“There’s a very thin sense of mutual obligation, very thin sense of lateral ties across society,” said sociologist Associate Professor Teo You Yenn in an Academia.SG webinar on Friday (1 May).
The zoom webinar titled “Beyond the pandemic: what we have learned, and still have to learn” featured five panellists who shared their opinions and ideas of the current COVID-19 crisis and the aftermath.
The speakers were Professor of Media Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University’s School of Communication, Cherian George; Professor Emerita of Corporate Strategy and International Business at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Linda Lim; Professor of Practice at the Institute of Public Policy of the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, Donald Low; Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Kenneth Paul Tan; and Assoc. Prof and Provost’s Chair in Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University, Teo You Yenn.
Moderated by Assoc. Prof Teo, panellists reflected on the possible fallout of the COVID-19 crisis and offered suggestions as to how those negative impacts could be mitigated. This included prioritising social justice in policymaking, building moral sensibilities at the individual level and rethinking the country’s economic model.

Crucial to prioritise social justice in policymaking instead of growth and efficiency

Prof Low first submitted that the current crisis shows the different ways inequality manifests, from spatial to environmental, health, and housing. He added that the Singapore government should therefore look at inequality in all its forms.
“That means not just inequality within Singaporean society but also inequality between Singaporeans and non-residents. And inequality not just in terms of income and wealth but also in terms of living conditions, housing, access to public goods and amenities, and so on.”
Prof Low suggested that policymakers should, going forward, be more attuned to social justice as a way to measure good policy making instead of just focusing on growth and efficiency.
When asked why social justice should be prioritised, Prof Low explained that the crisis has revealed that when there is no equality or social justice, there is no way to achieve efficiency which is what the government has been and is prioritising.
Using current examples, he said: “The most salient, most vivid manifestation of inequality in Singapore is in the disparity between Singaporeans and foreign labour,” elaborating that inadequate access and inadequate protection of foreign workers suffer is what led to Singapore being place on lockdown.”

Building up moral reasoning and incorporating social justice into the framework of the community

Assoc. Prof Tan then weighed in on the perspective of moral reasoning. He argued that you need a moral compass to navigate complex problems, however this is something that is built up over time. Before that, what first needs to be developed is “moral sensibilities”.
Elaborating, the associate professor said that a good thing to come out of this crisis is the many expressions of generosity and kindness of people who have stepped up to provide assistance to others.
However, he also stressed that these sensibilities tend to emerge drastically in times of crisis, and that people who come out of it may be energised to do good, but that this shouldn’t stop at just being kind to people without also making necessary changes at the policy level.
He explained that now, people see cracks in the system which are being filled by kind and generous people. However, this might lead society to say that the system is doing fine and doesn’t need to be changed, but it does.
Assoc. Prof Tan suggested that there are many ways of how social justice can be incorporated in the public.
“And probably the weakest approach, at least in curricular terms, is to simply teach people moral frameworks,” he said, as people need to understand these different lenses used to make sense of complex situations.
But this is insufficient. “There needs to be an experiential level to this,” stressed the professor.
He then gave an example of university courses that send out students to engage with communities and civil society organisations, elevating it from an academic exercise to one where there is more at stake.
But he warned that we should refrain from turning this learning into ‘poverty tourism’ where students experience hardships of others but only to get away with the sense of being grateful.
Assoc. Prof Tan also emphasised that these communities have people with their own voices and that those voices may have been silenced for all kinds of reasons. He added that such courses should be designed to be collaborative so as not to solve problems for the community but to work with them.
Going back to the current crisis as an example of this, Assoc. Prof Tan said, “If we were to engage with the migrant workers, for example in this very specific problem of dormitories today. We’ve hardly heard their voices in the solutioning type of work that’s been presented in public. Where are their voices? Where is their creativity? Where is their agency expressing what the problems really are?”
Later, Assoc. Prof Teo also noted that current social policies do mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic to a certain degree, access to good education healthcare and housing is so deeply tied up with employment and wages as well as the narrow definition of family.
She added that the relationship between state and society is quite an individualistic one and people tend to think in terms of what they can do for themselves and their families and less about what they can do for society.
“There’s a very thin sense of mutual obligation, very thin sense of lateral ties across society,” said Assoc. Prof Teo.

The economic model of maximising growth has to be fundamentally rethought

Addressing inequality and the government’s strategy of maximising growth to build reserves, which Prof George notes appears to be proving its value now, Prof Lim explained that inequality comes from the economic model Singapore chooses which “tends to reward capital more than labour.”
“A big part of inequality comes from the fact that wages and consumption demands are very low proportions of GDP by global standards,” she said.
“I think we need to think more about how we cannot privilege a model that generates inequality. “
Talking about the nation’s reserves which the government are drawing from now to tide through this pandemic, Prof Lim notes that reserves have not been a constraint in this pandemic globally on how other governments spend.
“Other government show that you don’t need to build up reserves for 30 years in order to spend them in 3 months,” he stressed.
She further said, “We have run budget surpluses. What is a budget surplus? Budget surplus is government taking from people more than it gives back to them. Do we want to have this forever?”
Stressing that this is a long term structural issue that the country has “evaded” simply by sticking to this high-growth policy, Prof Lim pointed out that experts have been saying since the early 1970s that Singapore should reduce its dependence of foreign labour.
“We’ve known these problems for decades but we got hooked onto a model because for some time it generated growth and high returns for some people,” she lamented.
“We reached that point of diminishing returns even before the pandemic. We do need a fundamental rethinking.”
Chiming in, Assoc. Prof Teo added that if collective action is not taken, people will face great hardships and the number of people who struggle will only grow as the pandemic inevitably leads to higher unemployment and lower wages.
“We do have to mitigate these impacts at least partly through reforms in our social policy regime. Because social policies are meant to correct some of the irrationalities of the market,” she said.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Electricity tariff revision to increase by an average of 2.1% for period 1 Oct to 31 Dec 2018

