Minister for Finance and Co-Chair of the Multi-Agency task force for COVID-19 Lawrence Wong has announced that the easing of Phase 2 Heightened Alert (P2HA) measures will be differentiated and extended only to people who are vaccinated.

In other words, the ability for people to visit restaurants and gyms, etc. will be determined by whether or not they have been vaccinated. Mr Wong has justified this measure on the basis that vaccinated people are better protected against COVID-19.

However, does this not deviate from what Mr Wong has said previously?

Prior to this announcement in Parliament on Monday (26 July), Mr Wong has repeatedly said that there were no plans to make the COVID-19 vaccinations compulsory – but by saying that unvaccinated people will be unable to do normal things, isn’t that the same as making it compulsory?

Why then all the cloak and dagger and mixed messaging? Just call a spade, a spade and say the vaccination is mandatory! That will be a whole lot clearer for all involved!

One might argue that the unvaccinated don’t have to visit restaurants or gyms etc. But how feasible is this? In Singapore, we have a strong “eat-out” culture. We celebrate birthdays, weddings, graduations and other milestone events in restaurants. We dine out as a means to meet up with our family and friends.

Saying that you cannot eat at a restaurant if you are unvaccinated is not the same as saying you cannot visit a nightclub if you are unvaccinated. By saying you cannot visit a restaurant unvaccinated, Mr Wong is effectively saying that you have to choose between your close friends or family and having the vaccination.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not an anti-vaxxer by any means. I am in fact, double jabbed. However, that said, I still believe that people should be given a genuine choice. I also am calling out the Government for saying one thing and doing another.

Mr Wong had given repeated assurances that the vaccine will not be compulsory but he has now turned around to say that you will have to be cut off by society if you do not get vaccinated.

That is not a real choice! It is disingenuous wordplay!

Besides, this practice will be discriminatory to those who are either allergic to the vaccination or who for health reasons, have been advised against the vaccination. Are these groups of people to be discriminated against because they are unable to have the vaccine?

If so, it is utterly unfair and can even be seen as some kind of social engineering – if you are healthy enough to take the vaccine, you can come out and be part of society but if you are not, please stay at home, out of sight! How is this the hallmark of a caring society?

By all means, encourage people to take the vaccine if they can. But, to effectively make people outliers because they don’t, is reprehensible.

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

GIC report – ‘significant’ recovery but how much exactly?

By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the report “GIC recovers losses…

Temasek – Murky figures and unanswered questions

Temasek’s explanation is adding insult to injury. Leong Sze Hian.

Sparking joy and fearing shame: The irony of Singapore’s National Day parade

by James Leong American writer Mark Twain once wrote, “Dance like no…