As the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) conducted a Meet The People session online on Facebook Live, they asked the public to vote on the poll, asking the people if the Singaporean government handled the COVID-19 pandemic well.

According to the vote results, 43 per cent disagreed, 31 per cent somewhat disagreed, and 3 per cent of the voters agreed that the Government handled it well.

Tan Meng Wah responded to this topic by referring to an article he had written on his Facebook on 22 May. He explained that although his article wrote about COVID-19, he was actually emphasising on the governance model.

Ministerial Task Force mishandled COVID-19

The industry consultant stated that the “seed” of the COVID-19 mishandling was sowed the moment the Ministerial Task Force was formed at the beginning of the year. Since the Task Force was made up of ministers, Dr Tan believed that it had reflected the mindset of the ruling party.

He then expressed that this move was to create an opportunity for the ministers to combat the crisis in order to gain the people’s trust.

“This is an opportunity to make it a political success because of the impending GE. If they’re able to demonstrate the ministers or 4G leaders are able to tackle the crisis, then they will gain the trust of (the) people.”

Not just that, Dr Tan mentioned that the ministers had made assumptions based on what they learned during the SARS crisis. By comparing that SARS and COVID-19 are different viruses, he added that Singapore is also different now, as compared to 2003 when SARS hit.

Other than addressing that Singapore is currently more open globally and more foreigners had been coming, he noted that the population in the nation had grown significantly.

While SARS could only transmit after the symptoms were developed, COVID-19 could be transmitted while an individual is asymptomatic.

He stressed that this piece of information was already available on 14 January and that the Task Force was formed on 22 January, implying that the Task Force should have been informed about it.

Dr Tan thought that the Task Force was handling COVID-19 based on Singapore’s experience in handling SARS.

Other than the comparisons made, he also addressed how the Task Force insisted on the “no face mask” policy even after the confirmation that COVID-19 is infectious back in February. This implied that the Task Force did not take urgent action to implement the use of face masks to protect the people.

Acknowledging that the Task Force managed to “recover quickly” by introducing the fiscal policies to help SMEs and households, Dr Tan stressed that damage had already been done at that point.

The damage had led to the implementing of circuit breaker (CB), and due to the CB, a lot of SMEs were not able to survive even with the support given by the Government.

“Overall, even though the Task Force recovered very quickly by implementing the fiscal policies and the four packages to help the SMEs and households, the damage has already been done because of the decision that they made.”

“As a result, the circuit breaker was implemented. And because of the CB, a lot of livelihoods are affected. A lot of SMEs may not be able to survive, even with the physical support.”

Following his observation on the Task Force’s performance, he then went back to focusing on the governance model that he mentioned earlier, questioning if Singapore has the “best leader” in place, as well as the objectives of the 4G leaders.

Dr Tan was concerned if the intention of a 4G leader was for the best interests of Singapore as a whole, or it was just a vested interest.

“We need to really look at the governance model and ask the question whether we’re having the best leader in place…”

“What is the objective of the 4G leader? Are they working for the interests of Singapore as a whole, or are they working for the interests of specific groups of people like elites or what we call vested interest?”

He ended his response by urging Singaporeans to ask themselves these questions.

