Wednesday, July 18, 2007
FOI Website
we have a new Freedom of Information Coalition website in the works; keep checking back here for updates!
Sunday, April 8, 2007
In An Ideal Situation
In an ideal situation when policies affecting citizens are drafted there would be reseach & disscussions with rmembers of the public, NGOs or MPs would have a copy of bills to be tabled in parliment, right? Well, I soon realised anyone possesing any proposed bills, although it might be just a few days before it is tabled in parliment, would be liable to be charged under the OSA.
You see, I had been trying to find information regarding the government's proposed foreign workers bill, but after checking with a few NGOs, I couldn't find any information regarding this bill which the government had earlier announced to be tabled in parliment. When I approached a Parliment MP, Fong Po Kuan, she is aware about this bill but she too do not have details of the bill.
“Most of the time, MPs don’t have earlier information about proposed bills, until the bills are tabled on the day at the Parliament. The government rarely consult MPs before bills are tabled”, she said.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
VC
You see, I had been trying to find information regarding the government's proposed foreign workers bill, but after checking with a few NGOs, I couldn't find any information regarding this bill which the government had earlier announced to be tabled in parliment. When I approached a Parliment MP, Fong Po Kuan, she is aware about this bill but she too do not have details of the bill.
“Most of the time, MPs don’t have earlier information about proposed bills, until the bills are tabled on the day at the Parliament. The government rarely consult MPs before bills are tabled”, she said.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
VC
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wong: Press freedom will lead to country being better run
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/3/23/parliament/17229528&sec=parliament
Parliament
Friday March 23, 2007
AN MP has called for the setting up of a select committee to promote freedom of the press and to reform laws that restrict them.
Wong Nai Chee (BN-Kota Melaka) said the committee’s role would be to see the extent of press freedom in the country, rationalise existing laws that overlap with other laws and review the provision that allows the minister to revoke the permits of media firms.
In supporting the motion of thanks to the King for his royal address, Wong cited the Printing and Presses Act, Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and the Internal Security Act as having overlapping provisions and restricting the media.
“These laws create a situation of media self-censorship. Too many of these laws also cause a situation where the newsroom can receive calls from people, including politicians, advising them to do something or face having their permits revoked,” he said.
Wong added that the time had come for there to be a direction for press freedom in Malaysia and said he was not calling for absolute freedom but for the media to project the real situation in the country, without fear or favour.
“The acid test for media freedom is in the reporting of political and economic news, which tend to be more controversial and can paint a less favourable picture of the Government,” he said.
Media freedom, he said, would create an open society and allow accurate information to be disseminated, so that the country could be better administered.
At this point, Mohd Said Yusof (BN-Jasin) stood up and said that a major English newspaper was the only paper that did not report the opening of the Parliament meeting by the King on Monday but instead highlighted a lock-up report.
“I am perplexed because this paper did not respect the event in the August House that was officiated by the King,” Mohd Said said.
In response, Wong said: “This is part of media freedom, for the newspaper to freely choose its news item. There is no problem as long as the report is accurate.”
On the right to information, he said that public documents such as Environment Impact Assessment reports and toll agreements should be open to public scrutiny.
However, he said, this should not include documents on national defence, national security, international relations, Cabinet and state exco documents, enforcement of law and public order and personal data.
Parliament
Friday March 23, 2007
AN MP has called for the setting up of a select committee to promote freedom of the press and to reform laws that restrict them.
Wong Nai Chee (BN-Kota Melaka) said the committee’s role would be to see the extent of press freedom in the country, rationalise existing laws that overlap with other laws and review the provision that allows the minister to revoke the permits of media firms.
In supporting the motion of thanks to the King for his royal address, Wong cited the Printing and Presses Act, Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and the Internal Security Act as having overlapping provisions and restricting the media.
“These laws create a situation of media self-censorship. Too many of these laws also cause a situation where the newsroom can receive calls from people, including politicians, advising them to do something or face having their permits revoked,” he said.
Wong added that the time had come for there to be a direction for press freedom in Malaysia and said he was not calling for absolute freedom but for the media to project the real situation in the country, without fear or favour.
“The acid test for media freedom is in the reporting of political and economic news, which tend to be more controversial and can paint a less favourable picture of the Government,” he said.
Media freedom, he said, would create an open society and allow accurate information to be disseminated, so that the country could be better administered.
At this point, Mohd Said Yusof (BN-Jasin) stood up and said that a major English newspaper was the only paper that did not report the opening of the Parliament meeting by the King on Monday but instead highlighted a lock-up report.
“I am perplexed because this paper did not respect the event in the August House that was officiated by the King,” Mohd Said said.
In response, Wong said: “This is part of media freedom, for the newspaper to freely choose its news item. There is no problem as long as the report is accurate.”
On the right to information, he said that public documents such as Environment Impact Assessment reports and toll agreements should be open to public scrutiny.
However, he said, this should not include documents on national defence, national security, international relations, Cabinet and state exco documents, enforcement of law and public order and personal data.
Tighten the reins on concessions
theSun Says
Tighten the reins on concessions
Updated: 05:03PM Thu, 22 Mar 2007
Now it is known: Road users have paid a whopping RM23.656 billion in tolls since 1988, when the first highway was commissioned.
Without doubt, this information, in Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy
Vellu's written reply to Teresa Kok (DAP - Seputeh) in the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday, has been a long time coming.
