What amongst the following should Ms. X do now?

Question

Ms. X is a mid-level civil service official working in the urban development department of a major city. Recently, she was involved in approving a contract for a public infrastructure project — a new community park. During the approval process, she received a piece of confidential information indicating that one of the shortlisted contractors had a history of poor workmanship and allegations of corruption in other cities, though nothing had been legally proven. The Head of the Department, Mr. Y, advised her not to disclose this information to the project committee or the public because it could delay the project and damage the city's reputation. However, Ms. X believed that withholding such information compromised transparency and public trust.

What amongst the following should Ms. X do now?

1. Immediately disclose the information to the project committee and the public

2. Recommend removing the contractor from the shortlist to protect the project's integrity

3. Propose a 'limited disclosure' to an oversight committee, while keeping the information confidential from the public for the time being

1. A. 1 and 2 only
2. B. 3 only (Correct answer)
3. C. 2 and 3 only
4. D. 1, 2 and 3

Correct Answer

Option B — B

Detailed Solution & Explanation

The correct answer is Option B.

Key Points

• Ms. X holds unproven, confidential information about a shortlisted contractor.
• The ethical course balances transparency with fairness and due process:
• Option 3 is the right action: a 'limited disclosure' to an oversight committee, while keeping the unverified allegation confidential from the public for now, upholds transparency and integrity without publicly defaming a contractor against whom nothing is legally proven.
• the tension is between transparency/public trust and fairness/due process to an accused party; escalating to a competent oversight body resolves it without either suppressing information (as Mr. Y wanted) or acting rashly on rumour.

Additional Information

• Option 1 (public disclosure now): broadcasting unproven allegations could be defamatory, prejudge the contractor, and be procedurally unfair.
• Option 2 (remove the contractor): acting to disqualify a bidder purely on unproven rumour violates natural justice and fair-procurement norms.

Exam Tip

• when information is credible but unproven, the ethical middle path is disclosure to the proper authority, not the public or unilateral action.