“Very fine people on both sides”

One of Donald Trump’s greatest moments came on 15 August 2017, when he was asked for his thoughts on the clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia between Neo-Nazis and normal people. The Donald proceed to stun the world by telling reporters that there were “very fine people on both sides.” The remark stunned the world because this was the leader of the nation that saved the world from the Nazis describing Nazis as very fine people, especially when its questionable if Nazis are people let alone very fine ones.

However, in fairness to Donald Trump, his words were only shocking because of the context in which they were used in. Take out the context and Donald Trump’s words would actually be an ideal of what most civilized societies should be about – very fine people on both sides of any issue. The highlight of what a civilized democracy came int 2008 when John McCain defended and praised his opponent, Barak Obama as a “Decent man, whom I happen to disagree with.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0u3QJrtgEM 

While McCain would lose the election, he has ended up winning in the hearts of people for doing the right things. Instead of trying to divide the nation, he united it and refused to go down the road of playing up to the fears and prejudices of the mob.

Unfortunately, 2008 is something of a memory. From 2016 onwards, the world entered an age of wild populism, which centred on a wonderful concept of blaming your problems on people who cannot fight back. In the words of an American customer at the Bistrot, “There is no neutrality.”

Singapore has seemingly escaped the most extreme forms of populism and in a world where calls for unthinking jingoism have become the norm, Singapore seems like an island of sanity in an insane world.

However, having been around Singapore’s “arty” and “journo” types for a good portion of my functioning life, I would argue that it’s not exactly a case of Singapore avoiding wave of populism that is sweeping the world but more of a case of Singapore’s politicians being more subtle and clever about harnessing the raw emotions of the masses.

The simplest tactic, is to label anyone who publicly questions the established way of doing things as “Anti-Singaporean.” As anyone who works who deals with any form of media will tell you, there is an art form to questioning the system in public without being labeled “Anti-Singaporean” or getting a nasty letter from a politicians solicitors and having your family’s dirty linen rolled in the mud and then washed out in public. The stories of the people who have tried to do it on a regular basis can be found at:

 https://coconuts.co/singapore/features/singaporeans-step-outside-lines-take-center-stage-naysayers-book-club/

In the old days, it was a case of being sued into bankruptcy and facing a number of potential charges on a variety of laws. I’m old enough to remember the General Election of 1997, which was a particularly good one for the ruling party. They managed to reverse a trend of a declining share of the popular vote and won a mere 81 out of 83 seats available in parliament. While a lot of credit was given to generous upgrading programs in the heartland estates, another was to target an unknown politician from the Workers Party called Tang Liang Hong (No relation) by labeling him an “Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvinist.” 

The internet has made things more interesting. Online media sites like the Online Citizen and TRemeritus (as a matter of disclosure, my blog pieces are picked up by TRemeritus) have given a space for alternative voices. However, the ruling party has also found ways to deal with this. Why label anyone “Anti-Singaporean” when you can get someone else to do it for you. It’s especially effective when that person happens to be a Pink Blotchy – the Fawning Follower comes to mind. Unfortunately, Pink Blotchies have a tendency to be listened to, even if they’re speaking gibberish. As a friend of mine noted, otherwise intelligent people actually bought into the arguments of the Fawning Follower on why it was a sign of success to keep dark skinned Asians in cages (ooopps, I mean dormitories) and how the government supported the rule of law by a law on the statute books but not enforcing it.

The Fawning Follower has been a particularly useful pawn in labeling people who disagree with the government as Anti-Singaporean or worse – Traitors. He’s labeled Kristin Han as having “a career in treachery” and his next favourite target is the play write Alfian Sa’at, whom he describes as symbolizing the egotistical rebellion of the no problem generation. 

While Kristin and Alfian have questioned things, neither have done anything that would count as “treachery” by any definition of the word. There is no record of either having said or done anything that called for violence in the streets or for a foreign nation to invade and so on. Neither have been picked up by the Internal Security Department, which would indicate that the government is well aware that the its “critics” are traitors or “anti-Singaporean” or dare I say “rebels” by any definition.

