Parliament provided the forum this week for answers to questions that had been left hanging uncomfortably in the public mind over the Ministry of Health's (MOH) handling of the leak of data of HIV-positive individuals here. Members of Parliament, reflecting rumblings on the ground that had also been articulated in this newspaper and other media, subjected the episode to deserved scrutiny. One feature of public discussion was the question of why the ministry chose to reveal the leak only now, when it appears to have been made aware of breaches on two earlier occasions. Consequently, accusations of a cover-up spread on social media, with the potential of undermining public confidence.

The crux of the Government's response in Parliament is that public disclosure of the matter was a judgment call balancing the need to be transparent with how it would affect those affected. The call, in this case, had to weigh those two competing outcomes. Transparency meant involving all of society in fighting a particular intrusion into its laws and mores. Earlier disclosure by the MOH might have achieved this objective by signalling to the transgressor - an American deported last year after having served a jail term for fraud and drug-related offences - that his actions would not be able to disturb the established patterns and rhythms of society here. In that case, the Government's judgment call should have been different. However, the competing consideration - protection of privacy - was no less important.