Enough with double standards!

Here’s one question regarding the double standards of only requiring a three-day observation period for returning ministers.

AS voters, I think one of the very first questions we ask in evaluating our leaders is: Are they working in our interests?

The recent decision to allow ministers who travel overseas to skip a full quarantine in favour of a three-day "observation period" surely brings to mind this very question.

One imagines that before implementing this policy, politicians took a moment to consider how their actions would be perceived (or perhaps this is optimistic). Perhaps there was some sort of line of reasoning behind their decision to implement this policy.

As I work in the field of perception management, let me try to offer my humble views on the few lines of reasoning we can potentially infer, and how I would personally rate how well the public would react to them - from 1 being a completely negative perception where the public is not convinced, to 10 being a completely positive perception where the public is convinced.

Potential reasoning No 1: The public will believe the nature of work that ministers do is so unique and vital that it justifies exempting them from normal rules that apply to others. Rating: 1/10

Potential reasoning No 2: The public will believe that the nature of a minister's work is such that they cannot perform their duties by relying on tools such as video conferencing like the rest of us. Rating: 2/10

Potential reasoning No 3: The public will believe that ministers perform such a vital role that the country would fall apart should they be quarantined for the same full period as regular travellers. Rating: 1/10

Hard as it may be to believe, I’m not here with an axe to grind or incite mindless hate against the government.

I do feel the above are some of the only lines of reasoning I can come up with as to why on earth any leader would implement such a policy.

I’m no medical professional, but unless I’ve missed something big with regards to how the incubation stages of Covid-19 work, I’m really not sure what the point is exactly in "observing" a recently returned minister for three days (indeed, at times, observing them for three minutes can be a painful experience).

There is, as far as I know, absolutely no way of knowing within those three days whether or not the said minister would have contracted Covid-19.

If this is the policy, why not do away with this token observation completely? After all, scientifically speaking, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

If ministers are allowed this privilege, should we not extend it to deputy ministers as well? What about senior government officials? Leaders of political parties perhaps?

Heck, if it’s safe enough for them, why not just do away with quarantines for all travellers?

Let’s try to approach this matter from the perspective of a purely self-interested politician.

Covid-19 and the MCO are a huge part of every single Malaysian’s life right now. There is probably not a single person who remains unaffected.

Some of us feel we are losing our minds, while others are losing jobs, livelihoods, and most importantly, loved ones.

I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that in the end, more than any other factor, our current leaders will be judged on how they have handled this defining crisis.

In my line of work, we study how certain perceptions stick to people.

If I’m not mistaken, the minister who signed this new ruling regarding the three-day observation period is the same minister who once told us that drinking warm water will cure Covid-19.

It is important to remember that a black mark on one member of the Cabinet reflects on the Cabinet as a whole.

The declaration of an Emergency may have put off elections in the short term, but Malaysian politicians will have to face the polls eventually.

A year in, we haven’t forgotten the warm water incident; and I don’t think we’ll forget it three years from now either.

The same goes for this three-day observation policy. It’s a black mark on that one minister - and the Prime Minister who appointed him should realise that the black mark reflects on him as well.

We have had to deal with haphazard planning, inconsistent reasoning, and unclear communication and leadership throughout the Covid-19 crisis.

If we add to this burden, the perception that the government is working not in our interests but in its own, it is extremely difficult to see how they will win support.

Humans have been shown to have an extremely visceral reaction to the perception that they are being treated unfairly.

One of the largest, most sustained movements in Malaysia’s history was Bersih, which was organised because there was a widespread belief that our electoral system was deeply unfair.

If the government is seen to be unfairly practising double standards again and again over so many months, there will be another groundswell of resentment.

A politician’s most famous line at ceramahs was to ask: are we experiencing rule of law, or the law of the jungle?

The difference is obvious.

A country with rule of law sees the law fairly applied to everyone, no matter what level of society they are in.

In the law of the jungle, the powerful take what they want, and the weak suffer their domination - that is until the weak decide to band together and fight back, as they have so many times before.

If the government does not wish things to reach this point - if they wish to be seen as acting in the interests of the people - then they would do well to rescind policies that are totally bereft of scientific logic, and seem designed so clearly to cater to self-serving interests while endangering the lives of every other Malaysian.

NATHANIEL TAN is a strategic communications consultant. He tweets @NatAsasi and can be reached at [e-mail].