even the will of Umno, but the will of Dr Mahathir. Now that support, that fount of his legitimacy, has been withdrawn.
But, as said before, he is holding the trump. He is the one in power. After years of centralising affairs into the office of the PM, Dr Mahathir is now suffering from a lack of Parliamentary sovereignty.
One of the first things Abdullah has to do, is show us, not just tell us, that he is right. Show us the papers, show us the agreements. And then show us just how different your regime is. Agree to allow all future, and past, documents to come under the spotlight. Disarm not only this conflict, but any other conflicts that this or any other rival might instigate.
This can be done through a Freedom of Information Act. It empowers the citizen, not just the politician, to ask informed questions of their elected representatives. No more political mileage could be made over the Approved Permits, MAS, Matrade or sand for Singapore. If Dr Mahathir alleges that bad deals have been struck, we'll be able to look into the archives and agree, or not. Neither Abdullah nor Mahathir (nor Daim, Rafidah, Anwar or anyone else) will be able to hide behind the Official Secrets Act.
This is not just vital to breaking Mahathir's stride (and assuring that, if all Abdullah's administration says is true, he won't be able to get into stride again). It is also vital for the PM to show that he is serious about his election promises, serious about tackling corruption, about openness and transparency. Because right now, the civil servant is only ever penalised when they reveal information, when they act on the Government's pledge to be transparent and open. They aren't penalised for keeping secrets. A Freedom of Information Act reverses this, providing incentives for transparency and openness, and lifting the veil on corruption and secrecy.
If Abdullah wants Dr Mahathir to run out of ammunition, and places that stock it, this initiative would be equivalent to permanent disarmament.
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Falling down
The May tragedy at Hulu Kelang left at least four dead and over 200 people homeless. It should never have happened.
Virgin rainforest provides almost complete cover from rain – very little moisture reaches the forest floor. Forest flora is thirsty, it hoards the water as it falls from the sky, capturing it in leaves, in the nest of ferns, in pitcher plants and a host of other flora. What reaches the forest floor lands on debris, the litter of decaying plant matter, and only slowly seeps into the earth. Despite the ferocity of tropical storms, erosion tends towards zero.
As we clear the forest, we discard this protective net and the earth becomes vulnerable. Which in turn makes us vulnerable. We're more vulnerable than in areas where the earth is safe, unassaulted. We cannot follow European standards of managing development and hope for the best. We have to be better than them, because we are more vulnerable to landslides, flooding and even earthquakes.
But we're not. The mismanagment of development has left us increasing vulnerable. Safety and security are intangible assets, they cannot be taxed and they cannot be siphoned off into the pockets of the corrupt. It doesn't make them worthless.
Whether corruption has been responsible for the successive landslide tragedies that have happened under the jurisdiction of Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya will be revealed only through transparent investigation. But it is clear that environmental and safety guidelines were compromised. There is blood on the hands of the municipal council, and not for the first time. They neglected their responsibilities, whether for personal gain or for the increased status and revenue that accrues from developed areas. Trees don't pay the same rates as people. There was no incentive not to develop. Even the word 'develop' implies a positive.
And nothing that the public could do could stop them.There was no process, no reason for the council to be accountable to the public. This has to change if we want to prevent another tragedy. The intangible security that the public can feel, or the resulting intangible insecurity, need to figure in the calculations of the local council. And public fears and hopes need to be based on facts, not on a confection of PR and misinformation.
This requires a number of changes. Councillors need to be accountable to their constituents. Local elections could ensure this. Councils need to be accountable to residents. More open planning and approval processes are needed. The residents need to be able to guard against the evils of corruption, they need the information and political will to do so. And the Department of Environment needs to be able to carry out its functions without fear or favour. It needs to have resources for enforcement, and there needs to be respect for the DoE's remit. It cannot be continually sidestepped in the interests of 'development'.
It is a tall order. It is one that requires us to rethink not only our relationship with our local councils, but also that we, as citizens, as residents, take responsibility for the mishaps around us. We won't be able to blame others for the tragedies that occur, we will have to take responsibility for our own dereliction of duty. It requires rethinking our use of the word 'development', of 'wealth', so that they include the intangible benefits that come from not tearing down forests, stripping our land of its natural assets, assets that protect and benefit us all. But if we want to sleep safe, if we are tired of reading death and destruction through preventable disasters, it is an order that needs to be filled.
