TR EMERITUS

Someone asked me how I would have responded differently to the covid-19 pandemic, in the context of what has happened in Singapore. I will summarize the key points here. You can check the earlier posts to verify the accuracy of this summary. At the initial stage, PM Lee said that the virus will kill 0.2% of the infected people. He was looking at the global statistics available at that time. I agreed with that view. I was not concerned about the virus. I agreed with the government's view that it was not necessary to wear a mask. I also agreed with the view that the limited stock of masks should be reserved for the health workers who were highly exposed to the risk of infection. The risk to the general public was negligible. I changed my view about wearing of masks after a few weeks. I decided, out of common sense, that the mask can be washed and re-used and that the limited protection offered by the mask is better than no protection at all. I would not consider it necessary to impose a rule to make it compulsory to wear a mask outdoors. The public should be advised to wear a mask when they are in crowded places. I would leave it to their common sense. The government was alarmed when they found the large number of infected cases in the foreign worker dormitories. They were worried that the virus would spread in the general community. They were also worried that the increase in cases would "overwhelm the healthcare system". I think there were also worried that it would upset their contact tracing strategy. They decided to call the circuit breaker and closed down workplaces and business outlets. I publicly expressed in strong terms that it was a bad judgment on the part of the ministers. The cost to the government in relief measures and to the livelihood of several hundred of thousand families was horrendous. It was not necessary at that time. Most people agreed with the view of the government, but I did not. I did not get much support for my alternative view. Here is my perspective: a) I never agreed with the strenuous efforts made in collecting contact tracing details. I felt that it was a waste of time that could have been better spent on other useful activities. I do not mind contact tracing by asking the infected people who they had met within the past two weeks. It is not comprehensive, but it is adequate. b) I preferred that hand sanitizers be provided at all public places - and be clearly visible to everybody. Instead, they were made available in only a few places and most were hidden away. c) I also preferred that the temperature scanning should be carried out by a central agency, using proper equipment and trained personnel, rather than be left to the workplaces (which were unreliable and waste a lot of manpower). After the first four weeks of the circuit breaker, the ministers decided to extend it by another four weeks. I declared them to be insane. Here are my reasons: a) Although a large number of new cases were detected each day, it was the result of large scale testing in the dormitories. b) Most of these cases were mild. Most of the infected people did not need hospital treatment. They could be quarantined in the isolation facilities. They were not dropping like flies. c) The hospital system was not overwhelmed, even after the infected cases went past 20,000 and later 30,000. The number of severe ill patients under intensive care remained below 30. It has since dropped below 10. d) The death rate in Singapore was extremely low. It was only 2 per million of population (it has since increased to 4). It was nowhere alarming, compared to over 400 per million in some countries. e) The ministers lost their perspective. They were so worried about 30 deaths from covid-19. They forget that 20,000 people die every year in Singapore from all causes. f) It was quite clear by that time that the virus was mild in Singapore, probably due to our warm climate. It was nowhere as lethal as the virus in cold countries. The ministers, with the support of the public agencies and the military, were efficient in to set up 20,000 beds in the isolation centers within a few weeks. I said that it was commendable but not exemplary. Many other countries were able to carry out similar undertakings with similar success. I consider the ministers to be insane in extending the circuit breaker. They confirmed their insanity by relaxing the circuit breaker in three phases, which, in effect, is prolonging the circuit breaker. Some people supported the extension of the circuit breaker by stating that the number of deaths would have increased, if it was not done. We do not know if this will become so serious. We do not know how many lives would have been saved. We should not overlook the lives that were lost due to the circuit breaker, from people who delayed their treatment for other serious illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, and from people who suffered depression and other mental health issues. One thing is clear. The circuit breaker cost $100 billion in taxpayer's money to provide relief to the affected businesses and households. This is only partial relief. It does not compensate them adequately for the full extent of their losses. Many small businesses will not survive. Many families will have their finances completely ravaged. The $100 billion could have been put to better use to waive GST totally for 8 years or to provide $800 a month to every person above age 70 for 25 years. In the light of the uncertainty, what would I have done? I would wait before calling the circuit breaker. I would see how bad the situation would develop, before taking extreme measures that are costly in economic terms and potentially more damaging in health and lives. I would not act in haste or in panic. I would carry out my risk evaluation in a calm manner. In the light of uncertainty, I would monitor and adjust our strategy in the light of new evidence. I would not take the extreme measures which may turn out to be the worst option. I declare the ministers to be insane and that the government had wasted the $100 billion and cost a lot of damage to businesses and households.   Tan Kin Lian        Read More →

