What governance principles are violated by hiding the CEP and IRC reports?

Question

Accepted Answer

Hiding the Council of Eminent Persons and Institutional Reforms Committee Reports Violates Principles of Good Governance and Public Discourse

The continued classification of the Council of Eminent Persons (CEP) and Institutional Reforms Committee (IRC) reports under Malaysia's Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972 contravenes fundamental principles of good governance and obstructs open public debate. These reports, compiled to advise on crucial institutional reforms, are being withheld from public scrutiny, preventing a thorough discussion of their findings and recommendations. This practice undermines the transparency expected in a democratic society and hinders the informed participation of citizens in shaping national policy.
Undermining Transparency and Accountability

The practice of classifying reports that were intended to guide institutional reform, such as those from the CEP and IRC, directly contradicts the principles of transparency and accountability that are cornerstones of good governance. When the findings and recommendations of bodies tasked with improving governance structures are kept secret, it creates an environment where the public cannot hold institutions or their decision-makers accountable for the reform processes or their outcomes. For instance, the CEP, chaired by Tun Daim Zainuddin, and the IRC, established to study reforms identified in 2018, were meant to contribute to public understanding and engagement with governmental processes. Keeping their work classified prevents citizens and civil society organisations from understanding the basis for any subsequent policy decisions or the rationale behind reforms that are implemented or rejected.
Stifling Public Debate and Discussion

The classification of the CEP and IRC reports under the OSA 1972 effectively silences public debate and discussion on critical matters of national reform. In a healthy democracy, policy development and institutional change should be subjects of open discourse, allowing for diverse perspectives and constructive criticism. By withholding these reports, the government prevents informed public dialogue, which is essential for building consensus and ensuring that reforms are robust and widely supported. This echoes concerns raised previously, such as the prolonged classification of the 1976 Sabah plane crash report, which similarly limited public understanding and closure for 47 years.
Questionable Precedents and Continued Secrecy

The decision to keep the CEP and IRC reports under the OSA 1972, particularly following the recent declassification of the 1976 Sabah air crash documents, raises questions about the consistency of the government's commitment to transparency. DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang has publicly questioned why these specific reports, compiled during the Pakatan Harapan administration, were not declassified earlier by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The continued classification by the current unity government, led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, suggests a reluctance to fully embrace openness regarding past reform initiatives and potentially sensitive findings, thereby perpetuating a cycle of secrecy that hinders progress.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What governance principles are violated by hiding the CEP and IRC reports?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends