LEARN from our history lessons or be condemned to repeat the same mistakes, so goes the saying widely attributed to philosopher George Santayana.
In our case, where official secrets — once so classified — can stay that way for a seeming eternity, history may well be forgotten in the process. That, of course, will be a tragedy.
To overcome any such collective loss of memory over historical events, and especially inconvenient ones, the government has announced moves to establish a general policy for the declassification of historical documents currently out of reach even to historians, as they come under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
For too long, access to parts of Malaysia’s history has been restricted, limiting the ability of historians, researchers and the public to examine important events and more fully understand how decisions that shaped the country were made.
Some of those decisions may be contentious and controversial when they were first made and, granted, the sensitivities surrounding them may linger, even up to this day. But the passage of time tends to change our perspectives of whatever happened, allowing more dispassionate discussions and debates on the pivotal moments in our history.
Secrecy should never become permanent simply because a document was once classified. While legitimate national security concerns must be accepted and respected, there should be a presumption that historical records will eventually be made accessible for public scrutiny.
This is not about reopening old wounds or assigning blame indiscriminately. It is about allowing history to be examined through documentary evidence rather than mere speculation, incomplete accounts or politically convenient narratives.
We can learn from how other countries manage their official documents. In the United Kingdom and Australia, for example, government records are declassified as a matter of course 20 years after. Malaysia should also introduce a fixed declassification timeline, with a systematic review process and partial disclosure if certain passages are deemed to be still sensitive.
We can also establish a clear distinction between ordinary government records, sensitive cabinet deliberations and particularly protected personal information. The National Archives should be the appropriate agency to play a central role in administering access.
Contention and disagreement over interpretations of certain official documents surrounding important historical events will be inevitable. It will be the task of historians to analyse and debate among themselves and, in the fullness of time, we must trust that the public will have developed enough maturity to weigh differing interpretations of events even by history experts and come to accept why certain decisions were arrived at and the proper contexts under which they were made.
The government thus deserves credit for recognising the need to revisit the OSA’s application as it pertains to historical documents. But this must not be merely an exercise in selectively opening up files. An enduring principle must be clearly arrived at that indisputably accepts that public records belong, ultimately, to the public.