3月尾时，政府宣布国家耆老理事会关于国家经济状况的百日建议报告不会公开，反之将在官方机密法令下，列为官方机密文件。有趣的是，领导耆老理事会的敦达因表示他不反对公布有关的报告，甚至之前接受《星报》采访时还承诺：“我会将报告公开”。
运用官方机密法令拒绝公开资讯是令人担忧的，这也是敦马哈迪在1981年至2003年首次担任首相时的特征。
希盟在竞选宣言中承诺制定资讯自由法令，这也是《2019-2030年国家反贪大蓝图》（NACP）的关键部分。用官方机密法令把耆老理事会调查结果中的重要信息遮蔽起来，不禁令人质疑，我们是否在倒退回专制政府时代，或者对现任政府我们应往好方面想，是否是报告的内容具有破坏性，以至它可能导致股市大跌、投资者逃离、市场混乱，进而股市及货币进一步崩溃。
引起不良猜疑
首相解释，现在还不是公布报告的时候，直到报告内的建议已落实，同时也不会面对诽谤诉讼。
但是，拒绝公开报告，最终会引起人们做出种种不良的猜疑，同时在报告公开前，投资也会有所保留，进而导致市场停滞。希盟正迈向治理这个国家一周年，至今，还没有重大的刺激经济举措，因为政府领导人全神贯注投入一场又一场的补选，以及提控前首相拿督斯里纳吉涉及的一马发展公司丑闻案件。
对于耆老理事会也引来一定程度的不满，这样一个无须对民众负责，但却具有深远权力的政治局，也引起内阁一些成员的质疑。虽然它只扮演著一个谘询和事实调查的委员会，但其拥有的说服（首相）权力，就如咄咄逼人的配偶一样强大。
无论如何，耆老理事会和政府，特别是马哈迪在处理一些课题上，可视为反映有关报告的倾向。这包括取消某些基础设施计划，如隆新高铁（HSR），至于还在检讨中的东海岸铁道（ECRL）计划，也将在本月底马哈迪领导一个高层代表团访华后，会有更明确的方向。
削减财政部权力
把政府的投资臂膀──国库控股（Khazanah）从财政部属下移到首相署，也应是耆老理事会给予的建议。同样的，为削减财政部的权力，除了把国库控股直接置于首相之下，也把财长排除在董事局内，以及将一些官联公司置于经济事务部下，相信也是来自耆老理事会提议。
官联公司首席执行员的撤换，包括那些领导著公司取得盈利者，都是耆老理事会的首批决策之一。许多官联公司负责人被耆老理事会传召，与达因息息相关，这一切是这些首席执员被雪藏的前兆。
马来亚大学经济与管理学院教授埃德蒙德戈梅兹（Edmund Terence Gomez）是最强烈反对滥用官联公司作为政治恩惠者，他对政府违反不委任政治人物出任官联公司职位承诺感到失望。
但今天，我们看到执政党成员领导著政府的机构和公司。这对之前大力宣传的反贪大蓝图，无疑是一个污点，在蓝图下，承诺官联公司将确保由专业人士营运，以避免遭滥用。
引用戈梅兹教授的话：“马哈迪应该比谁更了解这处境，而非允许如此情况发生。毕竟，他强调官联公司功能，有更‘高尚的愿景’，包括减轻贫困，公平的分配财富和带动发展，促进农村工业以及在新的经济领域培育创业公司。”
带来政治伤害
不幸的是，达因认为政治恩惠是必要的。因此，对官联公司以及政府及国营子公司的重整，是否可能让希盟面对抨击？
此外，耆老理事会报告可能对现有政府带来政治伤害，因为报告除了强调土著须独立自主，同时也指公务员人数须减少约10％。这将影响土著对政府的支持，如某些大型工程的取消和缩小，导致许多马来人和土著公司失去工作和合同。
或许，耆老理事会报告列出了各种问题，但却没有任何实际的解决方案，或者更糟糕的是，承认之前国阵执政下的一些政策，如消费税（GST）实际上是好的措施。
这些猜测带来的伤害，可能与公开报告的结果是一样的。因此，政府最好将我们视为成年人，并至少释放报告中不那么“敏感”的部分，以阻止我们疯狂的想像力。
《保密导致更狂野臆想》（Secrets lead to wild imaginations）原文：
IT has been over a week since it was announced that the 100-day report of the Council of Eminent Persons (CEP) on the state of the country’s economy will not be released to the public and will be an official secret under the OSA (Official Secrets Act).