So, it certainly marks a milestone in public access to information, after
the long-standing clamour of the people to be told why they have been
saddled with highway concession agreements that are so generous to the concession holders.
Therein lies the rub: it boggles the mind that road users will be paying
toll for using the North-South Expressway, for example, until 2038, although the collection of RM15.91 billion to date has already exceeded the construction cost of the highway by 2.7 times.
Surely this is ridiculously in excess of any incentive that the private
sector needs for relieving the government of the financial burden of
infrastructure development.
It, therefore, needs to be emphasised that the authorities cannot afford to be so liberal with their responsibility for delivering the fruits of
development to the people.
This is especially so when higher transportation costs are borne directly by the road-using public and indirectly when the people pay a higher price for costlier goods and services.
The injustice is compounded when commuters are forced to use high-cost private transport because the public transport system does not deliver reliability and convenience.
All said, the revelation on road tolls merely re-emphasises the need for a much more stringent control over privatisation. The alternative, i.e.
transferring the costs to the consuming public, cannot claim legitimacy
without a truly open and accountable consultation with the fee-paying
public.
Tighten the reins on concessions
Updated: 05:03PM Thu, 22 Mar 2007
Now it is known: Road users have paid a whopping RM23.656 billion in tolls since 1988, when the first highway was commissioned.
Without doubt, this information, in Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy
Vellu's written reply to Teresa Kok (DAP - Seputeh) in the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday, has been a long time coming.
So, it certainly marks a milestone in public access to information, after
the long-standing clamour of the people to be told why they have been
saddled with highway concession agreements that are so generous to the concession holders.
Therein lies the rub: it boggles the mind that road users will be paying
toll for using the North-South Expressway, for example, until 2038, although the collection of RM15.91 billion to date has already exceeded the construction cost of the highway by 2.7 times.
Surely this is ridiculously in excess of any incentive that the private
sector needs for relieving the government of the financial burden of
infrastructure development.
It, therefore, needs to be emphasised that the authorities cannot afford to be so liberal with their responsibility for delivering the fruits of
development to the people.
This is especially so when higher transportation costs are borne directly by the road-using public and indirectly when the people pay a higher price for costlier goods and services.
The injustice is compounded when commuters are forced to use high-cost private transport because the public transport system does not deliver reliability and convenience.
All said, the revelation on road tolls merely re-emphasises the need for a much more stringent control over privatisation. The alternative, i.e.
transferring the costs to the consuming public, cannot claim legitimacy
without a truly open and accountable consultation with the fee-paying
public.
We'll lose out without US trade deal
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/64769
Mar 20, 07 4:28pm
Malaysia will fail to woo crucial investment from the United States and bolster exports to its biggest trading partner without a bilateral free trade deal, Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz warned today.
"I like to emphasise that without a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, it is estimated that Malaysia will lose out in increasing exports to the country," said Rafidah.
Rafidah has been pushing hard for a conclusion of the trade talks, now bogged down amid strong opposition from within the ruling government and local activists.
The two countries look set to miss a vital deadline by the end of March to cut out a deal, which would give the US Congress its requisite three months to consider and pass the FTA.
Washington has been trying to complete the FTA before July 1, when President George W Bush loses his Trade Promotion Authority which allows trade deals to be fast-tracked.
Rafidah said Malaysia will "lose its opportunity to attract more investments from the US" and from other countries that plan to use Malaysia as a production and export market to penetrate the US market.
"This agreement will increase US investments into Malaysia. It will also open up new markets for Malaysian goods," she said in a statement to Malaysian lawmakers.
Unresolved issues
The US government last week all but ruled out the chances of a deal with Malaysia before the deadline.
Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said Sunday that Malaysia will not set a timeframe to conclude a free trade deal with the United States.
No formal talks have been scheduled between the US and its 10th-largest trading partner after a fifth round of talks ended in February leaving 58 unresolved issues.
Among sore points for US trade negotiators are Malaysia's controversial positive discrimination policies for its majority-ethnic Malay community.
The policies give preferential treatment to Malay-run companies in the awarding of government contracts.
Malaysian farmers, activists and opposition parties have been demanding a halt to the talks, arguing a FTA would damage livelihoods.
Mar 20, 07 4:28pm
Malaysia will fail to woo crucial investment from the United States and bolster exports to its biggest trading partner without a bilateral free trade deal, Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz warned today.
"I like to emphasise that without a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, it is estimated that Malaysia will lose out in increasing exports to the country," said Rafidah.
Rafidah has been pushing hard for a conclusion of the trade talks, now bogged down amid strong opposition from within the ruling government and local activists.
The two countries look set to miss a vital deadline by the end of March to cut out a deal, which would give the US Congress its requisite three months to consider and pass the FTA.
Washington has been trying to complete the FTA before July 1, when President George W Bush loses his Trade Promotion Authority which allows trade deals to be fast-tracked.
Rafidah said Malaysia will "lose its opportunity to attract more investments from the US" and from other countries that plan to use Malaysia as a production and export market to penetrate the US market.
"This agreement will increase US investments into Malaysia. It will also open up new markets for Malaysian goods," she said in a statement to Malaysian lawmakers.
Unresolved issues
The US government last week all but ruled out the chances of a deal with Malaysia before the deadline.
Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said Sunday that Malaysia will not set a timeframe to conclude a free trade deal with the United States.
No formal talks have been scheduled between the US and its 10th-largest trading partner after a fifth round of talks ended in February leaving 58 unresolved issues.
