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.