Not enough information available

IN an age where information is mass produced and accessible at the touch of a button, what the public really must have is knowledge.
This information should be available to everyone in order for them to make sound and educated decisions.
When you put this into political context, it becomes crucial for voters to know who they are trusting with their vote and what that individual, once voted into power, does with the people’s trust.
One of the biggest problems in Papua New Guinea is the lack of information on issues and individuals and accessing this information is difficult to the extent that it’s not worth the effort.
Often, we are told that information on individuals or their conduct is private or are not relevant to our needs, and hence, it is kept from us. But it is that very information that the constituents need in order to gain a clearer picture of the candidate and what he or she stands for.
Information on parliamentarians before they were voted into office, and on their record while in office, is of the utmost importance and should be public knowledge.
When a person chooses to run for office, that person is making a conscientious decision to be a public official.
Being a public official, especially one who makes and directs decisions for the good of the community, means he or she is, in some ways, public property.
In the interests of accountability and transparency, it must be compulsory for all MPs to declare their business interests and earnings, qualifications and criminal record, if any, when they announce their candidacy for election. It may be seen as an invasion of privacy by some, but it is this kind of full disclosure that separates the wheat from the chaff, not just in terms of suitability in education or life experience but in moral character as well.
This country has been plagued by corruption through its 42-year history and to this day, money, services and goods are still being misused and abused and part of the reason is that leadership from Waigani is still not up to the task.
Parliament should be the first place that is open to all, after all, in a democracy, the power does rightfully belong to the people.
It should be true in practice, not just in theory.
A parliamentarian’s voting records should be made public.
The people must be aware or, at the very least, be able to know what their members are doing on the floor.
Are they supporting bills that they campaigned for? Are they opposing laws that are contradictory to their policies?
These are questions that MPs must be asked every time they set foot in parliament and are called to give their support to whatever proposal that is on the floor.
They have to be judged on how they perform and what they do with their time in office.
MP’s acquittals for their District Services Improvement Programme funds must be done on a timely basis as is the House rule.
That information must be made public in order for the people in the electorates and others around the country can judge for themselves whether an MP’s term has been filled with cost-effective and practical spending or if it has been a period of spending only with little or no tangible results.
As far as accountability goes, not enough information is made available to the public for them to draw their own conclusions.