Stonewalling leads to brouhahas

• Source: Global Times
• [00:18 July 01 2009]
• Comments

The death of a chef in a small village in Hubei Province caused a public crisis that disturbed the central government.

When the 24-year-old man committed suicide and lay down in the lobby of the restaurant where he worked, his family and the public requested the facts and confronted local police, who didn’t provide information in a timely fashion. Public anger was fueled by speculation and rumors that swirled around the Internet. The crisis was finally quelled four days later when the central government stepped in.

It was just another example showing that the absence of authoritative information during an emergency can result in dangerous public disturbances.

When emergencies happen, people naturally turn to trustworthy sources for reliable information. But in many cases, that source is not the government, which is either slow to respond or provides incomplete information to the public. The lack of an authoritative source of information gives room for rumors.

In the past, the initial reaction of the government to an emergency was to cover up, hoping the crisis would pass with time. That approach led to numerous governmental PR disasters and left a bad record of government credibility.

The Chinese government, now eager to improve its public image, has learned the importance of enhancing information transparency, and in some cases has made notable progress.

For example, the regular and thorough release of information during the recent A (H1N1) flu pandemic proved effective in keeping public order.

The Regulation On Open Government Information, released last year, is among the efforts to empower the public to access crucial government information.

But in reality, the distrust of government information is embarrassing. The government, often missing the critical time for publicizing information, has to follow up later and awkwardly straighten out twisted stories.

Building credibility through governmental transparence requires systematic efforts. The public’s right to know doesn’t mean simply releasing the maximum amount of information wholesale; rather, it means establishing open procedures based on law for the public to obtain factual information on what the government is doing.

There has to be a clear legal boundary on what the government should make public, and how long information can be kept temporarily classified before being released.

A truly open government requires thorough media supervision and strict law enforcement. This won’t be easy for the government, which for a long time has not had enough public supervision. When the government enjoys strong credibility, it will be the first source the public turns to for information.