the week: no bitching
The week starts with the news that Bloomberg forum delegates in Singapore would be able to dine in groups of five at designated restaurants. The forum would take place from 16 to 19 November, during which Singaporeans would still be subject to the rule of two which had been imposed until the 21 November. This prompted Singaporeans to express unhappiness about the supposed double standards practiced here, and rightly so.
Now, I understand that the delegates would have undergone some kind sort of pre-event testing, and in that sense they would be comparable to events like weddings, where Singaporeans can also dine in groups of five. But at this point it just feels like another slap in the face, the latest in a long series delivered by the government over the past two years. If the people are now apathetic to the slaps, it is only because all feeling has been slapped out of them. To see that there is preferential treatment, no matter how slight, given to our supposed "betters" stings of unfairness. But this is the pitfall of the nanny state: the people and peasantry cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves, and so the "natural aristocracy" must step in and decide for them. But of course, the "natural aristocracy" can be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves, with their superior faculties and abilities. It is therefore only natural that they be granted the freedoms to decide for themselves. This is how we end up with different rules for different classes of people.
But the rules this "natural aristocracy" have crafted have been arbitrary and illogical. The rule of two started from the 27 September, but the cases have continued to rise and now reached new highs nearly a month later. Is it possible that dining in is not one of the main vectors of transmission? Maybe cramming into public transport is actually a higher risk activity? Also why can't families from the same household dine in groups larger than two? Do they not return to the same house after dining out? None of the rules make any sense. People can make the best decisions for themselves, especially if those decisions relate to their personal health and safety, and if the rules were rational, nobody would be questioning them. People have to be rationalised with, not talked down to.
The Marie Antoinette Moment
On 26 November, PM Lee's wife Ho Ching decides to drop an unsolicited hot take. Suffice to say it was a pretty spicy one. I don't begrudge anyone from giving their opinion, I think anyone has the right to give their opinions no matter how bad or wrong they are. I am a liberal, and as such have to embrace the classic liberal position most famously ensconced in this quote, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This includes the spiciest of takes, which I will consume and suffer the stomach-ache.
I'm not particularly surprised by the content of what she said, not even by how out of touch with the people she seemed. The delivery was slightly surprising, but it isn't even that off brand for her. All this fits in with the PAP's continued push of the narrative: that the people need to continue to do their part in the fight against COVID 19, any lapse or increase in case numbers is because the people are not playing their part, but if we're doing well it is all thanks to the government.
The continued push to shift the narrative of a hospital bed shortage from the government's lack of infrastructure planning despite having grown the population at a ridiculous pace over the past two decades to the people who need to bear with these restrictions so they don't use up these hospital beds is nothing short of disgusting.
If she had any sympathy at all for the F&B industry, many of which are small businesses, she should know that the restrictions are killing them off. For her to suggest that ordering more deliveries would help, she's either ignorant or she doesn't care, and I'm not sure which is worse. Delivery platforms like Grab are killing off F&B businesses. The steep charge of 30% eats too much into any profit margin these businesses have. While Grab can continue burning VC money while remaining unprofitable, small businesses will struggle to stay open. Ho Ching should know this of course, given that Temasek has put in at least USD $10m into Grab. Maybe that's why she cares more about Grab than small local businesses.
Singaporeans are no strangers to being talked down to like this. But I do wonder when we will ever get tired of it.
The Leader of the "Opposition"
On 28 October, the leader of the opposition, Pritam Singh, did a post on Facebook appealing to people who “have no medical reasons not to get vaccinated (especially seniors)” to "see your GP or a polyclinic doctor - ask your questions, and clear your doubts instead of forming your views solely based on unverified posts from WhatsApp University".
The leader of the opposition is not doing much opposing nowadays. This latest post falls in line with the PAP narrative, that vaccinations are the key factor to opening up, that the unvaccinated (those unwashed heathens) are who are preventing society from opening up, and if you are a good vaccinated citizen, please kindly turn your ire and disdain to these social pariahs.
But if an 85% vaccination rate is not enough for opening up, then no amount of vaccinations will help. We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. We also have some of the strictest restrictions regarding dine ins (including inane alcohol and music restrictions) in the world. Yet we still have similar infection rates to countries who have both a lower vaccination rate and looser restrictions. Stop pretending that the unvaccinated are the ones who are stopping us from opening up. I get that they offer a convenient scape goat for your political narrative, but that narrative is not rooted in facts. If the irony of asking people to stop forming unfounded views is lost on Mr. Singh, it is not lost to me. Instead of going along with the PAP narrative because it is the easiest and least politically costly thing to do, why not actually use his position as leader of the opposition to demand actual data and numbers from the government, and demand some actual accountability.
