NOTHING dents a government’s credibility quite like repeated policy flip-flops.

The Madani government’s reversal on the mandatory implementation of Lindung 24 Jam is the latest reminder that policymaking is only as credible as the preparation behind it.

Good policies require rigorous research, meaningful engagement with stakeholders and, most importantly, the political conviction to stand by them when they are sound.

Lindung 24 Jam, introduced by the Social Security Organisation (Socso), was designed to provide 24-hour protection for eligible employees, including coverage for accidents occurring outside working hours.

The scheme would have been funded entirely through employee contributions.

Yet, following public backlash, Putrajaya reversed course, making participation voluntary for Malaysians while keeping it mandatory for foreign workers.

The reversal leaves two equally troubling possibilities: either the policy was inadequately discussed with affected stakeholders before it was announced, or the government believed it was the right policy but lacked the resolve to defend it.

Neither inspires confidence in the policy-making process.

This is not an isolated episode. The e-invoicing rollout was softened after the government raised the exemption threshold from businesses with an annual turnover of RM500,000 to RM1mil.

A requirement for diagnostic assessment for children entering Standard One was also removed after public backlash.

Listening to public feedback is a strength, not a weakness, but there is a crucial difference between responsive governance and reactive governance.

Policies should undergo robust consultation before they are unveiled, not after they trigger widespread opposition or because elections are around the corner.

Frequent U-turns create uncertainty for businesses, investors and the public, while eroding confidence in the government’s ability to plan and execute reforms.

The same lesson should guide the proposed Turap system for foreign worker recruitment, which is already drawing criticism from multiple quarters, including elected representatives.

If the government believes the policy is necessary, it must first address legitimate concerns before implementation.

Good policymaking is measured not by how quickly policies are announced, but by how well they withstand scrutiny once they are introduced.