Among sore points for US trade negotiators are Malaysia's controversial positive discrimination policies for its majority-ethnic Malay community.
The policies give preferential treatment to Malay-run companies in the awarding of government contracts.
Malaysian farmers, activists and opposition parties have been demanding a halt to the talks, arguing a FTA would damage livelihoods.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Classifying documents: Moving backwards on transparency
National Coalition for a Freedom of Information Act
c/o Centre for Independent Journalism
Press Statement
For Immediate Release
15 March 2007
We, the undersigned members of the National Coalition for a Freedom of Information Act are concerned that the Government is moving backwards on its pledge for transparency. Its decision to classify several more documents under the Official Secrets Act damages the perception that the government is serious about tackling corruption and institutionalising integrity. The documents in question are related to claims by contractors for extra funds for government projects.
This decision was taken after leaks to third parties had occurred. From local newspaper reports, it appears that this action was taken because the government has been made vulnerable in the past when contractors held the Claims Committee to payment decisions made and minuted in their own meetings.
The Public Works Department (PWD) director-general Datuk Wahid Omar said that this leaking of documents compromises the government's position should a dispute be taken to court. This clearly demonstrates a lack of transparency in government operations, and directly implies that the government has secrets to hide. Even in the example given by Datuk Wahid, where there is a dispute between the government official and the Claims Committee, there is no obvious reason why this situation in and of itself would put the government in a compromising position, unless the government reneges on the commitments it makes.
To openly show that no corruption is taking place, that no money is being siphoned off, and that the government is trying to be transparent, these documents, and any others like it, should be declassified.
Despite our government's continued talk of transparency and openness, they still have yet to show that they are taking this pledge to the rakyat seriously. The public are still waiting to see the agreements between the government and the toll concessionaires, refused information about health and water privatisation, and the government refuses to discuss the potential impact of the Malaysia-US Free Trade Agreement. Just two weeks ago, thirteen applicants and the Malaysian Trade Union Congress were told that they did not have locus standi to ask for an allegedly classified document relating to water privatisation.
The Coalition calls upon the government to declassify all the documents in question, repeal the OSA, and implement a Freedom of Information Act in its place.
Ends
Released by:
Sonia Randhawa
Executive Director
Centre for Independent Journalism
For more information, please contact Hwa Yi Xing at 03 4023 0772.
Endorsed by:
All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
Amnesty International Malaysia
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
c/o Centre for Independent Journalism
Press Statement
For Immediate Release
15 March 2007
We, the undersigned members of the National Coalition for a Freedom of Information Act are concerned that the Government is moving backwards on its pledge for transparency. Its decision to classify several more documents under the Official Secrets Act damages the perception that the government is serious about tackling corruption and institutionalising integrity. The documents in question are related to claims by contractors for extra funds for government projects.
This decision was taken after leaks to third parties had occurred. From local newspaper reports, it appears that this action was taken because the government has been made vulnerable in the past when contractors held the Claims Committee to payment decisions made and minuted in their own meetings.
The Public Works Department (PWD) director-general Datuk Wahid Omar said that this leaking of documents compromises the government's position should a dispute be taken to court. This clearly demonstrates a lack of transparency in government operations, and directly implies that the government has secrets to hide. Even in the example given by Datuk Wahid, where there is a dispute between the government official and the Claims Committee, there is no obvious reason why this situation in and of itself would put the government in a compromising position, unless the government reneges on the commitments it makes.
To openly show that no corruption is taking place, that no money is being siphoned off, and that the government is trying to be transparent, these documents, and any others like it, should be declassified.
Despite our government's continued talk of transparency and openness, they still have yet to show that they are taking this pledge to the rakyat seriously. The public are still waiting to see the agreements between the government and the toll concessionaires, refused information about health and water privatisation, and the government refuses to discuss the potential impact of the Malaysia-US Free Trade Agreement. Just two weeks ago, thirteen applicants and the Malaysian Trade Union Congress were told that they did not have locus standi to ask for an allegedly classified document relating to water privatisation.
The Coalition calls upon the government to declassify all the documents in question, repeal the OSA, and implement a Freedom of Information Act in its place.
Ends
Released by:
Sonia Randhawa
Executive Director
Centre for Independent Journalism
For more information, please contact Hwa Yi Xing at 03 4023 0772.
Endorsed by:
All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
Amnesty International Malaysia
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Middle Ring Road Two
Star: Samy explains RM70m bill
SUNGAI SIPUT: Consultant fees and additional work have pushed up the cost of repairing the RM120mil Middle Ring Road Two by almost four times.
Commenting on calls to make public the agreements between the Government and highway concessionaires, Samy Vellu said both parties had to agree before they could be made public.
NST: Toll concession agreements: Need for nod to go public
SUNGAI SIPUT: Consent would have to be obtained from the concessionaires of tolled roads before their agreements with the government could be made public, Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said.
SUNGAI SIPUT: Consultant fees and additional work have pushed up the cost of repairing the RM120mil Middle Ring Road Two by almost four times.
Commenting on calls to make public the agreements between the Government and highway concessionaires, Samy Vellu said both parties had to agree before they could be made public.
