THEY are not exactly expensive lessons. Several have been learnt writing this column over the years. One comes across all kinds of people. There are those who genuinely believe in a cause and stick steadfastly to their views and opinions; there are publicity-seekers who believe the cause will take them places when their statements appear in the newspapers; there are some who see the need to protect their cause because it is their duty to do so failing which they may lose their jobs or income; some remain silent when the cause they support is under attack; and there is a final category of those who have embraced the denial syndrome. Despite repeated assertions that those who feel aggrieved on anything written have a right-to-reply, there are many who choose not to exercise the option for reasons better known to themselves.

Having said that, there is yet another category of people, especially civil servants, who suffer from the fear syndrome. They want to be politically correct in their answers (which is difficult in most instances) and they are afraid of offending their political masters (who should be non-existent as far as they are concerned). Hence, they suddenly find themselves suffering from mental blocks (which is a common phenomenon with journalists). After being vocal and vociferous, they suddenly disappear into their own cocoons in the belief that issues will disappear as the wind blows.

In this column on Nov 2, among issues that were raised was that of the government spending on advertising and the manner in which agencies are chosen. I wrote: Take the “Smart Consumer” campaign, for example. What does it aim to achieve? How many shoppers has the campaign compelled to “compare prices”. If the previous campaign on “petrol subsidies” comparing the prices of fuel in selected countries was a wanton waste of public funds, then this campaign takes the cake as it’s a no-brainer from the word “go”!

What followed was a long letter from Datuk Mohd Zain Mohd Dom, the secretary-general of the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry which was published almost in totality.

He wrote: It also goes without saying that good governance and transparency must underpin the selection process ...”

Therefore, my rejoinder which was published on Nov 9 was:  Was there a competitive pitching when it came to choosing the advertising agency to undertake the campaign? If so, can he in the name of transparency provide the details on the creative agencies and the media specialists which made a bid for the account? On what basis was the agency chosen and can its track record be made public? How much has the ministry allocated for its campaigns? Please open your books for public scrutiny. After all, it is our money!

The silence on the part of Mohd Zain, can only be described as “deafening”. Is the selection of agencies a state secret which falls under the ambit of the Official Secrets Act? Shouldn’t he be telling the rakyat that there was a competitive bid unless there was none and that the contract was given to an abang-adik firm? Shouldn’t we, as “smart consumers” know how much of our money is used for campaigns?

But Mohd Zain has different ideas. He chose not to reply. On Nov 14, I sent him an email with a terse one-line note: (I am) still waiting for your reply to my response.

There was no response and I sent another note on Nov 22 which read: I am still waiting for your response. You have not addressed the issues which I raised in response to your letter which I published in full. It is coming to a month -- almost!

I do not want to be accused of not allowing your views on this issue. Besides, I know for a fact that the KSN has instructed all KSUs to reply to media inquiries within two days.

Please treat this as urgent and important to the image of the government. Let me also suggest that by being oblivious or by taking a “no comment” attitude, the problem is not going to go away.

As I put pen to paper yesterday, there’s been no communication from him. And yet, many civil servants will support him when it is said that Citizen-Nades “does not have nice things to say” about civil servants.

At their next meeting they will conclude: “He only knows how to criticise and does not write the good things that civil servants do.” How do I write good things when they want to “hide a whole pumpkin in a plate of rice”? What is so difficult to tell us about the selection process and how much money has been spent? I rest my case.

R. Nadeswaran insists on an inherent right to demand for transparency and accountability in spending of public money and makes no apology for his style of writing. He is editor (special and investigative reporting) and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com