I think we can accept the Minister for Health’s explanation that his ministry made an honest “judgement call” not to inform the affected patients of the data breach back in 2016, and that it was not unreasonable for them to assess then that putting out the information would have caused more harm than good. So there was no (intentional) cover-up. Of course now with the benefit of hindsight, we can argue that they should have made a different assessment in 2016. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20. The real test is whether given what Ministry of Health (MOH) knew in 2016, was their decision then a reasoned and reasonable one? And my answer is yes.
If you agree with the above argument, wouldn’t you also say that when Sylvia Lim suggested (during last year’s Budget debate) that the government had floated the GST increase as a “trial balloon”, it was also an honest assessment based on what she knew then?
With hindsight, she changed her mind, but again the real test is whether given the facts at the time, was her assessment a reasoned and reasonable one, even if it was later shown to be wrong? And I think most neutral observers would say it was a reasonable opinion (that many others at the time also held) and she didn’t need to apologise.
Why is this comparison important? Because as Harvard’s Levitsky and Ziblat argue in their excellent book “How Democracies Die”, one of the ways in which democratically elected governments undermine democracy is their constant denial of the legitimacy of political critics and opponents, and their characterization of the opposition as enemies, not just political rivals.
More at https://tinyurI.com/y6e54gnt
If you agree with the above argument, wouldn’t you also say that when Sylvia Lim suggested (during last year’s Budget debate) that the government had floated the GST increase as a “trial balloon”, it was also an honest assessment based on what she knew then?
With hindsight, she changed her mind, but again the real test is whether given the facts at the time, was her assessment a reasoned and reasonable one, even if it was later shown to be wrong? And I think most neutral observers would say it was a reasonable opinion (that many others at the time also held) and she didn’t need to apologise.
Why is this comparison important? Because as Harvard’s Levitsky and Ziblat argue in their excellent book “How Democracies Die”, one of the ways in which democratically elected governments undermine democracy is their constant denial of the legitimacy of political critics and opponents, and their characterization of the opposition as enemies, not just political rivals.
More at https://tinyurI.com/y6e54gnt