Virgin rainforest provides almost complete cover from rain – very little moisture reaches the forest floor. Forest flora is thirsty, it hoards the water as it falls from the sky, capturing it in leaves, in the nest of ferns, in pitcher plants and a host of other flora. What reaches the forest floor lands on debris, the litter of decaying plant matter, and only slowly seeps into the earth. Despite the ferocity of tropical storms, erosion tends towards zero.
As we clear the forest, we discard this protective net and the earth becomes vulnerable. Which in turn makes us vulnerable. We're more vulnerable than in areas where the earth is safe, unassaulted. We cannot follow European standards of managing development and hope for the best. We have to be better than them, because we are more vulnerable to landslides, flooding and even earthquakes.
But we're not. The mismanagment of development has left us increasing vulnerable. Safety and security are intangible assets, they cannot be taxed and they cannot be siphoned off into the pockets of the corrupt. It doesn't make them worthless.
Whether corruption has been responsible for the successive landslide tragedies that have happened under the jurisdiction of Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya will be revealed only through transparent investigation. But it is clear that environmental and safety guidelines were compromised. There is blood on the hands of the municipal council, and not for the first time. They neglected their responsibilities, whether for personal gain or for the increased status and revenue that accrues from developed areas. Trees don't pay the same rates as people. There was no incentive not to develop. Even the word 'develop' implies a positive.
And nothing that the public could do could stop them.There was no process, no reason for the council to be accountable to the public. This has to change if we want to prevent another tragedy. The intangible security that the public can feel, or the resulting intangible insecurity, need to figure in the calculations of the local council. And public fears and hopes need to be based on facts, not on a confection of PR and misinformation.
This requires a number of changes. Councillors need to be accountable to their constituents. Local elections could ensure this. Councils need to be accountable to residents. More open planning and approval processes are needed. The residents need to be able to guard against the evils of corruption, they need the information and political will to do so. And the Department of Environment needs to be able to carry out its functions without fear or favour. It needs to have resources for enforcement, and there needs to be respect for the DoE's remit. It cannot be continually sidestepped in the interests of 'development'.
It is a tall order. It is one that requires us to rethink not only our relationship with our local councils, but also that we, as citizens, as residents, take responsibility for the mishaps around us. We won't be able to blame others for the tragedies that occur, we will have to take responsibility for our own dereliction of duty. It requires rethinking our use of the word 'development', of 'wealth', so that they include the intangible benefits that come from not tearing down forests, stripping our land of its natural assets, assets that protect and benefit us all. But if we want to sleep safe, if we are tired of reading death and destruction through preventable disasters, it is an order that needs to be filled.
Saturday, April 1, 2006
Pumping it up
The prices of goods in my local shops is not going up. The servings are, instead, getting smaller. It's a cunning way of getting round restrictions on inflation, but one that leaves a sour flavour in my throat.
However, I've not been one of those demonstrating outside KLCC. Weaning the nation off petrol subsidies is long overdue. Subsidising petrol is bad for the environment, bad for public transport, bad for the roads. Bad policy generally. The temptation to join the chanting mob does come, however, whenever I read the justifications for the price increase and the plethora of projects announced to sweeten the sour.
First off there is the obviously overdue investment in public transport. Melts like honey, until the bee sting of the contract award comes to light, at least of one of the contracts. Closed tender by Keretapi Tanah Melayu, awarded to a company majority-owned by the Prime Minister's son. The defence was that of urgency. And there is an urgency about it. But surely equally urgent is the need to rebuild the people's faith in our institutions. And urgent need to account for every ringgit of money spent. Especially when over 47 million of them are being spent all at once.
Abdullah's appeals for us to trust him that the people will benefit from the petrol price rise are wearing thin.
