By G. Sharmila
WikiLeaks recently published on its website an Australian gag order concerning corruption allegations involving Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. Julian Assange in a statement on WikiLeaks, accused the Australian government of “not just gagging the press, it is blindfolding the Australian public”. Is Assange right? More importantly, do we believe him?
There’s nothing quite like controversy, and Tiger is usually content to lap it up, like the keen reader she is. But on Tuesday, Tiger read something on the Internet that had her cognitive wheels spinning. According to WikiLeaks, the Australian government had in June issued a gag order on Australian media concerning an international corruption case alleging the involvement of officials from Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. WikiLeaks also published the gag order on its website.
Now, ordinarily, Tiger would have been thrilled at reading the classified gag order online. But after reading the document on WikiLeaks, Tiger felt something akin to indigestion. The document clearly names current and former leaders and other officials from Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. According to WikiLeaks, the case itself “concerns allegations of multi-million-dollar payments to persons with high-level political connections in Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia in order to secure contracts for the production of Australian plastic currency banknotes for these countries.”
The more Tiger read, the worse she felt. The part that got her attention was: “The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia’s international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings.”
Tiger knows the point is moot now that the above mentioned gag order has been leaked. But it is not too late for her to touch on the subject of gag orders. True, in an international corruption scandal, it is often in the interest of the public that information be made available. Which is what journalists do, namely, disseminate information so that the truth may prevail. Gag orders, however, prevent journalists from doing that.
Famous gag orders include the one on the trials of Guantanamo Bay suspects back in 2009 and the one Israel issued the same year against the Israeli media reporting on the Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair. The Guantanamo Bay trials involved proceedings against five men accused of planning the September 11 attacks and the order was designed to protect classified information.
The Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair meanwhile centred around leaked documents which suggested the Israeli military had engaged in extrajudicial killings. In both cases, the gag orders were justified, because they were designed to protect classified information and certain people, who may have needed protection. If those people were not protected, justice may not have seen the light of day, because antagonists would have done their level best to get rid of them. Hence, in cases where lives are at stake or minors are in danger then gag orders are probably best, but not for the sake of “national security”, which is very subjective.
Truth is a tricky thing. Being a good journalist doesn’t always mean telling everything because it is expected of you. A good journalist is a responsible journalist in search of a greater good, and the greater good in this respect is to hold off on spilling the beans. Not for good, but just for the moment. Because when a case is ongoing, there’s no telling whose reputation may be tarnished due to allegations.
And so Tiger understands why the Australian government issued the gag order. An international case of this scale alleging the involvement of so many high-level people is highly sensitive as it could cause widespread panic and disorder in the countries involved. And especially in this case, where the people listed in the order have not been charged yet. Yet their reputations are now soiled, perhaps irreparably by the leak.
However, hiding the truth from the media and the public to preserve international relations or national security is very unwise when it involves corruption, for that is the issue at the core of the Australian government’s gag order. If the gag order is to protect the people of the countries involved instead of a select few, then Tiger thinks Assange may be on the right track. Think about it, if there was no WikiLeaks, corruption could carry on unhindered, all the while hiding under veiled terms such as “national security”.
Tiger also disagrees on the five-year duration of the gag order. As another Tiger pointed out, five year is one term for a government and during this time, any number of things could be swept under the carpet, making it impossible for the next government to dig anything up. Tiger feels that what the Australian government should have done was to issue a temporary gag order until the case went to trial. In a financial scandal such as this with far-reaching implications, the public needs assurance that justice is being served, which they undoubtedly feel should be done now that the once-secret gag order is out in the open.
If there’s one good thing that has come out of the gag order being published, it is that the Australian government will now feel pressured to ensure that they are transparent in their handling of this case and that those found guilty will be brought to justice. Because like it or not and however unpleasant it is to all parties involved, this has to happen. The reputation of the Australian government is at stake now and they need to uphold it, however painful the truth may be in the end.
GRRRRR!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.