You mean without the election, you cannot rally people together for a cause? What kind of DPM are you? Everything he says here is a regurgitation of what the PAP said in 2015. I mean really. Go dig up 2015 news reports and see for yourself. Singapore faces challenges... blah blah... we need Singaporeans to come together... blah blah... The question I would ask him is this: Who will be responsible if anyone gets infected, or worse, dies from Covid19 during the election?   Andrew Loh      Read More →

Our ministers bristle when criticised for lack of productivity, relying instead on cheap labour to get businesses going. They say it's not a simple matter as Singaporeans shy away from work that the immigrant workers do. They should go to Germany. In Munich I attended a sports fair that had 200,000 visitors from all over the world. F&B outlets were stretched. One restaurant had about 100 tables. There were only four waitresses. They take orders, serve and settle the bills either in cash or cards wearing an apron with a pouch in front for cash and pockets for cleaning table tools. You don't have to go to the cashier to pay. They come to you and give your change at your table. They scoop up your dishes immediately after that and clean the table with cleaning cloths they carry with them and go to the counter to place the dishes at a designated spot and take away dishes for the next order. Back and forth they went, dropping by a table to take orders, deliver food, settle bills and clean tables. They were so efficient it amazed me at that time. Their eyes were roaming all the time as they went from table to table and kitchen counter serving the customers. I compared this to back home then, it would take at least ten waiters. It was training and an attitude that says the more productive I become the more I earn. They were Germans not foreign workers like we have. In Singapore our productivity movement is to pass the work to customers. Queue up to pay bills, or to place orders, carry your dishes whilst queuing, take your own forks and spoon or chopsticks and clearing trays when done eating. Exceptions are restaurants with full service that charge you a portion of their rental, staff pay and the taxes by govt that doesn't contribute anything to the effort and leave a portion for the business owners. And they charge a service fee. I was representing a German brand of underwear called Scheisser that had a one year guarantee. During my visit I was brought to their warehouse of around 20,000 sq ft. The first thing I noticed was that there were hardly any workers inside. The whole place was like a network of highways and flyovers surrounding multi storey flats. There were stacking shelves filled with boxes of different products. I was standing in an upper room full of computers and a glass wall with swing glass windows next to a track. They explained to me that the system can extract any sku brought to predetermined points just by keying in the computer. They asked me to name a model. I did so and in less than two minutes the exact packet of the model was delivered to the glass office through the maze of conveyor belts and tracks. I had negotiated with a manufacturer on a vehicle that could cut a tree, load the chopped trunk of the tree on board the vehicle and the tree will be run along a sawmill mechanism where it would be cut up into sizes preprogrammed and dumped into a container. The branches and leaves would be swept up by a mechanical arm to another container. No doubt the vehicle was huge but it was operated by one person. It cost one million. I wanted to import it for use by Nparks who used several teams of workers to do the same. One to cut, one to clear and load on vehicles to carry away and one to dispose of the cut material at disposal point. I didn't import it as the only organisation that would be interested was not. Cheap labour was easily available. There are examples of productivity applications everywhere. When I was in Tokyo I noticed roadside trees had no open areas around the trees to admit water. I was told by my Japanese host that there are pipes under the sidewalks delivering water to the trees wholly operated by a computer and there was no need for manual watering. A Japanese hotel toilet is an art of productivity. It was designed for the user so as not to mess up the place. There is also a computerised bidet system that washes your bum and at the same time cleans the toilet bowl. The shower area is the same, wash and clean with zero gaps. The whole idea is to reduce maintenance to cut costs and labour. And all these were in the eighties. When I compare what advanced countries are doing and what we are doing, I know the reason for why we have hundreds of thousands of foreign workers and why Singaporeans lose job opportunities. Cheap foreign labour made easily available by the government, stifle local wages for Singaporeans. This has been touted before ad nauseum but they fell on deaf ears. My daughter lives in Australia and she has two kids with no live-in maid. Millions of parents with children are in the same situation. The govt controls this. So husbands and wives learn how to be productive in caring for children, looking after the house on top of their careers. Australian citizens are available to tend to the garden, clean the pool if any and baby sitters when the situation calls for it. And they are not cheap. This is because no low wage foreign workers deprive them of their jobs, or as PM Lee said eat our lunch. It would take another decade if the govt decides to do away with cheap labour and allow market forces to determine wages for work done where foreign labour once thrived. A minimum wage should also be legislated. Of course the fastest way to change course and rid our people and businesses of the crutch mentality by depending on cheap foreign labour is to take the risk with a new government or have more voices in parliament to enforce change.   Peter Soh   * Article first appeared on the author's Facebook page.      Read More →