|
There seems to be a growing tendency in government circles to change Government policy or an administrative decision as soon as a section of persons or an interested group complain vociferously.
We saw this happening with regard to Government’s eleventh hour decision to postpone by six months the application of smoking regulations in bars restaurants and nightclubs. A similar change of heart seems to have taken place with the lowering of applicable fees for registration as a data protection operator.
At first glance one may rightly feel that this tendency to reconsider is rather positive since it indicates a Government willing to listen and to reverse decisions once a certain amount of opposition to a policy or a decision is expressed with a certain consistency and determination. After all, is this not what good Government is all about, namely listening to people’s concerns and being sensitive to their fears?
Certainly, but in the case of the smoking regulations Government succumbed to the requests of the smoking lobby yet totally ignored the genuine concerns of the non-smokers who willy-nilly will have to put up with the arrogance of many a smoker for a further six months. The smoking lobby is right to state that the legislation is far too draconian in its contemplation of prison sentences and suspension of licenses, however, the fact remains that rather than fine tuning these draconian characteristics of the law, Government simply opted for a postponement. In so doing Government, possibly unintentionally, conveyed the impression that it is strong with the weak and weak with the strong. A pattern is dangerously developing whereby Government is only really becoming sensitive to concerns once they are voiced after legislation is enacted. A much wiser route needs to be chosen whereby the interested parties are consulted in full prior to enacting legislation. This process will avoid all the pitfalls and political embarrassment associated with doing a U-turn which all too often shows that the governmental motor is ever ready to use its reverse gear.
The exorbitant data protection fees were always bound to be a matter of concern to a business community forever warning Government to contain costs to business which clearly affects our competitiveness. Why were the constituted bodies not consulted? How were the fees arrived at? Was it simply a mathematical financial exercise to cover the running costs of the data protection office? Yet again consultation, savvy and a less envy driven civil service would have saved Government much embarrassment.
And what about the siting of the landfills? Are we to witness another U-turn? While anxiously hoping the decision is reversed it will once again confirm the fall out of not consulting and not sufficiently listening to the concerns of all environmental groups and most level-headed citizens prior to deciding. This all smacks of an extremely clumsy government, a far cry from the fully focused Nationalist government soon after taking office in 1987.
It is time for Government to cost the fallout arising from not consulting sufficiently prior to taking a policy decision or implementing a controversial administrative action. The way forward is ‘to fly a kite,’ have consultative discussions, try and win public opinion win the hearts and minds of the people, settle and make known the policy, discuss it openly in the media and only then present a bill in Parliament.
This process symbolises good government and most especially government for the people, all the people and not government just for interested groups.
|