Second, there was the announcement of the National Automotive Policy. If we're investing in public transport to get cars off the road, where's the sense in bringing down car prices? If a justifiable motive for this is to address income inequality (in line with our pro-poor Ninth Malaysia Plan), why is it that larger, more expensive car buyers (read, the rich) benefit disproportionately? And within days, questions are once again raised about how the Approved Permits are being awarded, and the disproportionate number going to Naza Motors.
Then there is the problem of Petronas profits. Not knowing how that money has been spent over the years, the populace seem reluctant to allow it leeway now. And each day seems to bring new revelations of financial mismanagement, or at a least of a lack of transparency, to light. The latest being a slew of allegations made by a Sarawakian opposition MP Chong Chieng Jen, who reminded the public of a variety of scandals that have plagued Barisan Nasional, the most recent being the MAS buy-out.
How can these problems be solved? Firstly, had the Government announced its spending plans, for public transport in particular, prior to the announcement of petrol price hikes, it might have saved itself some bad publicity. Second, it needs to show in actions, not just words, that it is pro-poor. The Ninth Malaysia Plan sounds good, but if the experience of the National Automotive Policy is any indicator, when the poor receive benefits with one hand, there are two hands giving out benefits to the rich.
But most important, the public need to have confidence that their money is being spent wisely and in their interests. The accounts need to be made public, the contracts need to be awarded in an open and transparent fashion. Only then will the Government's appeals for the people to trust it fall on something other than deaf ears.
However, I've not been one of those demonstrating outside KLCC. Weaning the nation off petrol subsidies is long overdue. Subsidising petrol is bad for the environment, bad for public transport, bad for the roads. Bad policy generally. The temptation to join the chanting mob does come, however, whenever I read the justifications for the price increase and the plethora of projects announced to sweeten the sour.
First off there is the obviously overdue investment in public transport. Melts like honey, until the bee sting of the contract award comes to light, at least of one of the contracts. Closed tender by Keretapi Tanah Melayu, awarded to a company majority-owned by the Prime Minister's son. The defence was that of urgency. And there is an urgency about it. But surely equally urgent is the need to rebuild the people's faith in our institutions. And urgent need to account for every ringgit of money spent. Especially when over 47 million of them are being spent all at once.
Abdullah's appeals for us to trust him that the people will benefit from the petrol price rise are wearing thin.
Second, there was the announcement of the National Automotive Policy. If we're investing in public transport to get cars off the road, where's the sense in bringing down car prices? If a justifiable motive for this is to address income inequality (in line with our pro-poor Ninth Malaysia Plan), why is it that larger, more expensive car buyers (read, the rich) benefit disproportionately? And within days, questions are once again raised about how the Approved Permits are being awarded, and the disproportionate number going to Naza Motors.
Then there is the problem of Petronas profits. Not knowing how that money has been spent over the years, the populace seem reluctant to allow it leeway now. And each day seems to bring new revelations of financial mismanagement, or at a least of a lack of transparency, to light. The latest being a slew of allegations made by a Sarawakian opposition MP Chong Chieng Jen, who reminded the public of a variety of scandals that have plagued Barisan Nasional, the most recent being the MAS buy-out.
How can these problems be solved? Firstly, had the Government announced its spending plans, for public transport in particular, prior to the announcement of petrol price hikes, it might have saved itself some bad publicity. Second, it needs to show in actions, not just words, that it is pro-poor. The Ninth Malaysia Plan sounds good, but if the experience of the National Automotive Policy is any indicator, when the poor receive benefits with one hand, there are two hands giving out benefits to the rich.
But most important, the public need to have confidence that their money is being spent wisely and in their interests. The accounts need to be made public, the contracts need to be awarded in an open and transparent fashion. Only then will the Government's appeals for the people to trust it fall on something other than deaf ears.
Friday, February 10, 2006
It’s Open Season
The most unlikely people seem to be making calls for openness and transparency. First off, there was former finance minister Daim Zainuddin and more recently we’ve had a call from UMNO Youth to open up records. MAS has declared a whistleblower policy. And Suhakam has reiterated its commitment to a Freedom of Information Act.
In Daim’s case it is easy to see the rationale behind his request: self-interest. He claims that he was acting under orders from Cabinet in his Metramac dealings. Cabinet minutes, however, are under the Official Secrets Act. There is good reason for this. No single minister is responsible for the decisions of Government – it is the Cabinet as a whole that takes responsibility for the collective decisions.
