Exceptional confusion

IT IS heartening that, notwithstanding some clear differences of opinion, legislation boosting the State’s powers to impose public health penalties was last week passed in record time with opposition support.

With regard to the Opposition, it is not good enough to anticipate “obstructionism” while ignoring the facts that the Opposition represents a large portion of the population to whom these rules are to apply; and that it co-operated in this instance.

Given such a show of trust in the Government, it was incumbent on the Cabinet to do its utmost to get things right, particularly with regard to the regulations – to which no MP or Senator was privy last week.

Sadly, this was not to be.

It started even before the new rules were published. One minister told the country on live television that families in cars did not have to wear masks. Another, in the Senate, said they would have to.

When the regulations were finally promulgated, there were hitches. Errors were made and Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi said these would be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

As understandable as they may be, such errors did little to help the Government’s case that it is managing this second phase of the pandemic well.

Worse yet, there is confusion over the exceptions to the new rules.

The nuances of what constitutes a “reasonable excuse”; the problem of demonstrating to the police that one has a physical or mental impairment or would suffer “severe distress” on wearing a mask; the issue of whether people at home should wear masks (they should) – the overall message was diluted by these nagging questions.

All this shows the need for a clear, widespread campaign of public education, particularly since such uncertainties are likely to be seized upon by an extreme fringe of deniers, who have already begun to agitate against the State’s legitimate exercise of its powers in mandating mask-wearing.

Regulations are useful things. They allow the State tremendous flexibility. Indeed, that is what they are designed for: to give the powers that be the ability to tinker with the finer details without the need for the whole Parliament to approve.

While some regulations are only made law once subject to negative resolution in the House, such processes can be lengthy and time-consuming – and amid a pandemic, the State needs to be nimble on its feet.

Speed, however, is no excuse for bad law. The trust placed in the State has to be earned; its credibility scrupulously guarded.

For these reasons, the Government would do well to avoid the mistake of sending mixed messages in future. It must furthermore ensure the widest possible participation of stakeholders in its drafting exercises.

The last thing we need, on top of all the fear, is confusion.