Good governance needs transparency

27 January 1999


The Forum Editor
The Straits Times


Dear Editor

Good governance needs transparency

	The Straits Times recently reported ("A points system to decide PR status", 31 Dec 
98, and "No to revealing PR points system, 11 Jan 99) that Singapore Immigration and 
Registration (SIR) has published its criteria for granting permanent residency. After taking 
"one step towards becoming more translucent", SIR halted before disclosing either the 
allocation of points or the qualifying mark. Its action is truly pointless because applicants 
for permanent residency can identify the criteria from the questions in the application form. 
What they surely want to know is how qualified they are with respect to the criteria.

	Although SIR's action is inconsequential for prospective permanent residents, it is, 
nevertheless, important because, in defending its decision to continue not to give reasons 
for approving or rejecting applications for permanent residency, SIR resorted to an 
argument that contravenes the hallmark of good governance: transparency in governing. 
The argument is this: SIR is not obliged to give reasons because "the Government reserves 
the right to make the final decision".

	It is always said that good governance requires meritocracy and incorruptibility. 
But transparency is the essential quality that sustains meritocracy and incorruptibility over 
time by making public servants accountable to the public they are supposed to serve.

	Obviously some types of information should be secret. For example, official 
information that could adversely affect national security or the market are rightly secret, and 
official data on a person should be kept from the general public. However, official secrecy 
should be the exception, rather than the rule. There is no need to shroud in secrecy the 
grounds for decision if bureaucrats are fair and rational. Unwarranted secrecy can too 
easily shield lazy, partial or errant officials from public criticism.

	It would not be pragmatic to expect bureaucrats to facilitate challenges from the 
public by volunteering reasons for their decisions, especially if they are controversial. 
Therefore, just as we have laws to promote meritocracy and suppress corruption, we need 
laws to uphold good governance by requiring bureaucrats to justify their actions to the 
public.

	I urge Members of Parliament (MPs) to eschew translucency and stride boldly 
towards transparency by enacting a Good Governance Act. The Act should establish 
transparency as the corner-stone of the Singapore Government. It should identify the areas 
of government where secrecy is necessary and specify the permissible extent and duration 
of secrecy. Outside these areas, the Act should grant citizens the right to know the reasons 
for official decisions. The Act should empower a citizen to inspect and correct official 
records on her or him. To resolve disputes between citizens and bureaucrats, the Act 
should create the office of the independent Ombudsman, who will decide the legitimacy of 
a request for information made under the Act.

	Singapore cannot be a flourishing democracy unless its citizens have access to the 
information we need to judge official policies. The potential for injustice is unnecessarily 
high when bureaucrats can act without giving reasons to the public. Singapore needs the 
Good Governance Act, so that we can fulfil our pledge "to build a democratic society, 
based on justice and equality".



Yours sincerely


___________________
Chong Fu Shin Francis


--------------------------------------------------------

Straits Times
20 Feb 1999

PR assessment transparent enough

I refer to the views expressed by Mr Francis Chong Fu Shin on Singapore Immigration 
and Registration's (SIR) points system for assessing permanent residency (PR) 
applications ('Govt must be transparent', ST, Feb 1).

The points system serves as a first-cut assessment of a foreigner's eligibility for PR. Points 
are allocation for:

* Duration of stay in Singapore;
* Academic qualifitcations;
* Salary;
* Type of work pass;
* Age; and
* Kinship ties in Singapore.

SIR is unable to disclose the detailed guidelines or how the points are allocated as it could 
lead to abuse and circumvention.

For example, some applicants who do not qualify might over-declare their income to meet 
the income criteria.

Some past applicants jacked up their CPF contributions or income tax returns drastically 
just prior to application.

Some submitted forged educational certificates.

We would like to assure Mr Chong and readers alike that SIR is transparent where 
appropriate. Reasons for turning down applications are disclosed wherever possible.


SHARON WONG (MRS)
DEPUTY HEAD (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
FOR DIRECTOR
SINGAPORE IMMIGRATION & REGISTRATION

--------------------------------------------------------


3 March 1999


The Forum Editor
The Straits Times


Dear Editor

SIR's revised policy still unacceptable

Two cheers to Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) for
implicitly repudiating its untenable earlier decision to maintain its
policy of not giving reasons for rejecting applications because the
government has the right to decide who becomes a permanent resident (PR
assessment transparent enough,, ST, Feb 20). Two cheers only, because
SIR's revised policy, that "[r]easons for turning down applications are
disclosed wherever possible", is still unacceptable.

SIR continues to claim that disclosing details of the points system
"could lead to abuse and circumvention". Yet, its examples of past
applicants lying about their incomes and educational qualifications
prove that withholding details does not prevent applicants from
cheating.

There is no reason to think SIR's ability to detect cheats will degrade
if the details of the points system are known. After all, Canada
operates a successful permanent residency system in which applicants
know the allocation of points and the qualifying score.

It is a mark of good governance that public servants explain fully their
decisions to the public except when secrecy is warranted. SIR has not
proven a need for secrecy in processing applications for permanent
residency. Therefore, it is duty-bound to explain its decisions, not
only "wherever possible", but always. SIR's unjustified refusal to do so
mocks its own pledge to be "appropriately transparent".

SIR's determination to be effectively opaque rather than transparent is
not cost-free. Its euphemistically named "translucent" points system
fails the test of good governance. In contrast, a transparent points
system would serve the interests of both SIR and the public. If
prospective permanent residents know the details of the points system,
they will not file doomed applications that unnecessarily consume SIR's
resources and reduce its efficiency. This alone ought to ensure
transparency the unstinting support of a government that has made
efficiency its mantra.


Yours sincerely


___________________
Chong Fu Shin Francis