Why do these things when someone else can do them for you? You stay above the fray and the Fawning Follower and his ilk do it for you. So, when the likes of Dr. Tan Meng Wu start talking about how ethnic minorities should be grateful that they can get jobs and send their kids to school, there’s no outrage at the underlying but blatantly racist tones. The trolls have laid the ground work for you and whatever prejudices people might have become justified because, well, a member of the ruling party said so in public and it was OK.

Thankfully there are some signs of progress. I take my hat off to Professor Tommy, one of our most respected diplomats, who has stated that Singapore needs “loving critics.” Professor Koh has argued that as a strong society, Singapore needs to accept a diversity of views. Crushing the views of “loving critics” instead of accommodating them, can be bad.

Mr. Wham spent years campaigning for migrant rights. He was labeled a trouble maker. Well, surprise – surprise, Covid-19 proved Mr. Wham right (1,000 cases a day, contrary to the Following Follower is not success). Had the authorities engaged Mr. Wham earlier, they may have found the problem much earlier and instead of being with the likes of Ukraine on the list of most infected nations, we might be closer to the likes of Hong Kong or Taiwan. 

If there’s anything that we need to move away from in this General Election, it is this automatic, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. This isn’t about who wins the most seats but whether we can move away from “Me teacher, you student” (or as my mother says “me right, you wrong) mentality in politics and more towards the politics of “You’re a good man that I happen to disagree with.”  

There is a hope for this. Two of Singapore’s better leaders from different sides of political divide have chosen to step out of the ring in this election. Apparently, both men have stated their respect for each other. Here was the message that our former Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong left on his Facebook on veteran opposition leader Low Thia Khiang:

https://mothership.sg/2020/06/goh-chok-tong-low-thia-khiang-retirement/

Mr. Goh was labeled a “seat warmer” for our current Prime Minister. Despite having the pressures of the Old Lee above him and the Current Lee below him, Mr. Goh managed to do a few of his own things (As a long-term resident of Marine Parade, I have Mr. Goh to thank for getting MPs to try and beautify their estates. He was the first one to do so. As a beneficiary of Saudi-Relations and the Indian Business Community, I have to thank Mr. Goh for opening these markets up. – Lee Kuan Yew was quite open in his disdain for India after Indira Gandhi snubbed him). As such, I believe everyone contesting this general election should take note of his words and I think his final gift in politics is showing Singaporeans that it is possible to agree to disagree.  

The Pleasure of Not being Liked

My favourite Malaysian Datuk once said to me that, “Look at the people who are your friends. They were probably your friends 10-years ago. Look at the people who don’t like you. They probably didn’t like you 10-years ago too.” The good Datuk argued that people either liked you or didn’t and there was nothing you could do to change that.

I’m also reminded of the fact that people often judge you by the company you keep and you’re often bound to view yourself by the same company. This has become especially true in the context of social media, where we do much of our socializing. For example, whenever I get a friend request on either Facebook or Linkedin, I usually check to see if we have friends in common. This helps me to gages the context of my relationship (did the mutual friends come from school, army, family, workplace etc). Chances are, if you have a mutual friend with someone, you’ll have a mutual interest and more importantly, mutual values.

It goes without saying that I enjoy the company of the people I like, and I like to think that the people who like me back also enjoy my company.

However, while friends often enrichen your life, the people whom you don’t like and don’t like you can often do more from you than your friends.

One of the biggest pleasures I get is reading the comments from the readers of TRemeritus, which picks up various blog pieces. My critics enjoy calling me names, especially eunuch – one who criticizes the President of the USA but doesn’t have the guts to criticize my own government. I’ve also been accused of name dropping and claiming to do all sorts of things which they claim are impossible.

