Judge not the garment

IN SETTING out its new dress code policy, the Government said it considered several needs. The first was for consistency across offices; the second was the fact that the old dress code was outdated and vested in colonialism; the third was the realisation that the State should “embrace global developments;” and the fourth was the requirement that dress codes should match the “brand” of different ministries. None of these needs are met by the code released on Monday by the Ministry of Public Administration.

Portions of the 66-page policy, which is intended for implementation come January 2024, make for incredibly awkward reading. If you have the misfortune of losing all your clothes in a flood or fire, you are required to await, according to this document, the assistance of “a customer service representative” to gain access to a government building. That is laughable.

But even more disconcerting are the code’s references to clothing that is “vulgar,” “inappropriate or obscene,” and “offensive.” Who is to be the final arbiter of such subjective matters? The security guard at the door? The minister upstairs? A “team” is to be appointed to deal with “violations” in each office, according to the ministry. We have time and money to spare, it seems.

This code is a recipe for inconsistency, not consistency. It is not a turning away from outdated norms, but rather the entrenchment of them: a person’s clothing should be completely irrelevant to their needs. If it wishes to embrace global developments, the government should simply look at what the Tobago House of Assembly has done next door. It should dispense with the code altogether.

It is frankly bizarre this matter went all the way to Cabinet. The question of a dress code at public offices is, it seems to us, a matter for public servants, not Whitehall. Indeed, Allyson West, the Minister of Public Administration, last year said the government had far higher priorities when people were clamouring for change. Instead of a protracted song and dance, a simple memo might have sufficed.

Admittedly, there are areas where regulating the appearance of citizens is essential. People being photographed for national identification cards, passports and driver’s licences must be regulated. However, requirements outside the taking of an identification picture are gratuitous when it comes to accessing the many other services available on the premises of the Elections and Boundaries Commission, the Ministry of National Security, and the Licensing Office respectively.

This new policy, the State properly ordains, will not apply to police stations, hospitals, health centres and courts because people “should not be denied emergency access due to their choice of attire.” But that’s precisely the point: people should never be denied public services based on something as superficial as clothes.