Actually I have worked in other public agency who also take decision to disengage if “difficult” enquirer persist in asking questions and they got nothing else to answer. Someone explained to me before that some public servants have the concern of making a public statement on behalf of their agency that is not already in public domain about a difficult issue, as it would need many layers of clearance.

I’m not passing any comments whether such conduct is more or less accountable. Each case is different.

My own view is that public agency should work towards more thoughtful answers to individual members of public (not only those who complain high up) that actually go behind to see what taiji the enquirer is angry about. It is true some enquirers are just looking to stir and I would not disagree that these should be disengaged if no further info can be provided, but some have a genuine gripe. It’s not surprising that they will get more angry to receive “standard” answers pointing them to various sources of information in public domain. C’mon, a non-chatgpt applying the human mind can do better.