I always simile because these guys are doing me a service. For all the angst they have towards me, they’re reading whatever I write and TRemeritus republishes from my blog. The second point one should notice is that while I’m being pilloried for not having the courage to blast the Singapore government, I’m posting under my actual name rather than behind a self-created identity, specially used for the internet.

While reading the criticisms leveled against you by the online crowd is fun, the real pleasure in life comes from being in the cross hairs of people who have the power to make life downright miserable.

I’m reminded of a friend who asked me whether I would like to be “F*** blue,” by the late Lee Kuan Yew. If one thinks with a sane mind, the answer is no. While Old Man Lee has been credited with making Singapore what it is, he was by many accounts a nasty bastard who took pride in ruining anyone who crossed him. He was particularly hard on journalist and being summoned to the Istana for a dressing down was usually the fastest way to end one’s career. The logical answer to my friends’ question would be a resounding “No are you crazy.”

However, my friend did point out that I was someone insignificant and if Lee Kuan Yew, the man who shaped Singapore was ever to summon me for a dressing down, it would mean that I had finally done something worthy of his notice.

For the record, I’m still too insignificant to enter the cross hairs of the Singapore government. However, I can claim to have needled a few interesting people.

The first one was Mr. Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and the persuasive voice of top-down-government. It was at talk by Carlos Gutierrez, former Treasury Secretary under Bush II. The Secretary had given a speech on following the business principle of “doing what works.” I asked him about whether government would “stop doing what doesn’t work” – the Cuban Embargo as a case in point. Secretary Gutierrez did give a nice PR answer (which only enforced the point that the US Embargo had kept both Castro Brothers in power) and the moment he finished; Mr. Mahbubani rushed to shut down the discussion.

The second instance was a French Ambassador who was giving a talk at Institute of South Asian Studies. His Excellency was talking about nuclear proliferation and somehow decided to brush of a question on Israel’s refusal to join the IAEA. I pressed the challenge that Western Powers have consistently rushed to fight Muslim leaders who may have the bomb but have ignored Israel’s refusal to play by the rules and when North Korea proved that it had the nukes, everybody rushed to negotiate.

My most recent achievement came from the CEO of Centurion Corporation, the largest dormitory owner in Singapore. I had written a letter to question why the government had chosen to underwrite the bill in increased costs that the dormitory owners were facing. My published letter can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/forum-let-dormitory-operators-face-the-music-themselves

When this letter was published, a friend of mine had dismissed the fact that Centurion Corporation would not bother to respond to me. Well, the CEO himself has put a name to “clarify” what I wrote.

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/worker-dorms-have-recreational-facilities-programmes-for-community-living

I’ve submitted a rejoinder and submitted it to the press for their publication. Not sure if they will be it was nice to be noticed.

Whatever I’ve achieved in pissing off certain people, I’m nothing compared to Tenzin Tsundue, a Tibetan activist who has become a pain in the side of the People’s Republic of China. Mr. Tsundue, was born in India as a Tibetan refuge and has made it his life’s mission to regain Tibet’s independence. 

Mr. Tsundue is a good writer and his writings have caught the attention of people in Beijing. His actions are such that whenever there was a visiting Chinese delegation, the Indian Authorities would lock him for good measure and only released him once the visit was over. This is an achievement. A major world government locks you up to stay in the good books of the leaders of the second largest economy on the planet. As Tsundue himself says, “I don’t even know where my next meal is coming from and they’re scared of me.”

While its generally best to be friendly with everyone you deal with, pissing people off can be a rewarding experience in terms of your personal branding and standing in the world.

Your Rich – We Have to Give You More

I’ve been spending a little less time on the blog and focusing more of my time on writing for the mainstream media in recent days. A part of shifting focus has been work-related. The other has been the fact that there are issues that need to be raised in a place where there’s going to be wide discussion.