This allows ministers to voice their opinions freely, without fearing that they will be seen to be contradicting official policy. It is in this way, in theory, that Cabinet can arrive at the best possible decisions.
The problem here isn’t, however, that we don’t know who says what in Cabinet. It’s that we don’t know what decisions were reached, or what the rationale behind those decisions was. It is this secrecy that has (according to him) led Daim into his current straits. It also has a direct impact on the average citizen – we don’t know what decisions are being made in our name and we don’t know why. If Daim’s moves were indeed directed by Cabinet, what possible justification could be given?
UMNO Youth, in contrast, was asking for the opening up of names of those receiving money from the Medical Aid Fund. Here there is no obvious reason for secrecy. The Ministry of Health can only benefit from opening the fund to scrutiny. If all is in order, the Ministry will be praised. If there is mismanagement, the Ministry will be seen to be rectifying it. By keeping the records secret, the Ministry instead gives the impression that it has something to hide.
Both these cases reveal the importance of regulations to ensure openness and transparency. If Daim’s allegations are true, his character has been much maligned. If they’re false, then our previous Cabinet is being much maligned – along with our systems of governance.
The whistleblower protection policy in MAS is a positive step. These moves need to be taken and replicated in Government departments and other corporations, and for legal recognition to be given to the importance of whistleblowers. The fear is that this will fuel calls for a stand-alone Whistleblowers Protection Act. Without a Freedom of Information Act, this would be a farce – a whistleblower would be protected under one piece of legislation for releasing information which would land him in jail under the Official Secrets Act. Whistleblower protection needs to form part of a comprehensive regime of transparency.
Which brings us finally to Suhakam’s timely call. We look forward to their own adoption of these principles!
Under a Freedom of Information Act, malpractices, or the malicious rumours that malpractice is occurring, would be revealed as a matter of course. Without political interference or impetus.
In Daim’s case it is easy to see the rationale behind his request: self-interest. He claims that he was acting under orders from Cabinet in his Metramac dealings. Cabinet minutes, however, are under the Official Secrets Act. There is good reason for this. No single minister is responsible for the decisions of Government – it is the Cabinet as a whole that takes responsibility for the collective decisions.
This allows ministers to voice their opinions freely, without fearing that they will be seen to be contradicting official policy. It is in this way, in theory, that Cabinet can arrive at the best possible decisions.
The problem here isn’t, however, that we don’t know who says what in Cabinet. It’s that we don’t know what decisions were reached, or what the rationale behind those decisions was. It is this secrecy that has (according to him) led Daim into his current straits. It also has a direct impact on the average citizen – we don’t know what decisions are being made in our name and we don’t know why. If Daim’s moves were indeed directed by Cabinet, what possible justification could be given?
UMNO Youth, in contrast, was asking for the opening up of names of those receiving money from the Medical Aid Fund. Here there is no obvious reason for secrecy. The Ministry of Health can only benefit from opening the fund to scrutiny. If all is in order, the Ministry will be praised. If there is mismanagement, the Ministry will be seen to be rectifying it. By keeping the records secret, the Ministry instead gives the impression that it has something to hide.
Both these cases reveal the importance of regulations to ensure openness and transparency. If Daim’s allegations are true, his character has been much maligned. If they’re false, then our previous Cabinet is being much maligned – along with our systems of governance.
The whistleblower protection policy in MAS is a positive step. These moves need to be taken and replicated in Government departments and other corporations, and for legal recognition to be given to the importance of whistleblowers. The fear is that this will fuel calls for a stand-alone Whistleblowers Protection Act. Without a Freedom of Information Act, this would be a farce – a whistleblower would be protected under one piece of legislation for releasing information which would land him in jail under the Official Secrets Act. Whistleblower protection needs to form part of a comprehensive regime of transparency.
Which brings us finally to Suhakam’s timely call. We look forward to their own adoption of these principles!
Under a Freedom of Information Act, malpractices, or the malicious rumours that malpractice is occurring, would be revealed as a matter of course. Without political interference or impetus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
