Separating the wheat from the chaff

IN an age where information is mass produced and accessible at the touch of a button what the public really should have is relevant knowledge.
This information should be available so people can make sound and educated decisions.
One of the biggest problems in Papua New Guinea is that there is a lack of information on issues and individuals and/or accessing this information is difficult to the extent of not being worth the effort.
Often we are told that information on individuals or their conduct is private or of no relevance to our needs, and hence it is kept from us.
Information on parliamentarians before they are 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 public office, that person is making a conscious decision to be in the public domain.
Being a public official, especially one who makes and directs decisions for the good of the community at large, means he or she is in some ways public property.
In the interests of accountability and transparency, it should 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 an invasion of privacy to 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 misused and abused and part of the reason is that the leadership from Waigani is not up to the task.
It is almost as if corruption, whether it be on a large scale or minor, has been accepted as the norm rather than the exception in the corridors of power, and people are only interested in tolerating it while trying to do their jobs.
Parliament should be the first place 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 know, what their members are doing on the floor of the House. Are they supporting bills that they campaigned for? Are they opposing laws that are contradictory to their policies?
These are questions that MPs should 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 should be judged on how they perform and what they do with their time in power.
MPs’ acquittals of their District Services Improvement Programme funds should be done on a timely basis as is the house rule. That information must be made public for the people in the electorates and others around the country to 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 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.
This is one of the reasons why under-performing MPs are returned despite not proving their worth to the people on the floor of Parliament or in the district.