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

陆交局逾两亿元建地铁站合约 颁中铁建十一局

根据陆路交通管理局(LTA)昨日(9日)发布的文告,当局把裕廊西和峇哈路口(Bahar Junction)(皆暂定名称)两个地铁站,以及裕廊区域线(JRL)高架桥的土木工程合约,颁给中国铁建十一局集团新加坡分公司。合约总值2亿1千010万元。 合约要求设计和建设裕廊西和峇哈路口地铁站,以及裕廊西2道与4道、以及裕廊西64街和75街的高架桥;而峇哈路口地铁站则有两个平台,其中一平台服务列车开往蔡厝港和裕廊渡头;另一平台开往秉光山方向。 根据陆交局的文告简介,中铁建十一局是“经验丰富的建筑公司,在全球已完成多项铁路项目。” 在新加坡,该公司参与多项重大建筑项目,包大士西延长线上的三个地铁站,即大士连路站、大士西路站及大士弯站与其高架轨道。“在大士西延长线项目中,建造了我国首个与部分地铁轨道结合兴建的汽车高架桥。” 据此前报导,陆交局也颁发总值7亿3950万元的土木工程合约,给中铁建十一局新加坡分公司,负责建设登加(Tengah)车厂。 裕廊区域线是新加坡第七条地铁线路,总长24公里共24站。上述车站将在2020年动工,预计2026年竣工。裕廊区域线预计从2026年起至2028年分三个阶段启用。 根据中铁建十一局集团官网简介,指该公司是中国铁建有限公司(CRCC)的“骨干子公司”;前身为中国人民解放军铁道第一师,诞生于1948年;1984年改编为铁道部第十一工程局、以及2001年8月改制为中铁十一局集团有限公司,2008年3月随中国铁建整体上市。 不过有消息指,世界银行在今年6月,对该公司以及中国铁建,发布为期九个月的禁令,主要原因是涉及格鲁吉亚东西公路走廊改善项目中,采购过程存不当行为 。 禁令将在明年3月3日结束,此后两年将施以“附条件解禁”,世界银行将监督该公司以及中国铁建的其他涉事公司,确保履行和解协议的义务。 与此同时,该公司还曾在去年8月至11月期间,被人力部列入黑名单:

林谋泉:没强制小贩拉长时间 惟小贩申请表格列明需至少营业8小时

蒙巴登国会议员林谋泉于脸书贴文,回应旧机场路小贩中心老顾客Gary Ho的提问。他澄清,据他向小贩了解,他们并没有被要求需经营过长的营业时间。不过,有网民立即上载表格到脸书,证明在职总富食客的小贩摊位申请表格,清楚列明需至少营业8小时。 一些从事餐饮业的网民指出,即便强制至少营业八小时对小贩来说也是不切实际的,并没有考虑到小贩在开档前,为准备食材所耗费的时间和精力。假设硬性规定小贩营业八小时,之前出外购买食材、准备食材的时间加上去,估计一天的总工作时间,恐怕都超过10-14小时。 林谋泉称,在昨晚结束与民会面活动后,还特地于昨晚10时30分亲自到访该小贩中心观察,发现大部分摊位已经收摊。其中一个摊位告示牌也说明营业时间是从早上8时至晚上7时。 “我不认为有必要让小贩们拉长经营时间。他们应可以自行决定要付出多少努力。” 林谋泉也再次重提,自己的父母也是小贩,清楚小贩们的努力,故此希望澄清有关Gary Ho帖文中提到小贩被迫工作过长时间的说法是不对的。 他说,他在傍晚时分向四名小贩了解,他们也指出职总富食客并没有要求小贩营业超长时间,同时休假也无需报告或被惩罚。职总富食客只是想确保小贩中心到了夜晚不会变得空荡荡。 反驳没有为小贩挺身而出 林谋泉也在回覆留言时补充,2017年,他安排职总富食客管理层和小贩们会面,本身也在场。 “职总富食客向我和小贩们保证,直到更了解小贩中心状况,将暂时维持现状一年。据我所知租赁条件没有变动,也没要求过长营业时间。没有小贩向我申诉如Gary Ho先生提出的问题。”…

Kuching High Court dismisses pro-independence activists’ suit challenging validity of Malaysia Agreement 1963

The Kuching High Court in Sarawak, Malaysia, dismissed a suit last Thursday which challenged the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Judicial Commissioner Alexander Siew How Wai ruled that the suit lacked a reasonable cause of action and was misconceived. He emphasized that the Federal Constitution establishes Sabah and Sarawak as part of Malaysia, and any changes would require two-thirds majority parliamentary approval and the consent of Sabah and Sarawak. The judge also ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs amounting to RM10,000. The suit was filed in March 2022 by 11 Sarawakians seeking declarations on the agreement’s legality and the decolonization process.

POFMA strikes – Why is the PAP so sensitive about the “10 million” issue?

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office has been…