NST: Toll concession agreements: Need for nod to go public
SUNGAI SIPUT: Consent would have to be obtained from the concessionaires of tolled roads before their agreements with the government could be made public, Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Statement by KLSCAH
Right to know: Government urged to enact FOI laws and disclose all highway agreements
Today the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (Dewan Perhimpunan China Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor) released a statement urging the government to:
(a) drop all investigations and intimidation against the four politicians [Tian Chua, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Ronnie Liu, Dr. Hatta Ramli];
(b) disclose all agreements on the privatized highway projects;
(c) enact a Freedom of Information Act that overrules the Official Secrets Act when the two contradict through a Parliamentary Select Committee on media laws reform.
Today the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (Dewan Perhimpunan China Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor) released a statement urging the government to:
(a) drop all investigations and intimidation against the four politicians [Tian Chua, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Ronnie Liu, Dr. Hatta Ramli];
(b) disclose all agreements on the privatized highway projects;
(c) enact a Freedom of Information Act that overrules the Official Secrets Act when the two contradict through a Parliamentary Select Committee on media laws reform.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Release all agreements: Repeal the OSA and implement a Freedom of Information Act
National Coalition for a Freedom of Information Act
c/o Centre for Independent Journalism
Press Statement
For Immediate Release
2 February 2007
We, the undersigned members of the National Coalition for a Freedom of Information Act, call upon the Government to release all agreements between itself and highway concessionaires and to drop the summonses against Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, Dr. Hatta Ramli, and Chua Tian Chiang for releasing one of these agreements.
There has been widespread public discontent about recent toll price hikes, as seen in numerous demonstrations and letters published in the media. Despite calls on the Government to live up to its promises of transparency and accountability, there have been no moves to release the agreements between concessionaires and the Government. The Government has said, however, that it is bound to not only allow the concessionaires to raise toll prices, but also to pay compensation to them. The public have the right to know what agreements have been made in their name, and what costs they will have to bear as a result of these agreements.
If the agreements were made in the public interest, the Government should be willing to disclose the agreements. If they were not made in the public interest, the Government should disclose them and make an undertaking to ensure that the lack of transparency and openness that led to these agreements will not be repeated. It is only by re-negotiating the agreements in the public interest and by exposing them to public scrutiny that the Government will be able to ensure it retains public trust and confidence.
The Coalition calls upon the Government to make the charges null and void by releasing these documents, and all others related to agreements with highway concessionaires. It further demands the repeal of the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the implementation of a Freedom of Information Act, in accordance with both Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international best practice.
Note: The four are being summoned for police investigation under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and have been asked to appear at the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters at 10 am on Monday, 5 February.
Released by:
Sonia Randhawa
Executive Director
Centre for Independent Journalism
For more information, please contact Hwa Yi Xing at 017 671 7847.
Endorsed by:
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Charter 2000-Aliran
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
The Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP)
Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)
Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation
Pertubuhan Jamaah Islah Malaysia
Writer's Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
c/o Centre for Independent Journalism
Press Statement
For Immediate Release
2 February 2007
We, the undersigned members of the National Coalition for a Freedom of Information Act, call upon the Government to release all agreements between itself and highway concessionaires and to drop the summonses against Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, Dr. Hatta Ramli, and Chua Tian Chiang for releasing one of these agreements.
There has been widespread public discontent about recent toll price hikes, as seen in numerous demonstrations and letters published in the media. Despite calls on the Government to live up to its promises of transparency and accountability, there have been no moves to release the agreements between concessionaires and the Government. The Government has said, however, that it is bound to not only allow the concessionaires to raise toll prices, but also to pay compensation to them. The public have the right to know what agreements have been made in their name, and what costs they will have to bear as a result of these agreements.
If the agreements were made in the public interest, the Government should be willing to disclose the agreements. If they were not made in the public interest, the Government should disclose them and make an undertaking to ensure that the lack of transparency and openness that led to these agreements will not be repeated. It is only by re-negotiating the agreements in the public interest and by exposing them to public scrutiny that the Government will be able to ensure it retains public trust and confidence.
The Coalition calls upon the Government to make the charges null and void by releasing these documents, and all others related to agreements with highway concessionaires. It further demands the repeal of the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the implementation of a Freedom of Information Act, in accordance with both Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international best practice.
Note: The four are being summoned for police investigation under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and have been asked to appear at the Bukit Aman Police Headquarters at 10 am on Monday, 5 February.
Released by:
Sonia Randhawa
Executive Director
Centre for Independent Journalism
For more information, please contact Hwa Yi Xing at 017 671 7847.
Endorsed by:
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Charter 2000-Aliran
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
The Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP)
Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)
Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation
Pertubuhan Jamaah Islah Malaysia
Writer's Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
More declassified docs
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Protecting the law
It isn’t easy being a cop. Lousy hours, lousy pay. A front-line job, and the butt of all complaints. Worse still, your job description isn’t always clear. The police exist to enforce the law, but often lawyers and learned judges dispute what the law means. How’s your lowly flatfoot supposed to know? And as a cop, you’re always blamed. Crime rises, it’s your fault. Crime falls, it’s because of government policy.
In the last few weeks, our boys in navy have taken a fairly severe, and it would seem well-deserved, bashing. We, the public, have suddenly become concerned about the standard operating procedures in lock-ups, particularly those relating to strip and search. We’ve clamoured for a second independent commission to investigate police abuse of power.
The problem, however, with any investigation of the police is that while most of our civil service is translucent, the RMP is opaque. The need to protect both the force and the general public means that there is some information that the general public just can’t be allowed to know. It could jeopardise investigations, put officers at risk or, worse, bring reprisals onto the heads of civilians who had helped in police investigations.
