Rowley the Leviathan?

As the world reels under the creeping dangers of the deadly coronavirus, governments, especially their health authorities, face unprecedented scrutiny. And so, because of its damaging social, psychological and economic consequences, the question asked here is whether PM Dr Keith Rowley and his government are responding adequately to this escalating crisis.

For me the short answer is yes. The virus attack was rather sudden, dangerously infectious and demanding unprecedented individual restraint; putting excessive strain on human and medical resources.

Four months now, Dr Rowley, National Security Minister Stuart Young, Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh and of course, Chief Medical Officer, Dr Roshan Parasram are carrying out their respective responsibilities with effective coordination.

To encourage, I give Dr Rowley and his frontline team nine out of ten. This for accountability, resource management, public assistance and disease control.

Mr Deyalsingh seems always well prepared. Mr Young seems hard at work behind the scenes but should buck up on transparency. Dr Parasram remains highly professional and knowledgeable. All must try avoid making public assistance appear as political favours rather than emergency necessities.

Less extraneous talk would also be welcome. Given the growing complexities, management mistakes may be made. Their seriousness, however, should be judged on the extent to which they directly affect disease spread.

Four months now, Dr Rowley appears compassionate, measured and clearly focused. His fruitful leadership is of course part of a rolling plan. Even with data, you are always behind the real curve, he warned. When circumstances change, he will be judged accordingly. In fact, as already published, some may find fault with government’s response rate, list of essential services or policy disclosures.

Our government heavily relies on public commonsense. That is keep apart, keep at home as much as possible. Last Monday, Prime Minster Rowley cautioned: ”It is not about preserving your comfort zone, not about preserving your earning capacity, not a question of equalising co-ethnic behaviour, not a question of accepting and exploiting political opportunity to create mayhem. It is simply a question of whether we live or die.” “There are now more questions than answers,” tearfully confessed Michigan hospital nurse Maureen Biddinger-Gresius. She solemnly added. (MSNBC interview): “It is not a matter now of who is right or wrong, but with so much stress and uncertainty, it is how we can all help.”

To help achieve self-restraint objectives, government has applied additional regulations mainly from the Public Health Ordinance and Quarantine Act. The population faces sudden, uncomfortable hardships (eg groceries, food, drugs, transport, etc.) However, sacrifices, big or small, are well justified.

The WHO and IMF advised that the priority now is to follow health-safety instructions. And that is what Dr Rowley is telling our population. With spots of public disobedience and pressed by certain sectors to declare a State of Emergency (SoE), even a limited one, he continues to rely on public commonsense. So far, he is unwilling to be the Leviathan. (That is philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ concept of a “an absolute, powerful leader to keep citizens in order.”)

Reserving the option, he explained: “I still believe that the approach of firm persuasion is what is going to work.” Will stricter measures be enforced to have regulations followed? He bluntly replied: “If Government has to do it, it will.” As the Leviathan, his weapon will be the lockdown State of Emergency (SoE, Sections 7 – 10, Constitution). Though inconsistent with Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution, Section 8 in particular states that the President (on advice) may from time to time make a Proclamation declaring a SoE, if satisfied a war is likely, or from earthquake, hurricane; or “from flood, fire, outbreak of pestilence or of infectious disease.”

This first declaration, after parliament debate, will last fifteen days. It can be extended in the House of Representatives (HoR) by simple majority for periods not exceeding three months but not in all exceeding six months.

Government can then have it extended for three-month periods by not less than three-fifth of all members of both Houses. A simple majority in the HoR can terminate the SoE. So far, Dr Rowley remains as the biblical Job and the unwilling Leviathan. It depends on how the population behaves. Come April 30 we will see.