Straits Times - Insight (14 March 2008)
Being better informed makes for better citizens
Li Xueying

MAS Selamat has died.

He was tortured to death by the Singapore authorities, and the latter are now covering it up by saying that he escaped from custody.

Oh wait, the chap is neither dead nor escaped.

He's actually still in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. The Internal Security Department is pretending that he escaped in order to lure other Jemaah Islamiah (JI) operatives out into the open.

Ah, not really. He was deliberately released, have you not heard?

A Cabinet minister's child was kidnapped by the JI. The Government made a secret pact with the terrorist network to let Mas Selamat go in exchange. But since hostage swopping is not the done thing in Singapore, the next best thing was to let him 'escape', assisted.

These are some of the conspiracy theories swirling around out there about the escape of the JI leader two weeks ago.

Crackpot? Quite.

But who knows what kind of traction they may gain, the longer Mas Selamat stays missing, and the longer questions stay unanswered.

As a friend ruminated last week: 'There are so many questions about this incident. How did he escape? Why hasn't he been found? There must be some unknown story that we don't know about.'

An information vacuum is fertile breeding ground for speculation and conjecture.

Before Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew shed more light on the matter - from, of all places, Bahrain - late last week, all that Singaporeans knew was there had been a 'physical breach' at the detention centre.

From the evening the news broke, my colleagues at the Newsdesk have been trying hard to get more information from the authorities about the escape, but to little avail. What has been released thus far pertains more to his physical appearance than to the escape per se.

This is not the first time that the Government has demonstrated such cool reserve when releasing information to the public.

For the longest time, it had refused to make public more precise data on the number of jobs that go to citizens and foreigners.

This led to a furore in 2003, when senior economists from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) - using data from the Manpower Ministry's website - published a study saying that three out of four new jobs in the past five years had gone to foreigners.

Drawing on classified information, the ministry produced a different set of figures in rebuttal. The NTU economists were declared 'irresponsible' and 'unprofessional'.

But as more recent releases from the Manpower Ministry show, the latter has apparently had a change of heart.

Two weeks ago, to combat MPs' and citizens' unease that more jobs are going to foreigners, it made history by finally giving the breakdown between citizens, permanent residents and foreigners in the job data it released.

The dangers are clear: When information is not available, rumours and criticisms spread - some of which are certainly unfair to the Government.

For when the Government is secretive, it gives people cause to wonder, what does it have to hide? Can't be anything good, they speculate.

When the University of New South Wales pulled out of Singapore suddenly last year, the Economic Development Board's reluctance to say how much taxpayers' money had been invested in the failed venture led to more brickbats for it.

Last month, when announcing the new annuities scheme that would come into effect in 2013, the Manpower Ministry refused to release reports by its independent actuarial consultant Trowbridge Deloitte on Singaporeans' lifespans. People wondered, why?

And of course, not forgetting that old chestnut: the lack of transparency on how electoral boundaries are drawn - and redrawn - leading to accusations of gerrymandering.

Naturally, not all information that the public would like to have can be made public.

For the sake of national security, some should - and must be - kept secret.

But beyond that, the default mode should be to make available information to Singaporeans, the people of this country. It should be a natural right.

As Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong argued in Parliament last week: 'Any official data that does not invoke national security or similar concerns should be made available.

'Indeed, I urge the Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act to set the rules under which government information is made available to the public as of right.'

Beyond nipping erroneous rumours in the bud, making freer the information flow will allow various segments of civic society - whether academics, activists or just the man in the street - to better contribute to an understanding of the issues Singapore faces.

Ultimately, it boils down to the relationship between the State and its people.

Do you trust your people to be judicious with the information?

Or do you treat them like kids, who cannot be trusted to handle the truth?

One gripe about Singaporeans is that they always expect the Government to do everything for them.

But if we want Singaporeans to be active citizens, to care, to be involved, they need to be empowered too, to know what is going on in their own country.

It is a two-way street.

xueying@sph.com.sg