FRIENDLIER LAWS ARE NEEDED

Jul 27, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Forty years ago, there was a good chance that if a traffic cop stopped you on the road for some minor infraction, there was a seventy-five per cent chance that he would give you a friendly warning and send you on your way.
Today, there is a seventy per cent chance that a traffic cop on stopping a vehicle would leave the scene a happier man and you a few thousand dollars poorer.
The days when police used their power as a means of friendly persuasion have long ended. Today it is all about a show of power, a demonstration of who has the authority and who has to submit to it.
The law should never come to that. The law was created to achieve certain objectives and not the means to scare people into compliance. Coercion is necessary, but anything other than friendly persuasion should be the last resort of the law.
Today, many who have the power of the law behind them flaunt the authority that comes with their position, and often use that power in an overtly coercive manner.
Having the backing of the law is like using a firearm. You should not use your weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. Having the power of the law behind you does not always entail having to throw the law books at the person. It should not mean using the law to punish people.
The purpose of the law is to help people to do things and in the right way. As such, enforcers of the law do not always have to apply high-handed tactics to ensure compliance. A little patience and friendly, but firm persuasion will work.
There was recently a dispute involving a company and the National Insurance Scheme. Allegations and counter allegations were made. The NIS claims that they were prevented from executing their duties and that records they had taken possession of were snatched from their hands. This has been denied.
Whatever the truth, there could have been a different approach to this matter. There was no need for the resort to taking possession of the firm’s records. If the law was applied in a friendlier manner, this controversy could have been avoided.
The NIS is concerned with ensuring that all persons engaged in insurable employment are registered and that the necessary contributions are deducted.
Under the law, the NIS can visit a place where they feel there is employment occurring, and they can request records. This is clearly spelt out in the law.
The purpose of the powers granted to their officers is to allow the officers of the NIS to determine whether there are employees who need to be registered and whose contributions need to be accounted for. The NIS can do this by speaking directly to the employees because the records themselves mean very little unless it can be corroborated by the statements of the employees.
The law is quite explicit, in that it states that if the NIS needs to make abstracts or copies of the records, it can take possession of the records. The need to make abstracts or copies does not follow that in all cases the records have to be taken away.
There is a more professional approach which could have been used. If the NIS has a suspicion that a company is in default, it should first write to the company requesting the necessary information. Based on the information supplied it can then conduct its field surveys and from this, determine whether the company is in default. If no information is received it will still have to do its field work.
The NIS should try, as far as possible, to avoid taking away the records of firms unless this is absolutely necessary. Imagine what happens when a company’s record is seized within a few days of its paying its employees. That means that the employees may not be paid, and this is disruptive.
The problem with the law in Guyana is that it needs to make greater allowance for persons to put themselves in order. Persons should first be offered that option, and if they fail to do so, then the law should be vigorously enforced.
The laws therefore need to be rewritten so that in the case of national insurance, the law should provide that employers should be written, given a certain time in which to supply the information requested. The company concerned should have the option of requesting an extension. If after that extension they have not complied, then the officers would be free to visit them and demand compliance, but not seize records.
If this fails, only then should the law empower the officers with the right to inspect the books as a first step, and only if this inspection finds a basis for further examination should the records be allowed to be seized.
All these steps should be written into law to create a better system that respects employers’ rights while allowing the agency concerned to take action to ensure that the objective of the law, which in the case of the NIS, is to ensure registration, is observed.
A softer, kinder approach should be tried. The law today is disrespected because of its aggressive manner in which it is applied. That coercion needs to be made friendlier.

---

---