Make parliamentary committee hearings public

Posted on 25 July 2011 - 04:20am
Last updated on 25 July 2011 - 08:33am

R. Nadeswaran
Citizen Nades

THIS is not yet another phone hacking scandal column. Although the central characters may be the same, the events resonate to Malaysia. On Tuesday, there wasn’t a single TV screen or PC monitor that was not tuned to BBC or Sky. Both channels provided live coverage of the hearings of the Select Committee of Parliament which was hearing evidence from three key players – News International chairman, Rubert Murdoch, his heir apparent and son James, and former CEO Rebekah Brooks. Even those driving followed the proceedings live on radio.
The shaving foam incident was a welcome relief after the hours of questions and answers, but all three were grilled in front of TV cameras which brought the proceedings live to people’s homes and offices.
Depending on where your loyalties or preferences lie, their performances could be graded as “appalling” or “excellent”. But to the independent-minded, the hearings gave them a chance to make a valued judgment.
To get one of the 100-odd seats in the hearing room, one had to queue and it was on a first come, first served basis. Even journalists who were reporting from the sidelines had to take this route.
Opening the hearings to the public and having them telecast live is the basic step in transparency and which is said to be the Westminster system of governance, which we adopted when we got our independence 54 years ago. So while Malaysian journalists are allowed to cover proceedings in Parliament and there is live TV coverage for at least an hour in the mornings, why are Select Committee meetings and hearings by the Public Accounts Committee held in camera with no one other than MPs and the witnesses having access?
If the hearings are supposed to be secretive, private or confidential, surely no one can reveal details of what took place. But in at least the case of PAC hearings, the chairman and sometimes even members hold press conferences giving some details of what transpired.
Readers may remember that former Port Klang Authority general manager O. C. Phang famously told the committee she “does not know what a cash flow projection means”, leading to the conclusion that poor management failed the Port Klang Free Zone. How did the media know about that? Well, it was not a little bird or an anonymous source but members of the PAC who were willing to go on record.
Earlier, the PAC also investigated the cracks on houses along the highway to Putrajaya and other supposed transgressions of accepted standards of practice. They even took reporters and photographs on their inspection rounds but did not allow reporters in when the hearing proper commenced.
So if this is the case, why the need to bar the public from such hearings? Because the PAC subsequently submits its report which is tabled in Parliament, there is no reason for any form of secrecy, unless of course it involves sensitive information which may affect the security of the nation.
So coming back to the hearings in the UK, the public was educated on the process of democracy vis-a-vis transparency. Besides, it allowed the citizen to assess the kind of people they had elected as MPs and evaluate their performance. More importantly, the people could make a valued, educated and well-informed decision on whether News International and the Murdochs knew about the phone hacking, and whether they supported and financed the operations. The jury is still out.
When the committee submits its report to Parliament based on the evidence that was presented, it would enable MPs to debate it and the people to make their verdicts.
Closed-door hearings always give the impression that “they have something to hide” and create suspicion in the minds of people. Openness will not only clear the misgivings of doubting Thomases, but augurs well for a better informed society, which in turn brings about confidence in the system of governance.
Our country is a democracy founded on the Westminster system. If we have adopted their parliamentary system, having Question Time, debates and even providing protection through parliamentary privilege, why are we reluctant to adopt other limbs of the same system? Our leaders have often talked about transparency and accountability, and shouldn’t that start with Parliament and its committees?
R. Nadeswaran says the best thing about being open is that you have nothing to fear when you have done nothing wrong. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com