The electricity tariffs will increase by an average of 2.1% or 0.48…

蓝彬明抱怨送餐员问题被政治化 吴明盛反驳“让7千人丢饭碗才严重”

本月12日,交通部高级政务部长暨盛港西单选区议员蓝彬明,会见约300名使用电动滑板车的送餐员。这些送餐员申诉电动滑板车禁令对他们的生计带来严重影响。 在一个多小时的闭门对话会上,送餐员提出许多意见,如让他们考取电板车执照,甚至在人行道上清楚划线区,分行人和电板车能使用的空间,并抱着当局可撤回禁用人行道禁令的希望。 蓝彬明医生认为,在基础设施未得到良好的提升前,目前还是必须以行人的安全为主,并表示不能接受另一起因电动滑板车相关的致命事故,但他随后也表明,政府仍然会认真看待送餐员生计,尽管目前提出了补救措施,但他也知道无法在一时间让所有人都满意。 不过,他在个人脸书贴文中也指出,现场有反对党成员将问题政治化和炒作在场人士情绪,认为“这是不负责任和可憎的。”,并指这么做对任何人都没有帮助,也在此时理应协助送餐员群体的当儿分散注意力。 虽然他未指名道姓,惟据出席者表示,有关反对党成员是人民力量党秘书长吴明盛。而吴明盛在早前的贴文也证实,自己在一些脸书网友的盛情邀请下,到两场行动党议员的对话会上“踢馆”。据了解他先是到贸工部兼教育部高级政务部长徐芳达,在大巴窑的会见选民活动,之后赶赴蓝彬明医生的对话会现场。 他表示自己在现场对蓝彬明医生提出疑问,指“没有十全十美方案”,车祸也常发生为何不见汽车被禁?也质问需检视个人代步工具对社会带来的效益,如果没有,禁之;如果有,则看看如何安全的使用。 他表示自己等候蓝彬明解答了民众的提问,后者也解释700万元津贴如何帮助送餐员等。当他要提出最后一道问题时,后者拒绝了。 “于是我问在场送餐员,他们是否要我问最后一道问题?他们喊道“要”。”吴明盛指若让送餐员把电动滑板车换成电动脚车,不过是把问题从人行道搬到马路上,让送餐员面对车祸事故的风险。 对于蓝彬明在脸书上的抱怨,吴明盛在脸书录视频反驳自己没政治化议题,反指“人们的温饱是政治,饭碗是政治,当你打破7千人的饭碗,那才是严峻的政治状况。”他也质疑让送餐员改用其他代步工具是否能解决问题。 在另一则中文贴文,他也反驳所谓他“煽动在场人情绪”的说法,反指是蓝彬明无法说服众人;而当后者不允许自己发问最后一道问题时,“我为了尊重与会者,特别问了他们到底要不要我发问,全场起哄喊要,我也只是遵从他们的意愿发问罢了。我何以“煽动”众人了?” 此外,他也认可个人代步工具也带来新的经济文化和商机,让一些家庭可以自力更生,减少社会问题;再者他认为送餐员等弱势群体需要一把声音来表达他们的困境,同时也批评当前政府拒绝去建设可供PMD使用的较完善基设。

已有900会员受益 公积金增设上网受益人提名服务

中央公积金局如今提供网上提名受益人服务,使会员能更方便且更安全地授权予受益人承继公积金。 公积金局发表文告指出,会员如今可上网进行提名申请,只需要透过SingPass登录并在网络上填写表格,加上两名见证人一同上线,便可申请提名受益人。 以往,会员若想要提名必须与两名见证人在现场见证下,签署申请表格。 在提供了身份证号码与联系方式后,见证人会收到电邮和电话信息,以确认会员是否有意进行提名,而见证人有7日的时间进行确认,随后在透过公积金局处理提名相关事宜。 对此,公积金局对于提供网上提名服务不仅方便民众,而且其信息能够获得更好保护。 当局指出,此前见证人可能会看到受益人的名字和所分配到的公积金储蓄比例,但是通过网上提出申请,见证人将无法看到这些资料。 自本月推出以来,已有逾900名会员使用网上提名服务。据公积金局表示,开通网上服务使成员更有动力进行提名,而且已提名的会员能够在生活出现变化之际,进行上网查阅。

US man forced to keep 17,000 bottles of hand sanitiser in his garage because he can’t sell them

On the day the first death of a Covid-19 patient in the…