I refer to the article “Release of all past cabinet records may not lead to better outcomes: Lawrence Wong” (Today, Mar 11).
Transparency may not lead to better outcomes?
It states that “But Mr Lawrence Wong, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Senior Minister of State for Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI), refuted him, saying that such an open policy may not necessarily lead to better outcomes.”
– I am rather puzzled by the reasons given in the subject Parliamentary debate as to why the record of archives which are more than 50 years old, cannot be made public.
How can being transparent 50 years later – “may not necessarily lead to better outcomes”?
Better outcomes in the future or in the past?
Wouldn’t transparecy and accountability lead to “better outcomes” now and in the future?
Or are we referring to the “outcomes” of our history, that cannot be changed?
As to “Responding, Mr Wong said the National Archives of Singapore (NAS) does make available public archives for inspection for research and reference. Requests can be made at the NAS’s reading room, and the NAS will consult the relevant agency about providing access to these records.
No transparency 50 years later because of “personal privacy”?
But while all unclassified information is made available upon request, there are some records which are not available for open access, including those relating to national defence, foreign relations and internal security, as well as documents which may be bound by confidentiality obligations or personal privacy reasons, said Mr Wong.”
– What are we saying here? That transparency of Government (and we are not even talking about accountability here) should be subservient to “personal privacy” and “confidentiality obligations”‘ reasons – 50 years after the event!
If politicians are so concerned about “personal privacy” 50 years later – perhaps they should not become politicians in the first place.
Less transparency = Good governance?
With regard to “Mr Wong countered that the Government’s approach “is not transparency for transparency’s sake”, but transparency that leads to good governance.”
– I find this to be somewhat self-contradictory. The fundamental basis of “good governance” is transparency and accountability.
Check and balance?
Our system of democracy which we inherited from the British is fundamentally based on the check and balance of Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive (Government).
So, how can “not being transparent” lead to “good governance”?
In respect of “He pointed out that some countries have “gone somewhat overboard with freedom of information legislation or open access”, leading instead to the opaqueness and avoidance of records.
– Can we have the names of these countries and an elaboration as to how it has lead “instead to the opaqueness and avoidance of records”?
Civil servants won’t record real minutes of meetings?
As to “Policy papers or cabinet papers may not have complete information or detail because the civil servants writing them know that the reports will be made available, he said. “I think we have to be careful of such inadvertent consequences.”
– What are we saying here? That our highest paid civil servants who have been touted as the most incorruptible and efficient in the world – may not write a correct record of meetings because of the fear that they may be made public 50 years later?
Wouldn’t all the people present at the meeting be able to see when the minutes are out – if the civil servant had in fact not written ä factual record of the meeting?
If even now we have such an in my view “unfounded” fear – then is there not something wrong with the type of people that we are recruiting into the civil service? – Whatever happened to the values, continual emphasis on integrity and public duty, and training that we are inculcating in them?
Why pay the the highest salaries in the world – only to arguably, have civil servants who cannot be trusted or relied upon to do their job?
“Tian You Yan”?
In the final analysis, if I may use the analogy of a Chinese saying “Tian You Yan” (God has eyes) – by not being transparent 50 years after the fact, may have the opposite effect of inculcating a breed of politicians who may not do the right thing – in the comfort that their actions and deliberations may never be subject to the court of public opinion 50 years later.
Perhaps we shoud have a compromise by allowing the opening of the Cabinet archives only after all the persons who were in the Cabinet at that time, are long dead and gone.
Leong Sze Hian