Nevertheless, there is plenty about the police force that should be made more transparent. Standard operating procedures, where they exist, are one obvious example. Investigations into police abuse of power, generally, also needs to be open to public scrutiny. For the police to do their job, the public need to have confidence in them. And for that to happen, we need to know that they they deserve that confidence.
Following a spate of deaths in police custody in 2003, family members of the (mainly young) men who had died questioned the reliability of official autopsies. The police were upset at this affrontry. Initially, the corpses were released to the families for second opinions (which often varied widely with the initial reports). However, as the bodies began to stack, the bodies were no longer released. Any investigation or inquest had to take the official autopsy as it’s starting point.
Whether there was any abuse of power or not, this is not a move that inspires confidence in the police force.
Towards the end of November, abuse of police power came to public notice once more, with an Abu-Ghraib scenario of a young woman being forced to strip and do ‘ear-squats’, naked. A task obviously set to humiliate. It follows closely on reports lodged by four Chinese nationals of sexual harassment.
An independent commission, headed by a respected former judge, is being established. Unfortunately, information is already being withheld from the public. The ‘ear-squat’ woman has been identified. The woman’s privacy needs to be respected. However, her nationality has become a matter of public interest. It is difficult to see how revealing this would jeopardise investigations. If the police-woman involved has not realised she is under investigation, it does not say much for her own powers of deduction.
The refusal to release these details merely serves to further undermine public confidence in the police. If we are going to protect our police force, we need to stop the rot immediately. We need to open our stations to the glare of public scrutiny, to make them accountable for their actions (and their inactions). Only in this way will we maintain (or re-build) confidence in our police force. And that is the only way it is possible for them to do their job.
In the last few weeks, our boys in navy have taken a fairly severe, and it would seem well-deserved, bashing. We, the public, have suddenly become concerned about the standard operating procedures in lock-ups, particularly those relating to strip and search. We’ve clamoured for a second independent commission to investigate police abuse of power.
The problem, however, with any investigation of the police is that while most of our civil service is translucent, the RMP is opaque. The need to protect both the force and the general public means that there is some information that the general public just can’t be allowed to know. It could jeopardise investigations, put officers at risk or, worse, bring reprisals onto the heads of civilians who had helped in police investigations.
Nevertheless, there is plenty about the police force that should be made more transparent. Standard operating procedures, where they exist, are one obvious example. Investigations into police abuse of power, generally, also needs to be open to public scrutiny. For the police to do their job, the public need to have confidence in them. And for that to happen, we need to know that they they deserve that confidence.
Following a spate of deaths in police custody in 2003, family members of the (mainly young) men who had died questioned the reliability of official autopsies. The police were upset at this affrontry. Initially, the corpses were released to the families for second opinions (which often varied widely with the initial reports). However, as the bodies began to stack, the bodies were no longer released. Any investigation or inquest had to take the official autopsy as it’s starting point.
Whether there was any abuse of power or not, this is not a move that inspires confidence in the police force.
Towards the end of November, abuse of police power came to public notice once more, with an Abu-Ghraib scenario of a young woman being forced to strip and do ‘ear-squats’, naked. A task obviously set to humiliate. It follows closely on reports lodged by four Chinese nationals of sexual harassment.
An independent commission, headed by a respected former judge, is being established. Unfortunately, information is already being withheld from the public. The ‘ear-squat’ woman has been identified. The woman’s privacy needs to be respected. However, her nationality has become a matter of public interest. It is difficult to see how revealing this would jeopardise investigations. If the police-woman involved has not realised she is under investigation, it does not say much for her own powers of deduction.
The refusal to release these details merely serves to further undermine public confidence in the police. If we are going to protect our police force, we need to stop the rot immediately. We need to open our stations to the glare of public scrutiny, to make them accountable for their actions (and their inactions). Only in this way will we maintain (or re-build) confidence in our police force. And that is the only way it is possible for them to do their job.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
The power of the (poison) pen
The Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur is claiming that he’s the victim of a conspiracy, initiated by corrupt officials safeguarding their engorged rice-bowls. The writer of the poison book claims his own claims are well-researched. The battle seems headed to the courts.
It’s not the first time the reputation of powerful politicians or political appointees has been besmirched with the poison pen. We seem to be unable to rise above the adage of sticks and stones. Words continually hurt us.
And we continue offering them official credence. The Anti-Corruption Agency has admitted that it follows up leads sent in poison pen letters, or anonymous tips. Almost a third of its investigations come from unverified sources.
Makes you wonder. Why do we give such credence to these rumour-mongers, people who refuse to accept responsibility for the statements they make? It’s hardly a hallmark of sincerity, not in an ideal world.
Unfortunately, of course, ours is not an ideal world. Datuk Ruslin at DBKL is finding out to his cost that Malaysian mud is a very sticky substance. More viscous than in other parts of the world. But there are ways of watering it down.
Rumours and misinformation are like fungi. They thrive in the dark. Shining light on them causes them to wither and die. If there is truth in either the Datuk Bandar’s allegation of a conspiracy, or in the alleged conspirators allegations against him, bringing more information into the public realm is the only way that reputations – not just of individuals but of the institution of the DBKL – can be salvaged. And it shouldn’t be up to the Datuk Bandar or others, who have political or economic interests to safeguard, whether information is released. Or what information should be released.
So who does decide when and what information to release?