We all feel badly for the F&B industry. The government should be doing a lot more to compensate them. It is because of these restrictions that many F&B businesses are going under, restrictions which the government has full control over. If someone drove a truck through your gate and into your front lawn, you would be asking for compensation. Similarly, since the government decided to smash these businesses with these restrictions for so long, even as the rest of the world has already begun opening, they should compensate these businesses. The government is so fond of actions has consequences narrative with regards to the unvaccinated, but don't see it fit to deal with any consequences regarding their own actions. The double standard here is hypocritical, and speaks to the character of the government today.
Finally on the narrative that the unvaccinated do not know what they are doing, and that they are ignoramuses peddling untruths, consider the following arguments:
Because of the patents, nobody except the pharmaceutical companies and maybe the governments know what is inside the vaccines. There have also not been any longitudinal studies with regards to the vaccines. This is a fact, the vaccine was just released during the pandemic, and it would have been impossible to do any studies to determine if there are any long term side effects.
The word "vaccine" is a bit of a misnomer. Never mind the actual scientific definition or categorization of what a vaccine is, for all I know the COVID 19 vaccines could all fall within this definition. But take into account the common use of the word, and the common understanding of what vaccines do. If one is vaccinated against polio, one cannot get polio. That is what is commonly meant by vaccine, once you get it, you will not be able to contract the disease. The vaccine is preventative. With the COVID 19 vaccines, this is no longer true. There are plenty of studies on this, some of this contradictory, but all of them basically agree that even if one is vaccinated, one could still contract COVID, and worse still, pass it on. The extent to which is still debated, ranging from less likely than an unvaccinated person to as likely as an unvaccinated person. The value of the COVID 19 vaccine is no longer preventative, but rather therapeutic: taking the vaccine reduces the chance of fatality and severe illness. I call it therapeutic because the effects of the vaccine achieves the same result of treatment. If you treat a disease after getting it, it also reduces the chance of fatality and severe illness. However treatment does not prevent one from contracting the disease in the first place. That is the distinction between treatment and vaccines. These COVID 19 vaccines look a lot more like treatments in the traditional sense than vaccines.
Which brings me to my next point: what are the social benefits of taking the vaccine at this point? The arguments for them are twofold: 1) they are preventative, as with traditional vaccines as long as a large enough percentage of the population is vaccinated against a particular disease, that disease will die out (e.g. polio), and therefore it is a social cost that each individual has to bear for the good of the community; 2) even if they are not preventative, they reduce the chance of fatality and severe illness, which will ease the strain on the healthcare system. With regards to the first point, given that we have established in (2) that the vaccines are not preventative but merely therapeutic, there actually is no social benefit in that regard. There is only an individual benefit (i.e. a lesser chance of suffering severe illness or fatality). Given that there is only an individual benefit, the choice whether to take this vaccine should be personal, there should be no external pressures to coerce or force someone to take it, each individual must weigh their own risks and rewards with regards to this vaccine. On the second point, this argument is a very slippery slope, and I'd caution all who dare climb it to do so at their own peril. There are plenty of actions an individual can take that might lead him to one day be more likely to occupy a hospital bed. Should smokers be subject to the same restrictions as the unvaccinated in an attempt to make them quit? Should obese people have some kind of fat tax to supplement our healthcare system? You might say insurance companies already take into account all these preexisting conditions and these people already suffer the consequences. However know that insurers are private entities, and have to obey market forces, whereas the government's role is to specifically cover for market failures and externalities. There is a difference between private and public enterprises.
The Workers Party's (WP) stance on being "responsible opposition" has seen them become what Minister Vivian Balakrishnan might call "PAP lite". One of the worries that I had for voting in more WP members into parliament is that the people of Singapore might buy into the idea that we have more representation, but in actuality we just have the same ideas represented by two different parties, albeit said in different ways. I do wonder if there is any party in Singapore that can get into parliament without morphing into some version of the PAP. In the end it may just be that that is the only thing that the voters of Singapore can stomach.
But no bitching tho.