Interestingly Tun Daim Zainuddin who heads the CEP said he has no issue of the report being made public, even committing in an interview with StarBiz that “I will release it”.
The use of the OSA to circumvent information is a cause for concern as it had been one of the hallmarks of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s first premiership from 1981 to 2003.
Pakatan Harapan (PH) had promised in its manifesto to enact a Freedom of Information Act, which is also a key component in the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) 2019-2023. Keeping such crucial information as in the CEP findings under OSA begs one to question if we are regressing to an autocratic administration or – to give the current government the benefit of the doubt, the contents of the report is so damaging that it could cause a sell down, investors to flee, chaos on our streets and the stock market and currency to further tumble.
The Prime Minister explained that it is not the time for the report to be made public until their proposals are implemented and not subjected to defamation suits.
But declining to release the report ends up creating unhealthy speculations and stagnation in investments until the report is released. PH is reaching its first anniversary in governing this country. Until now there have been no major initiatives to stimulate the economy as government leaders have been to pre-occupied with one by-election after another and putting former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak behind bars for his alleged role in the 1 Malaysia Development Board (1MDB) scandal.
There had been a certain level of discomfort with the CEP – a polit bureau which had no accountability to the people but had far reaching powers that even Cabinet members questioned its role.
While it is meant to be advisory and a fact-finding committee, its persuasive powers is as strong as an overbearing spouse.
In any case, how the CEP and the Government – particularly Dr Mahathir had conducted themselves on a number of issues could give an inclination on what to expect from the classified report.
These include the cancellation of certain infrastructure projects such as the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High Speed Rail (HSR), while there should be some clarity on the future of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) which is under review when Dr. Mahathir leads a high-powered delegation to China at the end of the month.
The carving out of government investment arm Khazanah from the Finance Ministry’s control and parked directly under the Prime Minister’s Department is something that was the result of CEP input.
Similarly, is the decision to remove some of the teeth of the Finance Ministry by placing Khazanah directly under the Prime Minister with no seat on the Board for the Finance Minister; and placing Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) under the Economic Affairs Ministry.
The removal of CEOs of GLCs – including those who lead their respective companies to profits was one of the first decisions attributed to the CEP. That many GLC heads were summoned to the CEP whose gatekeeper was a relative of Daim was a precursor to what lay in store of some of these CEOs.
Universiti Malaya Economics and Administration Faculty Prof Edmund Terence Gomez, a strong opponent to the abuse of GLCs for political patronage is among those who had lamented that the government is going back on its word that politicians will not be involved in GLCs.
But today we have political party members heading institutions, companies and boards. This is another blot on the much hyped NACP which promised to eradicate the abuse of GLCs by only ensuring they are run by professionals.
To quote Prof Gomez: “Mahathir should know better than to allow this. After all, he had stressed that GLCs function to fulfil a “noble vision”, including the alleviation of poverty, equitable wealth distribution and spatial development, promotion of rural industries and the fostering of entrepreneurial companies in new sectors of the economy.”
Unfortunately, Daim himself had reasoned that political patronage is a necessity. Could the review of the running of GLCs and government and state-run subsidiaries be another recommendation that could potentially put PH on the defense?
Further to this, could the CEP report potentially also hurt the current government politically, as while the need for Bumiputra emancipation is emphasized, there is also the trimming of the number of civil servants by about 10%. This would largely influence Bumiputera support, as in how the cancellation and downgrading of certain mega projects had resulted in many Malays and Bumiputra companies losing jobs and contracts.
Or perhaps, the CEP report is full of problems without any practical solutions – or worse, an admission that some of the previous Barisan Nasional-led government policies such as government service tax (GST) were in fact good initiatives.
Such speculations can be just as harmful as to the revelation of the report. So, the government would do well to stop our imaginations from going wild by treating us as adults and releasing at least the not so “sensitive” parts of the report.