The ideal situation would be that all information is automatically available to the public. If it isn’t going to be made available, there should be a good reason, and that reason should be made available to the public. ‘To protect my own interests’ is hardly likely to make it as a reason to hide information.
The DBKL, and the Datuk Bandar, don’t need to wait for national legislation to start enacting openness regulations within City Hall. They could adopt their own transparency regulations, ideally based on international freedom of information principles, as encapsulated in the statement of principles released last year (available at www.cijmalaysia.org/Info_café).
Tackling corruption, and the mud-smearing of poisonous pens, becomes much easier when the public can see the grounds, or lack of grounds, for complaints and convictions.
It’s not the first time the reputation of powerful politicians or political appointees has been besmirched with the poison pen. We seem to be unable to rise above the adage of sticks and stones. Words continually hurt us.
And we continue offering them official credence. The Anti-Corruption Agency has admitted that it follows up leads sent in poison pen letters, or anonymous tips. Almost a third of its investigations come from unverified sources.
Makes you wonder. Why do we give such credence to these rumour-mongers, people who refuse to accept responsibility for the statements they make? It’s hardly a hallmark of sincerity, not in an ideal world.
Unfortunately, of course, ours is not an ideal world. Datuk Ruslin at DBKL is finding out to his cost that Malaysian mud is a very sticky substance. More viscous than in other parts of the world. But there are ways of watering it down.
Rumours and misinformation are like fungi. They thrive in the dark. Shining light on them causes them to wither and die. If there is truth in either the Datuk Bandar’s allegation of a conspiracy, or in the alleged conspirators allegations against him, bringing more information into the public realm is the only way that reputations – not just of individuals but of the institution of the DBKL – can be salvaged. And it shouldn’t be up to the Datuk Bandar or others, who have political or economic interests to safeguard, whether information is released. Or what information should be released.
So who does decide when and what information to release?
The ideal situation would be that all information is automatically available to the public. If it isn’t going to be made available, there should be a good reason, and that reason should be made available to the public. ‘To protect my own interests’ is hardly likely to make it as a reason to hide information.
The DBKL, and the Datuk Bandar, don’t need to wait for national legislation to start enacting openness regulations within City Hall. They could adopt their own transparency regulations, ideally based on international freedom of information principles, as encapsulated in the statement of principles released last year (available at www.cijmalaysia.org/Info_café).
Tackling corruption, and the mud-smearing of poisonous pens, becomes much easier when the public can see the grounds, or lack of grounds, for complaints and convictions.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
API: Released?
The nation is progressing. The rakyat have now been entrusted with the potentially explosive information of knowing the Air Pollution Index (API). It is being hailed as a major step forward for transparency and openness. But, cynical as we are at CIJ, we can’t help but think that the reality doesn’t meet the hype.
First off, the decision to put the figures under the Official Secrets Act was blatantly ludicrous. We’ve sunk to such depths that being allowed to know the hazards of breathing deeply is considered a revolution in openness. We are still operating under a system that allows this information to be re-classified, if the Government wills it. Given his statements the day before the figures were released, if the current Deputy Prime Minister was in charge, the API would still be under wraps.
Secondly, there is still a lot of information about air pollution that we’re not being given. It’s possible that this information isn’t being collected – but we don’t know that either. A bit of a chemistry lesson here. Different air pollutants can mix together to create more air pollution than would exist if they didn’t meet – a case of one plus one equals three. The pollution from Sumatra reached the city, mixed with the pollution already in the air then, and possibly led to a worse situation than would have existed if the same pollution hit an area with different pollutants (where one plus one equals two).
To find out whether this happened, it’s important to know what the ‘background’ pollution is – what the normal pollutants are in urban areas. There are also point sources of pollution, factories, oil refineries and the like. These could contribute to an increase in the API. But there isn’t any information in the public realm about if or where these point sources are, and if they contributed to the horrendous haze.
Basically the API figures on their own don’t tell us enough. They don’t point to long-term solutions for solving the haze. Only continual monitoring, with the release of figures on what the pollution comprises and where it comes from, coupled with the already declared assistance to our Indonesian colleagues, is going to yield results.
Another thing that is disconcerting was how unprepared we were, even in the short term to deal with the haze. Was there no warning that there were fires in Sumatra? Did they spring up overnight? Was the seasonal dry spell somehow unseasonal? Perhaps if we had access to the API figures from coastal areas on the Straits of Melaka, we'd be able to assess whether the haze should have caught us unawares.
This lack of preparedness was complemented by the lack of information on what was happening. When the Emergency was declared, nobody knew what it meant. Nobody knew what the guidelines were, whether there was a curfew. This is information that could have been published as soon as the haze was recognised as a potentially serious problem. Health leaflets could have been printed. Mobile stations set up to provide information to the concerned public. It’s amazing how well the Government’s party machinery can swing into action when a General Election is declared, but how slow the Government was in responding to the haze!
A Freeedomof Information Act would require Government agencies to routinely publish figures that are of public interest. All figures on air pollution would obviously come under this category. That way, experts and the interested public could monitor air pollution trends and push for prosecution of air pollution offenders or more appropriate guidelines for action in the haze season. Emergency guidelines would be published as they’re formulated. And if they’re only formulated at the last minute, the public can push for a more responsible approach from their elected representatives.
While the haze was hazardous to our health, it was compounded by uncertainty and ignorance. Both of these could have been avoided if information had been made more freely available.