The most prominent issue that has caught my attention and the attention of many in Singapore is the issue of foreign worker dormitories. The reason for this is simple, these are the places where the explosion in Covid-19 cases have been found and the government has decided to throw a lifeline to the dormitory operators by offering to foot the bill for the increased operational costs that the dormitory operators will have to face. More details on that story can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/government-to-absorb-additional-operational-costs-for-dormitory-operators-during-circuit

While the stay-at-home orders and lockdowns on the dormitories has undoubtedly raised operational costs for the dormitory owners, one has to ask why the government has decided to step in as their proverbial sugar daddy. This is especially in a situation where the dormitory owners are in no danger of going bankrupt.

As matter of principle, I’m against subsidies from the government, whether its to individuals or corporations. Having grown up in the West, I saw how noble intentions ruined. Welfare, which was meant to help the poor ended up destroying the incentive to work. “Free” healthcare was often abused (think of the 18 months it takes to get an appointment with an orthodontist in the NHS) and then, there’s the well subsidized business of farming, which became very lucrative for farmers who realized that farming was not about crops or livestock but filling out forms.

I get why some subsidies exists. On a personal level, there are people who are basket cases that you can’t leave to rot (think of the problems they’ll cause as they rot). I think of Flesh Ball and her various men as an example. When it comes to businesses, there are times when a subsidy is necessary, especially when it involves bringing something to market that will have eventual social benefits. Renewable energies for example, were highly subsidized because they were expensive. However, those subsidies have paid off in that the cost of producing renewables are now competitive and it has provided the world with energy sources that don’t damage the environment.

Then there are exceptional circumstances where subsidies to businesses help provide social collapse. Subsidies to businesses in the current shut down of the global economy have helped keep people who might otherwise be unemployed in a job. The alternative is mass long-term unemployment, which in turn would mean social unrest.

So, the question is, does the dormitory operations industry justify giving a subsidy? I believe that the obvious answer is no.

Firstly, there is no benefit to the tax payer in doing so. Unlike renewable energy companies, they are producing anything that would add value to either people or the planet in the long run. They are merely putting people into a certain space and charging a fee for it.

Secondly, the dormitory operators are not in any danger of going bankrupt and throwing people out of work. While a breakdown of their number of employees is not available, a look at Centurion Corporation’s website would indicate that they are still hiring.

https://www.centurioncorp.com.sg/career-opportunities/

As mentioned in two letters to the Straits Times (including one by me), the dormitory owners are exceptionally profitable. Details can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/why-foot-the-bill-for-dorm-operators-that-have-profited-for-years; and

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/forum-let-dormitory-operators-face-the-music-themselves

Numbers quoted in both letters were taken from Centurion Corporation’s financial website at (Being a listed company, Centurion Corporation has to publish its financial results):

https://centurion.listedcompany.com/financials.html

The letter by Mr. Cheng Shoong Tat got the board of the Centurion Corporation to scramble and they had to issue a “clarification” as to what their $103.78 million profit on revenue of $133.353 million meant. They’ve made a point that of that $103,78 million profit that they made includes a “one-time” net fair valuation gain of $66.3 million on investment properties and assets held for sale. The clarification also makes the point the worker dormitory business is just 65percent of their total. More details can be found at:

https://centurion.listedcompany.com/newsroom/20200518_205520_OU8_AKSMHTJUI645S6UQ.1.pdf

What does this mean in layman terms? Is the company saying that the $66 million in “fair-valuation” gains merely an accounting treatment rather than actual cash?

Even if you take the “clarification” at face value, Centurion’s profits are exceedingly healthy by any standards. If you take out the “one-time” net fair-valuation gain, the profits before tax would be $44.735 million (Gross Profit less expenses), which would mean profit margins of 33 percent (still very healthy by any standard) and if you less income tax, there’s still $37.522 million, which means a margin of 28 percent. Furthermore, the “one-time” net valuation gain is also in the financial results for 2018, which would suggest that the one-time gains are fairly consistent.

All these factors should not distract from the fact that Centurion Corporation is sitting on a cash pile of some $48 million (cash at bank).

