In early March, Singaporean Member of Parliament Ang Wei Neng brought up a pretty radical idea. He suggested, in parliament, that degrees granted by Singaporean universities should have a “time stamp”, meaning that graduates would have to attend upgrading programmes every five years, or their degree would not be allowed to count towards their credentials. In other words, degrees could expire. Ang was essentially trying to come up with a “stick” for continuous training and lifelong learning, which, in and of themselves, are certainly worthy objectives.
As one might imagine, there was plenty of blowback. Some of the concerns included monopolisation of the “upgrading programmes” by dubious companies (one can certainly imagine this happening in Malaysia), who would bear the costs of these “upgrading programmes”, and the general practicality of upgrading your degree versus on-the-job training. But perhaps the most common pushback against Ang’s (admittedly out-of-the-box) idea was that lifelong learning should not be forced, and certainly not via the expiration or shelf life of degrees. Rather than use a “stick”, perhaps “carrots”, such as learning incentives or tax breaks for lifelong learning, could be more appropriate.
In fairness, some occupations already have licence renewals from time to time — these include doctors and auditors. After all, none of us would want to have a surgeon operate on us using completely outdated methods; we would want the latest, safest techniques. So there should be no reason why all occupations should not have to, at least, attempt to be on the frontier or close to it. We no longer use stone tools after all. The question is: Should it be a regulation issue, enforced by some form of authority, or should it be voluntary, based on a sense of personal responsibility? There are arguments for either case, but it struck me as pretty similar to where the world is now with regard to dealing with Covid-19.
Last week, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob announced that Malaysia would be entering the “Transition to Endemicity” phase from April 1, 2022. The specific details of the transition are best captured elsewhere, but I thought that this quote from the prime minister was notable: “There will no longer be the 50% capacity limit [for venue occupancy]. However, organisers are encouraged to continue imposing physical distancing rules.”
This language mirrors that of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who recently introduced a set of measures under its “Living with Covid” strategy. In announcing the changes — the most controversial of which was perhaps the removal of mandatory quarantine even for Covid-positive people — Johnson said that the time to “compel” people was over and that, “people will be asked to exercise personal responsibility” and, thus, to watch out for one another.
In practice, this transition to endemicity is a shift from rules as mandated by the government towards a sense of personal responsibility. While mask mandates are still in place, it is not unlikely that the mask mandate will be done away with in time as well, at least for outdoor spaces. Indeed, even in recent weeks, the government announced that for close contacts of confirmed Covid-positive individuals, no quarantine was necessary if those close contacts had received booster shots and displayed no symptoms. This is a far cry from the initial 14-day quarantine at the start of the pandemic; it goes to show how far we have come.
But that being said, no government-mandated quarantine is not the same as no quarantine. Individuals may choose to isolate themselves, at least for a few days, before they return to work or meet family members and so on. Overall, I am a fan of this shift towards personal responsibility as we transition towards endemicity; it is always good to have greater voluntary social responsibility than it is to be more dependent on law enforcement. However, as a society, we have to earn it.
There has been plenty of evidence over the past two years to make us here in Malaysia sceptical about personal responsibility and personal accountability vis-à-vis the pandemic. This is true of all the key national actors — the government, our firms and our society. Take, for instance, society. When news started to emerge that there were clinics and doctors who were selling fake vaccination certificates (and dumping vaccines accordingly) to individuals who wished to avoid being vaccinated, perhaps the most startling point was that certain clinics had to lower their prices owing to intense competition! It made me wonder just how many of these clinics issuing fake vaccine certificates were there.
But even if individuals choose to self-isolate as close contacts (or in the UK’s case, as Covid-positive individuals), can they resist pressure from employers to go in to work? There have been lots of stories of firms “strongly encouraging” their employees to work in the office, even before their employees were vaccinated. Moreover, given that the Malaysian economic structure makes our economy more vulnerable to pandemic-like events — with a large chunk of our jobs being unsuited for work-from-home arrangements — can employees afford “personal responsibility” with regard to keeping all of us safe?
Next, in relation to the government, the news has been rife with reports of government officials breaking Covid regulations, as well as multiple standards that apply to some but not to others. If we are to transition to endemicity, we need personal responsibility and personal accountability equally for each member of society; we need to build trust that the government can walk the talk in ensuring that personal responsibility applies to all, without exceptions. Furthermore, “personal responsibility” is more affordable to certain segments of the population than others — for instance, those who cannot afford to regularly test themselves may not actually be irresponsible, it is just that personal responsibility may be out of reach for them. How can the government ensure that there is some egalitarianism in personal responsibility?
Putting it all together, it is clear that even our transition to endemicity requires a transition. Moving from enforced regulations to personal responsibility means we not only need to ensure the practical aspects of ensuring everyone has equal access to “personal responsibility” at best, we need to build or even rebuild trust. Not just between citizens and the government to have everyone treated equally, or between employees and employers to protect employee welfare, but also among each other. I need to know that someone else is not lying about their vaccination status, or even their Covid-positive status, for instance. If we are to meaningfully transition to endemicity, we have to learn, or perhaps relearn, how to trust one another.