Latest news with #PanamaPapers
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing. But, the history of the last 100 years has been changed very much for the better by the leaking of unauthorised information. For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control – they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional implications…then it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. Moreover…the government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. Basically….by limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which case…as mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Gordon Campbell On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control - they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Express Tribune
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
PM extends war victory greetings in court hearing
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and a district court judge exchanged greetings on Pakistan's reported victory in the conflict with India during proceedings of a defamation suit filed by the prime minister against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan. PM Shehbaz appeared before the court via video link for the hearing of the Rs10 billion defamation case, which accuses Imran Khan of tarnishing his image through public allegations of offering a bribe to withdraw the Panama Papers case. At the outset of the hearing, PM Shehbaz Sharif congratulated those present in the courtroom on what he described as Pakistan's success in the conflict. The presiding judge reciprocated the greeting, acknowledging the reported development. Imran Khan's counsel also commented on the situation, terming it a national victory. During cross-examination, the counsel for Imran Khan posed a series of questions to the prime minister. When asked if the allegations were made in writing, the prime minister responded that the statements were made repeatedly on television channels. Responding to whether he had ever made similar accusations without evidence, the prime minister stated that he had never made baseless claims. The court adjourned the hearing until June 2 for further proceedings.
Business Recorder
18-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Defamation case against IK adjourned
LAHORE: A sessions court on Saturday postponed the hearing of Rs 10 billion defamation case against the former PTI chairman Imran Khan for further cross examine of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on May 24. Earlier, PM Shehbaz Sharif appeared via video link and counsel of Imran Khan, cross-examined him. The counsel of Imran asked Shehbaz Sharif whether the rupees ten billion bribe offer linked to the Panama Papers case was mentioned in the claim. The Prime Minister replied that the claim does not state that Imran Khan directly made him the offer. On another question Shehbaz Sharif said that Imran Khan had accused Nawaz Sharif of offering bribe of rupees ten billion through his brother. He added that when this alleged offer was made, their other brother Abbas Sharif had already passed away, and only the two of them were alive. Shehbaz Sharif also said that no family member's name, including Nawaz Sharif or himself, was mentioned in the TV program where the offer was discussed. The counsel of Shehbaz objected on a question asked about the audio recording of Justice Malik Qayyum. He said the question was taken from the PTI founder's response, which the Supreme Court and Lahore High Court have already ruled is no longer valid. He asked the court not to allow the question about the audio of Justice Qayyum and Shehbaz Sharif as it is an attempt to scandalize the matter. The PM replying to another question said neither the anchor mentioned his name during the program nor even in his reply, Imran Khan mentioned him. Shehbaz Sharif also said he was not sure whether the PTI founder had denied making the rupees ten billion offer but believed the PTI founder had clearly hinted towards him, even if not by name. Shehbaz Sharif with the court permission quoted a Punjabi phrase which caused laughter in the courtroom. The court adjourned the proceeding till next hearing for further cross examine. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Rs40b Kohistan scandal: investigators 'complicit'
Leader of the Opposition in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, Dr. Ibadullah, has alleged that individuals investigating the massive Rs40 billion financial scandal in Kohistan are themselves involved in the corruption. He further claimed that the province's Chief Executive remains unaware of the situation. Addressing an emergency press conference at the provincial assembly, Dr Ibadullah stated, "In this province, not even a peon can be transferred without money changing hands. Yet the Chief Executive claims ignorance of a scandal worth billions." He further alleged that the very individuals tasked with investigating the scandal are themselves complicit in the corruption. Ibadullah was accompanied by MPA Sajjadullah of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), who also represents Kohistan. The opposition leader drew comparisons with the 2014 Panama Papers controversy, noting, "At that time, PTI leaders raised a storm over Rs3 billion. Now, under their own government, Rs40 billion has vanished in just six years." He questioned the potential use of the embezzled funds, suggesting, "Was this money used to fund the Islamabad march, the May 9 agitation, or opposition to the Army Chief's appointment?" He directly accused the province's Chief Executive of involvement in the scandal, criticizing his silence on the issue. "Those in PTI who once couldn't afford a rickshaw now own commercial plots worth billions in Islamabad," he claimed. He praised the Speaker of the Assembly for referring the Kohistan scandal to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for investigation, but called it an example of institutional failure. He pointed to the involvement of the Communication and Works (C&W) Department, the Accountant General's office, and the Finance Department.