Nobody is saying that Centurion Corporation and its brethren are not allowed to make profits. What is questioned is why the tax payer has to subsidise them when there is a situation where they are likely to make less. The point about going into business is that you take the risk and rewards accordingly. When times are good, you are entitled to your profits but when times are harsh, you take the losses. Other businesses have also taken hits. SIA, for example has had to lay off staff because the global airline industry has been badly hit. However, SIA provides jobs for many Singaporeans and actively promotes Singapore, something which the dormitory owners do not.

The most crucial point to the case against footing the bill is that many of the costs that are now being imposed on the dormitory owners are now being forced to take on, were costs that should have been factored in when the Foreign Employers Dormitories Act (“FEDA”) came into force in January 2016. This act essentially sets certain standards in the industry of providing accommodation for foreign workers and the fact that the government introduced this act would indicate that the government realized that it needed to have some oversight on the industry. More can be found at:

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/FEDA2015

This leads to the fact that half of all dormitory owner’s flout licensing requirements on a yearly basis as the Minister of Manpower admitted to parliament:

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/majority-of-dorm-operators-flout-licensing-conditions-each-year-says-josephine-teo

So, the question remains, why should the tax payer bail out a highly profitable and cash rich industry from failing to fulfill its legal obligations? What hold does this industry have over the tax payer that it can demand a right to be subsidized to correct its own failings. When was it my obligation as a tax payer to fund an industry’s right to make healthy profits.

The Fawning Follower.

One of the most prominent moments in Barak Obama’s Presidency was when he suggested that people who felt that people living on low wages didn’t have it that bad was “Try it.” I often think of this phrase whenever I read comments about workers dormitories and how foreign workers should be grateful for their lot in life because it's  apparently much worse elsewhere.

The most recent character who should try it is a character called “Michael Petraeus,” a Polish national who has reinvented himself as a blogger called “Critical Spectator.” Mr. Petraeus like all good foreigners at the “expat” end of the scale is a devoted fan of the Singapore Government and while he is a spectator, he is not critical of the situation in Singapore.

To be fair, Singapore stacks up pretty well in most aspects of life. We remain for the most part a 

rich, clean and green city. The government machinery for the most part remains pretty good. Our Prime Minister, for example, gets the world’s most generous political salary but unlike his previous counter part across the causeway, nobody has found a criminal and unaccountable sum of money in his bank account. In this era of Covid 19, we’ve also done a reasonable job. If you look at the statistics, we’ve not done as well as we could have when compared to say Taiwan or New Zealand but it's not the disaster of say, the USA, where there’s a national leader undermining safety measures.  

Mr. Petraeus is also a foreigner, who is getting a good deal from Singapore. It might be natural that he takes the view that he should “educate” the locals and show them that Singapore is not as bad as they think it is and as a “guest,” he might feel that its not his place to be critical.

Having said that, Singapore is not perfect. As PN Balji, former editor of the Today Newspaper used to say, “They’ve got about 75 to 80 percent right but you need to harp on the 20 to 25 percent that isn’t right because it’s the only way they’ll stay on their toes.”

Unfortunately, the one area that most glaring errors in the Singapore system is in the area of dealing with the poor and neglected. Our so called “Asian-Values” society that respects elders, for example,  sees nothing wrong with old folks going through the trash so that they can pick out drinks cans to sell for a few pennies because they need the money.

We are also a society that doesn’t seem to have a problem with “slave labour,” and “race-based” pay scales, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who happen to be darker than a shade of pink. Only the blind would argue otherwise.

Unfortunately, Mr. Petraeus is blind spot to the obvious and this causes him to be anything but a “Critical” spectator. His most recent post was to rush the defense of the workers dormitories after the outbreak of Covid-19 cases. His post can be found at:

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2788391291268580?__tn__=K-R

Mr. Petraeus argues that far from being a failure that the NGO crowd have made them out to be, the dorms are a sign of success. His arguments can be summed up as follows:

 1. Singapore has built cheap and good infrastructure by using cheap labour from elsewhere;
       2. The foreign workers are not complaining because what they get here is better than what they get at home;
       3. Singapore is short of land and the dormitories are the most cost-effective way of housing them; and
       4. This is not exploitation because everyone benefits.