First off, the decision to put the figures under the Official Secrets Act was blatantly ludicrous. We’ve sunk to such depths that being allowed to know the hazards of breathing deeply is considered a revolution in openness. We are still operating under a system that allows this information to be re-classified, if the Government wills it. Given his statements the day before the figures were released, if the current Deputy Prime Minister was in charge, the API would still be under wraps.
Secondly, there is still a lot of information about air pollution that we’re not being given. It’s possible that this information isn’t being collected – but we don’t know that either. A bit of a chemistry lesson here. Different air pollutants can mix together to create more air pollution than would exist if they didn’t meet – a case of one plus one equals three. The pollution from Sumatra reached the city, mixed with the pollution already in the air then, and possibly led to a worse situation than would have existed if the same pollution hit an area with different pollutants (where one plus one equals two).
To find out whether this happened, it’s important to know what the ‘background’ pollution is – what the normal pollutants are in urban areas. There are also point sources of pollution, factories, oil refineries and the like. These could contribute to an increase in the API. But there isn’t any information in the public realm about if or where these point sources are, and if they contributed to the horrendous haze.
Basically the API figures on their own don’t tell us enough. They don’t point to long-term solutions for solving the haze. Only continual monitoring, with the release of figures on what the pollution comprises and where it comes from, coupled with the already declared assistance to our Indonesian colleagues, is going to yield results.
Another thing that is disconcerting was how unprepared we were, even in the short term to deal with the haze. Was there no warning that there were fires in Sumatra? Did they spring up overnight? Was the seasonal dry spell somehow unseasonal? Perhaps if we had access to the API figures from coastal areas on the Straits of Melaka, we'd be able to assess whether the haze should have caught us unawares.
This lack of preparedness was complemented by the lack of information on what was happening. When the Emergency was declared, nobody knew what it meant. Nobody knew what the guidelines were, whether there was a curfew. This is information that could have been published as soon as the haze was recognised as a potentially serious problem. Health leaflets could have been printed. Mobile stations set up to provide information to the concerned public. It’s amazing how well the Government’s party machinery can swing into action when a General Election is declared, but how slow the Government was in responding to the haze!
A Freeedomof Information Act would require Government agencies to routinely publish figures that are of public interest. All figures on air pollution would obviously come under this category. That way, experts and the interested public could monitor air pollution trends and push for prosecution of air pollution offenders or more appropriate guidelines for action in the haze season. Emergency guidelines would be published as they’re formulated. And if they’re only formulated at the last minute, the public can push for a more responsible approach from their elected representatives.
While the haze was hazardous to our health, it was compounded by uncertainty and ignorance. Both of these could have been avoided if information had been made more freely available.
Monday, August 1, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, July 1, 2005
Managing the information revolution
Bringing out the best in people, sharing information and experience, translating data into knowledge – it’s all part of the process known *buzz* as knowledge management.
Knowledge management is about making the most of the resources, the human capital, that a company has, a way in which it can gain and maintain a competitive edge. And effective knowledge managers, proponents of effective knowledge managers, are inevitably proponents of freedom of information. Because one of the keys to effective knowledge management is effective information sharing.
It is impossible to tell which bit of information is going to lead to the efficiency overhaul that a company needs. The same bytes might pass through a hundred (if you’re lucky, a million hands if you’re not) before one person clicks one byte with another, and comes up with three bytes. As it were.
It applies to the private sector and applies doubly so the public sector. And an efficient public sector is in everybody’s interest.
Freedom of information legislation will help this sharing of public information in a variety of ways.
First, it will lead to an overhaul in the ways in which public information is stored. Officials who attempt to avoid disclosure by claiming they can’t find a document can be censured. They’ll be breaking the law. A pretty steep incentive to make sure that your document retrieval systems are working properly. And efficiently.
Second, it will allow a huge amount of information sharing. The petty fiefdoms of bureaucracy won’t be able to hide their secrets from rival officials in another department. The flows of information within the government will become smoother. And flows of information to the public will, well, come into existence as well. The public will be able to suggest efficiency improvements.
This third also brings up the inevitable argument against corruption. Freedom of information helps reporters and investigators pick out the paper trails that show corrupt practices. And rooting out corruption helps improve cost-effectiveness.
Lastly, all these things will have an impact on the private sector. They’ll be able to make more intelligent predictions and assessments of Government behaviour. They’ll be able to make more rational decisions, based on more reliable information. They’ll have to pay fewer taxes (or the same taxes for more services).
This is the reason why freedom of information legislation on its own is not enough. It requires enforcement, it requires training – because the benefits will only be felt when the bureaucracy incorporates efficient data management practices into their routine. It’s why there are calls for training and improved retrieval systems to be included as an integral part of freedom of information legislation, so that it isn’t just about the virtual right to see documents and files. But that it involves efficiency gains and a right to information in real time. Data may not be knowledge, but without data knowledge is impossible.
Knowledge management is about making the most of the resources, the human capital, that a company has, a way in which it can gain and maintain a competitive edge. And effective knowledge managers, proponents of effective knowledge managers, are inevitably proponents of freedom of information. Because one of the keys to effective knowledge management is effective information sharing.
It is impossible to tell which bit of information is going to lead to the efficiency overhaul that a company needs. The same bytes might pass through a hundred (if you’re lucky, a million hands if you’re not) before one person clicks one byte with another, and comes up with three bytes. As it were.
