In an interview with Lianhe Zaobao on 25 April, Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said: “If possible, I really wish to know at which stage the infection has already spread to community and migrant workers group? If time can be rewound, this is what I wish I could know.”

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, things can always be done better and it would not be fair to hold the government responsible for things that could only have been made known on hindsight.

The question however is whether or not the COVID-19 spread within the migrant workers is really a “hindsight” issue?

As early  February, there were already reports that a migrant worker had contracted COVID-19. By then, the world already knew that the virus could be spread through close proximity. Teo would also not be blind to the fact that our migrant workers live in close proximity to each other in dormitories.

With these factors in mind, could she really have reasonably not known? If she didn’t know, then is it a case of wilful blindness on her part and the part of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)? If they didn’t know but ought to have known, is there some negligence involved and will there be accountability for that?

Given the tone of Teo’s interview, it is clear that she knows the situation is not ideal. Yet, she is still shy of issuing an apology to Singapore and its migrant workers.

She says that the government does what it can but is that accurate when you see that it was public information as early as February that there was a migrant worker living in dormitories that had contracted COVID-19.

Not to mention that under existing regulations on dormitories to protect migrant workers, quarantine plans were to have been put in place. However, no such plans were ever seen to be activated by the dormitories or penalised by MOM for the lack of it.

As far as we are aware, the government did nothing then and was confident that it had dealt with the pandemic well as it got praised by the World Health Organization as an example to emulate.

Furthermore, Lawrence Wong who co-chairs the multi-ministry taskforce had on 31 March, considered at changing the travel restrictions for some Chinese cities, if the travellers from those cities serve a 14-day self-isolation period.

They have zero local cases. The new cases in China are large, almost entirely imported ones. So the situation has stabilised. And if the situation stabilises then we will consider looking at, allowing changing the travel restrictions for some of the Chinese cities.”

“For example, in Beijing or Shanghai we could consider allowing short-term visitors to come from these cities into Singapore, but with the requirement that they serve a 14-day self isolation period”, he added.

And three days later on 3 April, the government announced the “circuit breaker” measures in light of the rising cases of infection.

There also appears to be discrepancies between what she is saying and what another senior member of government, Chan Chun Sing is saying.

On his Facebook (FB) post on 23 April, Chan, who is our Trade and Industry Minister said that migrant workers are also part of Singapore’s community. Yet, Teo on 25 April is still appearing to distinguish between the community and the migrant workers which implies that they are not a part of our community.
Is the government taking a joined up approach on dealing with the pandemic? Are they sending out a consistent message to the people?

Our ministers are paid among the highest in the world. While they are not paid to predict the future, they are paid to employ foresight. Calling the migrant worker COVID-19 spread a “hindsight issue” is a cop out that skirts accountability.

Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

工作设备被充公 许渊臣用旧手机发文解释诽谤指控调查

本社总编许渊臣,针对有关刑事诽谤指控的调查,作出数点澄清,为外界解惑。 在今年9月18日,资讯通信媒体发展局(IMDA),援引《广播法》第16(1)项,要求本社在六小时内撤下被指违规的贴文,本社已遵照该局的指示删除贴文。 这篇文章是由一名非常规撰稿人发表。资媒局质问本社刊载这篇文章的编采决策,许渊臣这么写道: “就出版编辑标准而言,已阐明该文章为读者来函。我们的立场,公众针对政府是否腐败可保留个人意见。例如,总理已在国会澄清弟妹对他的指控,那任何人重提总理弟妹的控诉,也算是不符事实的?” 至于文章中指控当权者篡改宪法,任何对宪法的修改,例如违背公众意见,为了特定议程修改总统选举制,都可算是篡改。 许渊臣也回应,对读者来函只负责校对文句,如涉及任何未公开事实的指控,本社将与有关当局求证。他也重申,若整篇文章牵涉如藐视法庭或刑事诽谤等法律问题,都不会被刊登,除非有关读者能提供进一步的资讯佐证。 个体或机构是不可能以上述形式对政府构成伤害的。在欠缺媒体自由的情况下,政府已经在多个场合重申,容许公民批评政府。 根据资媒局文告,在上述文章被移除后,资媒局在10月4日向警方报案。 警方在星期二上午依据庭令,扣押了我的两台桌面型电脑、两部手机、三台笔记型电脑、两部平板电脑、三部硬盘和其它电子储存设备等。 许渊臣申请在警方完成调查后能把归还上述设备,但被拒绝了。只有结案之后,才能索回。 他在昨午3时30分,在广东民大厦接受盘问,至11时30分结束。目前,上述案件还在调查中。 –许渊臣透过旧手机撰文发布…

MTI: Singapore-EU FTA with Britain to continue throughout Brexit transition period

According to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) on Friday (31…

Singapore withdraws ILS, Firefly to resume flights to the Republic via Seletar Airport

Following the extension of the suspension of Singapore’s Instrument Landing System (ILS)…

TOC Editorial: The Steve Tan debacle – Singaporeans deserve a full account

Singaporeans are none the wiser after PM Lee’s “explanation” of why PAP…