     Mr. Petraeus is correct. The dorms are a sign of success. If you are an owner of a dormitory for example, you are bound to be very successful

Take a look at the Centurion Corporation, which owns and runs the Westlite Toh Guan, the dormitory that has become one of the main covid-19 clusters. In the year ending 31 December 2019, Centurion Corporation had revenue of SG$ 133,353,000 and after-tax profits of SG$103,788,000. The joint non-executive chairmen of the board, Mr. Han Seng Juan and Mr. David Loh Kim Kang from Potong Pasir CCC are appreciated by their shareholders.

Mr. Petraeus is also right in as much as the workers generally don’t complain about their lot because they are earning more than what they could earn back home and from what I could see of Westlite Toh Guan from the outside, it does not look unpleasant.

As to how much we’ve benefited in terms of cheap and affordable infrastructure, it’s a question of debate. What is certain is that the trade in labourers has built a few fortunes. In addition to helping the construction companies earn good money from cheaper labour, there is an industry called labour supply. In July 2019, one of the largest labour suppliers in Singapore sold his company for 40 odd million Singapore dollars.

Mr. Petraeus also uses another defense of the system, which is – migrant labourers are always at the bottom of the social heap wherever you go.  

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2792915094149533?__tn__=K-R

However, what Mr. Petraeus seems to forget is that just because a situation exists everywhere in the world or the fact that people don’t complain about it doesn’t make it right.

Everyone knows that the foreign workers are where they are because they want to earn money to help families get out of poverty. They’re willing to work longer hours and for less money than the locals. Nothing wrong with that. However, the real beneficiaries of this business are not the workers themselves but a host of intermediaries like labour suppliers, agents and incidentally, in the case of Singapore, the government, which collects a levy on every foreign worker (which ranges from $600 to $900 per person per month).

While Mr. Petraeus’s point that Singapore benefits from cheap labour might be up for debate, the government definitely benefits from it in the form of the levy. If you take the low-end figure of $600 per person and the fact that there are 284,300 construction workers as at June 2019, that amounts to some S$170,580,000 a month in revenue from the workers levy alone.

While the intention of the levy is supposed to be to reduce the cost differential between the foreign labourer and a local Singaporean, the result is that its encouraged employers to look for further cost savings elsewhere, particularly from the workers.

Some locals have complained that the Singapore government is “wasting” resources on the labourers and that we’re doing more for them than their own governments. However, let’s look at the other side of the equation. The mere presence of the labourers is contributing to the government’s coffers in return for no benefit at all. Call what the government is doing for the labourers a form of investment to ensure the system can sustain itself rather than benevolence. Whatever benefits the government gets from contractors using cheap labour, the one that is clearly measurable is the returns from the levy.

Mr. Petraeus also forgets that the government has admitted that standards for worker accommodation are also not what they should be. Minister for Manpower, Ms. Josephine Teo has said that standards need to be raised and it is clear that current conditions of accommodation are not healthy. While the recent outbreaks of covid-19 have attracted media attention because of their sheer number, this is not the first-time workers have died in Singapore because of an outbreak of disease in their accommodation.

It must be nice for Mr. Petraeus has so much faith in the Singapore government. However, blind faith is not healthy for any organization including the Singapore government. It’s the likes of Mr. Petraeus’s efforts to defend glaring flaws that leads to complacency, which leads to something like the case that we currently have

Perhaps the solution for Mr. Petraeus to celebrate the success that our dorm represent, would be for him to try living in one of them. Perhaps he really would be a “Critical Spectator” rather than a “Fawning Follower.”