It applies to the private sector and applies doubly so the public sector. And an efficient public sector is in everybody’s interest.
Freedom of information legislation will help this sharing of public information in a variety of ways.
First, it will lead to an overhaul in the ways in which public information is stored. Officials who attempt to avoid disclosure by claiming they can’t find a document can be censured. They’ll be breaking the law. A pretty steep incentive to make sure that your document retrieval systems are working properly. And efficiently.
Second, it will allow a huge amount of information sharing. The petty fiefdoms of bureaucracy won’t be able to hide their secrets from rival officials in another department. The flows of information within the government will become smoother. And flows of information to the public will, well, come into existence as well. The public will be able to suggest efficiency improvements.
This third also brings up the inevitable argument against corruption. Freedom of information helps reporters and investigators pick out the paper trails that show corrupt practices. And rooting out corruption helps improve cost-effectiveness.
Lastly, all these things will have an impact on the private sector. They’ll be able to make more intelligent predictions and assessments of Government behaviour. They’ll be able to make more rational decisions, based on more reliable information. They’ll have to pay fewer taxes (or the same taxes for more services).
This is the reason why freedom of information legislation on its own is not enough. It requires enforcement, it requires training – because the benefits will only be felt when the bureaucracy incorporates efficient data management practices into their routine. It’s why there are calls for training and improved retrieval systems to be included as an integral part of freedom of information legislation, so that it isn’t just about the virtual right to see documents and files. But that it involves efficiency gains and a right to information in real time. Data may not be knowledge, but without data knowledge is impossible.
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Driving corruption
Importing cars is a business shrouded in secrecy, involving government officials handing out choice permits to a few private firms. It’s got to the stage where even former PM, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, is asking whether corruption is occurring in the awarding of approved permits for importing cars.
It’s an area where high taxes ensure huge profits for those who can skirt the law. The Approved Permit (AP) system was designed to help Bumiputeras enter the autmobile marketing industry. Every car manufactured and assembled outside ASEAN has to have an AP to be sold in Malaysia. Only 116 companies were issued APs last year, and they imported over 46,000 cars.
Of these license-holders, 40 hold permits for one make of car, according to an AFP report in January this year, while the rest are unrestricted. Overall, foreign cars from outside ASEAN are restricted to 10 per cent of the market.
It’s a system that has come under attack from both inside and outside the country. Car manufacturers overseas cry foul, that this is a violation of trading agreements under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Consumers complain that it raises car prices, and that the quality of locally-produced cars suffers from the lack of competition. And politicians complain that the secrecy surrounding the system could cloak corruption, or at the very least breed suspicion that corruption exists.
Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has asked for the records surrounding the AP licenses to be made public – who holds the permits, what cars they’ve been importing and how much those cars are worth. Unfortunately, the Minister in charge, Rafidah Aziz, has declined on the grounds that these records have never been made public, neither in her time nor beforehand. It seems like a singularly poor excuse.
First, the policy benefits 116 companies. If tax evasion is happening, it happens to the detriment of 23 million Malaysians. Tax money is spent on amenities for all. Profit that ends up in the pockets of the 116 companies isn’t.
Second, if nobody is doing anything wrong, there is no reason not to open up the files. Ministers, companies and consumers alike will be satisfied. The Ministers and companies will have the suspicion currently surrounding them dispelled. Consumers will have the satisfaction of knowing that the Government is efficient and trustworthy.
The only people who benefit from the secrecy surrounding the AP system are those who are using it to hide corruption and tax evasion – corrupt customs officials, corrupt car importers and all those associated with them. The rest of us lose out.
It’s an area where high taxes ensure huge profits for those who can skirt the law. The Approved Permit (AP) system was designed to help Bumiputeras enter the autmobile marketing industry. Every car manufactured and assembled outside ASEAN has to have an AP to be sold in Malaysia. Only 116 companies were issued APs last year, and they imported over 46,000 cars.
Of these license-holders, 40 hold permits for one make of car, according to an AFP report in January this year, while the rest are unrestricted. Overall, foreign cars from outside ASEAN are restricted to 10 per cent of the market.
It’s a system that has come under attack from both inside and outside the country. Car manufacturers overseas cry foul, that this is a violation of trading agreements under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Consumers complain that it raises car prices, and that the quality of locally-produced cars suffers from the lack of competition. And politicians complain that the secrecy surrounding the system could cloak corruption, or at the very least breed suspicion that corruption exists.
Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has asked for the records surrounding the AP licenses to be made public – who holds the permits, what cars they’ve been importing and how much those cars are worth. Unfortunately, the Minister in charge, Rafidah Aziz, has declined on the grounds that these records have never been made public, neither in her time nor beforehand. It seems like a singularly poor excuse.
First, the policy benefits 116 companies. If tax evasion is happening, it happens to the detriment of 23 million Malaysians. Tax money is spent on amenities for all. Profit that ends up in the pockets of the 116 companies isn’t.
Second, if nobody is doing anything wrong, there is no reason not to open up the files. Ministers, companies and consumers alike will be satisfied. The Ministers and companies will have the suspicion currently surrounding them dispelled. Consumers will have the satisfaction of knowing that the Government is efficient and trustworthy.
The only people who benefit from the secrecy surrounding the AP system are those who are using it to hide corruption and tax evasion – corrupt customs officials, corrupt car importers and all those associated with them. The rest of us lose out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
