The Government's move to form a constitutional commission to update the elected presidency and to seek public consultation is to be lauded ("How to give your feedback on elected presidency"; Feb 19, "Nine-member panel to review elected presidency"; Feb 11 and "First hearing today on changes to elected presidency"; April 18).
The public hearings being held are testament to the efforts of the establishment to be transparent.
However, the entire process should be even more open and transparent. There were more than 100 individuals and groups who submitted their views, but only about 20 were invited to clarify their positions.
Are the rest of the submissions drafted with such clarity that no clarification is required, or are they deemed to be of no relevance or are inconsequential to the final report?
The commission should set up a website and display all the submissions so that the public can read what has been submitted.
This will give the assurance that the commission is not withholding areas of concern in its analysis and report, thereby engineering a predetermined outcome of the changes.