Our Oooppps Moment

Singapore has just won something it doesn’t want to win. It has become the country in Southeast Asia with the greatest number of Covid-19 cases thanks to a record spike of 1,426 cases on 20 April 2020. Singapore had been lauded as a model of how to manage the pandemic. The government implemented contact tracing policies and somehow, our numbers remained relatively low without a full lockdown. Then things changed. In the last two weeks, we’ve seen our numbers jump. From two-digit daily increases, we started seeing daily increases of three digits on a daily basis.

What happened? How did Singapore’s thus far “Gold Standard” management suddenly collapse? For me, I don’t think it’s a case of the Singapore government’s lack of capability in crisis management. Rather, it’s a case of the neglected part of Singapore coming to bite us back.

If you look at the dramatic rise in the number of infected cases, you will note that its primarily from the foreign worker population who are concentrated in foreign worker dormitories. As mentioned in a previous posting, these workers are primarily from South Asia, working in labour intensive industries and for the most part live in a different, more brutal reality from the rest of us. A second cousin once removed said it best in an article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/16/singapores-new-covid-19-cases-reveal-countrys-two-very-different-realities/

Whatever is said of how the government has managed the pandemic, I’m inclined to agree with Professor Donald Low of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, who argued that the one area in which the government should be blamed in the area of foreign worker management. Professor Low’s analysis of the government’s handling of the pandemic can be found at:

http://www.academia.sg/academic-views/coronavirus-right-lessons/

Professor Low rightly distinguishes between “known Unknowns” and “Unknown Known.” Everything about the virus was based on “known unknowns,” in as much decisions were based on available information at the time and the decision makers had to do with what they had.

The issue of foreign worker dormitories is however, is a “unknown known.” This is an old issue and NGO’s such as TWC2 have raised this issue before in the public domain. This is not the first time that foreign workers have died from diseases due to unhygienic living conditions as a 2012 article from the Straits Times reveals:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/rat-borne-disease-suspected-in-foreign-workers-death

The system as they say, is stacked against the foreign worker and employers do have the right to view foreign workers as an exploitable asset. Getting medical leave, for example, can be perilous for the worker’s economic well being as the list from TWC2’s website points out:

http://twc2.org.sg/2019/09/15/survey-of-doctors-reveals-barriers-to-healthcare-for-migrant-workers/

There is no possible way that the government could not have been aware of this potential time bomb. One can only attribute the lack of serious action in this area to “self-interest.” These workers are the ones who keep strategic industries like ship building and construction running. Hence, the government has not been willing to “raise costs” for employers.

The more worrying trend, is that the population, particularly among the older Chinese are inclined to think of our dark-skinned workers (the proverbial “darkies”) as dispensable too. The Chinese daily, Lianhe Zaobao published a forum letter from a reader that blamed the migrant workers for the current situation:

https://mothership.sg/2020/04/migrant-workers-zaobao-letter/

While Singaporeans have come out, calling out this writer for obvious racist attitudes, the frightening thing is that plenty of people seemed to agree. The following article from Rice Media provides some valuable insight into what the letter reveals about society:

https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-commentary-zabao-forum-letter-singapore-echo-chambers/

The Law Minister, Mr. K Shanmugam has gone public to decry the underlying racist attitudes, but as welcome as having a high-profile minister cone out to state the obvious, this sounds like rushing into the ICU for a problem that was diagnosed a decade ago.

Singapore’s mortality rate from the virus remains relatively low. While the government has done a relatively competent job, in as much as it has taken care of the population that votes. However, it has completely disregarded a segment of the population which does not have a voice.

A government that is renowned for having superb foresight has been caught by a glaring blind spot. This is an organization that holds a lot of power. It could have tried to listen to the voiceless. As a society we need to understand that treating people like humans is in our self-interest.

Too much energy is focused on international window dressing. In the early days of this pandemic, our ministers became prone to comparing our well-disciplined machinery to the “idiots” in Hong Kong, which up to that point was racked with street protests. Just as Singapore recorded its first four digit increase in cases; Hong Kong recorded its first day without a new case. As Professor Donald Low argued, humility and humanity should be the lessons we learn from this virus.