There can be a thin line between the sometimes necessary confidentiality in government and a muzzling of public discourse, which is essential to good governance.

Two issues in Jamaica this past week highlighted this tension, but, surprisingly, drew little attention from the civil libertarians and free speech advocates. For, as they would understand, such debates are about more than a mere right to say what one feels. The more fundamental issue is freedom of expression as a foundation of democracy.

Good point

So, last week Prime Minister Bruce Golding advised Douglas Saunders, his Cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, to remind public servants that they are subject to Staff Orders that limit their involvement in public discourse and open policy debates. Mr Golding does not want, or so he claims, the private opinions of public sector officials to be misconstrued as official policy. The PM, on the face of it, has a point. Or, does he?

Mr Golding's intervention was prompted by the suggestion of a senior official in the health ministry, Dr Kevin Harvey, that prostitution should be decriminalised. Unfortunately, the major focus on what Dr Harvey had to say has centred on the suggestion that if sex workers were taxed enough, income would be earned to offset the cost of offering them health services.

In these columns, we chose to highlight, and agree with, what really was the crux of Dr Harvey's observations: that the criminalisation of prostitution pushes sex workers underground, away from the formal health-care system. The danger: the undetected spread of sexually transmitted infections.

It was clear to us, and we believe most people, that Dr Harvey spoke in a private capacity. He echoed what other health professionals, including senior public sector officers, have been saying for a long time. Politicians, however, have been too coward to act.

Which brings us to Mr Golding's wish to enforce the ban on public commentary by civil servants, thereby limiting their interventions to closed-door policy fora. There has to be wider latitude for public officials to speak, lest we create a sterile environment with monolithic ideas.

What Mr Golding, and others in leadership, must learn to do is trust the capacity of the people whom they declare to serve. They are not stupid and are quite capable of discerning what is private opinion from public policy. They do not need an overburden of paternalistic guidance. Public officials, too, must also be clear when it is in the public interest to speak out, even if they break the rules. In America, Daniel Ellsberg understood this with the Pentagon Papers.

Lack of fairness

In the other instance from last week, Magistrate Marlene Malahoo Forte, given her position on the bench - and her need to avoid any unwarranted suspicion of lack of fairness - might have been more circumspect in her "attorneys-as-hustlers" remark. But we all know what she means and of the contribution of certain kinds of behaviour to inefficiency in the judicial system. It is a fact that many lawyers take several cases for the same day in different places. And far too many lawyers, though not all who should, face disciplinary proceedings for bilking clients.

These are matters in which the public has interest. They must be debated, with due decorum, not only behind closed doors, as some would wish to do.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.