#3: May Stories (Part 3)
As much as I want to quickly drop the topic of the coronavirus, it still serves as the context for most of our discussions and lives nowadays, so I will inevitably still be touching on it. Gone were the days of Donald Trump dominating the news headlines when the whole world has a crisis to tackle. But the coronavirus which replaced him in the position for the hottest news was not much better.
So on with the stories that I read up recently...
Commentaries by university professors on Singapore's responses to Covid-19
Within the last week, a very interesting discussion about the Singapore government's responses to the pandemic made by 2 local university professors had been shared and commented on by some of my friends who are studying / working in local universities. Even though the accuracy of the facts were very inconsistent (since errors with the statistics and political motivations coming into the picture), we could see that there were two distinct sides: whether someone disapproves or approves of the government's responses to the crisis.
I append the posts of these two gentlemen here:
I think it is very encouraging that academics are taking the lead to get everyone to reflect on what the government had done well in managing a crisis. I also learnt quite a bit on critique skills while reading on their posts and the comments.
After going through both of their opinions, I am more in agreement with the view that the government has managed the pandemic reasonably well. To show this, I will expand upon the two main issues that were covered by the writers: the decision to mask on, and the management of foreign workers.
With regards to the mask problem, the initial decision to not have the general population put on masks was out of concern for the sustainability of the stock of masks and the availability of information on Covid-19. It was easy to see that there would be a shortage in the global supply of masks, and Singapore did not have the resources nor the equipment to be able to produce masks independently, since there was not much demand for it before Covid-19 became a pandemic for this to be feasible economically. Singapore is in a tight spot because the external sector it relies on to drive most of her economic growth is falling apart, and Singapore will also need to control her spending in order to rebuild her own economy for the post-pandemic world. Until then, masks did not seem very high up on the priority list. The lack of information on the coronavirus also meant that many were ignorant of asymptomatic cases and how easily transmissible the virus was. As such, it would only make sense that the masks were reserved for healthcare workers and those who were sick and really needed it.
To be fair, the government did communicate the mask issue to the masses eventually, and ramped up on production. And amidst this crisis, it would be difficult to come clean entirely about the masks because any irresponsible proclamations made about it could cause undue alarm and influence the willingness of suppliers to produce the masks for us. With all these people-management at play and limited resources, the government would be forced to prioritise its efforts in order to contain the spread of Covid-19. In this case, it meant missing out a few months of not wearing masks and focus its efforts on quarantining existing patients of the virus, most of whom came from overseas.
More fundamentally than the mask issue, the government did well in communicating its plans with the people and is as transparent as it could possibly be. This excellent communication was lauded by the international community. But we err, for we are all human, and the same goes for governments. In February, when the DORSCON level was raised to orange, many Singaporeans mistook it as some sort of alarm for the virus or something indicative of a lock-down and went on panic buying. Internationally, this incident made a dent on Singapore's generally positive image. Also, this brought out the larger problem of gaps in communication and mental care. Singapore emerged out of that incident stronger. The various communication platforms rolled out, infomercials to spread awareness of Covid-19, responsible coverage by the media to help people make sense and cope with the information and people generally being more helpful toward one another, showed that Singaporeans, along with their government, had the capacity to bounce back from failures and learn from their mistakes. As such, we cannot demean the government's efforts to deal with the pandemic just because of a few failures.
To me, the issue here is not about how transparent any organisation is, but how maturely and intelligently the masses could handle the information regarding the pandemic. In a crisis response, information is extremely valuable, but making a lot of information accessible to everyone at once may not necessarily help in the response as information is not always translated to constructive action.
Next, moving on to the responses to the pandemic involving foreign workers. How Singapore handles foreign workers in dealing with the coronavirus crisis was generally seen as a weakness in the country's overall response framework to the pandemic.
I think Professor Ben Leong's analysis of the root cause of the large number of Covid-19 cases in foreign workers is quite cogent. According to him, Singapore's limited testing capacity is to blame. And this is true. Many cases, especially asymptomatic ones, have not been uncovered in time due to the lack of testing kits in Singapore. Meanwhile, other countries who have undergone massive testing, such as South Korea, had yielded results in containing the virus.
Some people might be inclined to blame the government and the reigning political party for the state the foreign workers were in now. Though I agree with views pertaining to more regulation, oversight and mutual support by the various stakeholders in terms of improving the workers' living conditions, it is unfair to criticise the government for neglecting foreign workers because of any kind of selfish reason. Managing foreign workers is no easy feat, especially when one-fifth of Singapore's population are made up of them. Much of the management was delegated to their employers, who unfortunately have to worry much about the costs of accommodating them as they try to keep up with the standards. We are talking about livelihoods here. Many of them have jobs that could not be worked on at home, unlike most of the local population, and they do not have the means of providing for themselves.
In general, I find that much of the issues surrounding Singapore's responses to the coronavirus was mostly due to the lack of measures targeted at the asymptomatic disease carriers. A disease like this was unprecedented and we could not rely on the same playbook we used for previous pandemics. I think Singapore really shone in terms of its comprehensive and methodical measures to deal with the pandemic, the outpouring of support and sharing of information between the government and the community, as well as the ability to rectify mistakes quickly. This is why I am proud of how Singapore handled the coronavirus crisis.
The crisis is not over yet, and we must remain vigilant. Asides from the threat of the virus itself, the pandemic also had far-reaching implications for our lifestyles. One such impact would be telecommuting becoming more commonplace.
Could telecommuting end office life as we know it?
Working remotely from home instead of an office is more flexible, cheaper and convenient; plus we can do away with more boring office buildings. But it may diminish the quality of interactions with coworkers, slow down teamwork and is harder to feel like you are really doing work.
So how should a workplace be defined (a physical space or something that embodies the work culture)? Does the environment affect the quality of the work turned in (actually it does)?
Many interesting questions for workers and employers for a post-pandemic world. And who knows? Maybe our productivity and economy will improve, and the quality of our rest will go backwards, when our workplaces evolve so that we can get work done anywhere we go.
However, not everyone is fortunate enough to get a workplace. Job security is a big problem in some countries like South Korea, and one of the consequence of massive unemployment would be a burgeoning household debt.
Recommended watch: CNA Undercover Asia - South Korea's Growing Household Debt
Understanding how household debt is important to me because I would eventually be in the shoes of some of the interviewees, going out to find work and worry about daily expenses.
It is interesting how a mix of local culture, human nature, actions of moneylenders and policies by the government and financial institutions have affected the scale and seriousness of the debt problem in South Korea, since I would never be able to imagine myself spending like how the South Koreans do.
It is sad that many debtors get trapped in the addiction/guilt cycle - from shopping sprees to gambling - and using material goods to define their own well-being. Such a mentality makes it unsurprising that the debt owed by youths spiral out of control so easily. These are present in the stories covered by the documentary, and it is a cautionary tale to all of us who are wondering how to make use of our money.
No comments:
Post a Comment