TR EMERITUS

Science aside, the vaccination conflict in Singapore today is, basically an issue about individualism vs collectivism. The salient question to ask should be: Does the individual’s life belong to him/her—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government imposing ever more restrictions rapidly— and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand. Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Individualism is the belief that an individual's life is his own and that he has an unalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to make his own decisions, to keep and utilize the efforts of his labor, and to follow the ideals of his choice. It's the belief that the person is sovereign, a goal in himself, and the most essential moral unit. Collectivism is the belief that an individual's life belongs to the group or society of which he is only a member, that he has no rights, and that he must give up his ideals and aspirations for the "better good" of the collective. The group or society, according to collectivism, is the primary unit of moral concern, and the individual is only valuable inasmuch as he helps the collective. "Man has no rights save those that society enables him to enjoy." From the moment he is born until the moment he dies, society grants him some so-called rights while denying him others; not because society wishes to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own survival, welfare, and happiness are the most important factors. Which has the facts on its side? Although one may argue that "God" creates people and separates us as individuals. The fundamental metaphysical statement made by Frederick Douglass is unmistakably correct. Human beings are by nature unique, independent entities; everyone must utilize his or her own thinking and command his or her own body; no one is metaphysically linked to or dependent on another. I'm not naturally attached to you, and you're not attached to me. I can't walk on your legs, and you can't walk on mine. I won't be able to breathe for you, or you for me. We are unique individuals with faculties/abilities required for our very own survivals. What politics follows from those of collectivism? This is the moral foundation of governance throughout history—not justice, equality, rights, diversity, government, or even wealth or opportunity. Government requires citizens to strike a balance between self-interest and the general good. This is essentially the only argument leaders have for governance: Citizens sacrificing for and engaging in the building of a common good are being asked to contribute to a 'project' greater than themselves. The person is sometimes put to a considerable lot of hardship as a result of the use of this authority, and he may even be subjected to what looks to be injustice. This is unfortunate, but it is unavoidable because civilized society's goal is to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and because the greatest number can benefit from the greatest good, each individual must subordinate his or her own desires or inclinations for the benefit of all. What would happen if we did the latter? As Ayn Rand said, “You would be surprised how quickly the ideologists of collectivism retreat when they encounter a confident, intellectual adversary. Their case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair. Take the side they dare not approach; appeal to human intelligence.” Hundreds of millions of people were tortured and slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and their ilk in the name of "the greatest good for the greatest number"— "the greatest good for the greatest number" is one of the most heinous slogans ever imposed on humanity. The greatest number, seventy million Germans supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number, the six million Jews. But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. This brings us to the realm of our vaccination mandates: To be sure, societies—consisting as they do of individuals—need moral principles, too, but only for the purpose of enabling individuals to act in ways necessary to sustain and further their own lives. Thus, the one moral principle that a society must embrace if it is to be a civilized society is the principle of individual rights: the recognition of the fact that each individual is morally an end in himself and has a moral prerogative to act on his judgment for his own sake, free from coercion by others. On this principle, each individual has a right to think and act as he sees fit; he has a right to produce and trade the products of his efforts voluntarily, by mutual consent to mutual benefit; he has a right to disregard complaints that he is not serving some so-called “greater good”—and no one, including groups and governments, has a moral right to force him to act against his judgment. Ever.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

Now that the festivities are winding down and the actual day has passed, I thought I’d make the point that although my school boy theology is nearly 30-years rusty, but its most likely that the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth was not born on December 25. I’ve heard several reasons for this, ranging from the change of the calendar by the Emperor Constantine (the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire) to the fact this date was associated with Saturnalia, an old pagan fertility festival that the early church founders found easier to adapt than abolish. That little snippet of trivia should in no way distract from the significance of the festival. The birth of Christ is the central theme of Western and by many extents, global civilization as we know it and if the date of December 25 is a “set-up” it was a pretty clever one in as much as the day after is St Stephen’s Day or Boxing Day as its better known. Stephen was the first martyr of the Christian faith. He was, a man who refused to bow down to the version of God as expressed by the Sanhedrin and penalty for Jews who p*** of the Sanhedrin back in those days was stoning. This was how Stephen died for this faith - Not the best way to die … Photo: Lee Jay Walker So, why would the early church leaders choose to commemorate very brutal death of the first Christian martyr straight after it celebrated the birth of Jesus, or the reason for the church’s very existence? As a matter of disclosure, I did take Christian theology up to A-levels and my teacher expected me to read theology at university. However, I realized that I didn’t have the patience for detailed study and the thought of learning ancient Greek (the compulsory element as you have to read the New Testament in the original language) and used the national service period as a reason to abandon the dreams of those who had great hope in me. I place this disclaimer so as to clarify that I am merely giving an opinion based on my personal beliefs and observations. I believe the significance of having St Stephen’s day after Christmas sends a clear message about faith and just about everything else in life, which is the fact that you cannot have glory and joy without being prepared to suffer for it. The point is easier to explain at Easter where we commemorate the pain of Good Friday before the glory of the resurrection of Easter Sunday. However, the point should not be lessened at Christmas. Think of St Stephen’s day as the fine print of the divine contract. Everyone gets excited by the “birth of the savior” on Christmas day because it’s a promise of all sorts of wonderful things. However, there’s the fine print, which says that in order to reach the promised land of heavenly glory by following the proverbial “savior,” you got to be prepared to lose everything, including your life. This is important because much of the modern capitalistic system is based on instant gratification without the painful bits. Lotteries are the prime example. The odds of winning the lottery defy logic. According to Forbes, you have a 292.1 million to one chance of hitting the big power ball jackpot. By contrast you have a 300,000 to one chance of being struck by lightning. You’d think that with such poor odds, no logical person would by a lottery ticket. Yet, despite these odds, lotteries throughout the world continue to thrive? Why? Everyone is attracted by the prospect of being wildly rich without having to slog and save towards wealth. Being rich is attractive – working to the extent of having to pay a personal price is not. Another extreme example is “miracle diets” which promise you a beautiful body is you just buy them. I would love to be as lean and trim as Bruce Lee in his prime. Training for six hours a day and 365 days a week like Bruce Lee is a different story: [LINK] These are extreme examples but the point remains, most of us want the glory without having to struggle for it and there’s a twist to it in Singapore where an “easy life” is seen as an “entitlement.” Too many of Singapore’s leaders forget that one of the key elements of our success came from having to do the ground work. Lee Kuan Yew wasn’t born Prime Minister. He had to struggle to know his electorate. The English-speaking Mr. Lee had to force himself out of his comfort zone to communicate in Mandarin and Hokkien to get people to vote for him. However, this isn’t the case today. How many of the ruling party’s potential candidates for parliament have had to leave their comfort zones to know the electorate? The only criteria for parliament seem to be checking the right boxes set by an all-knowing party executive and before you know it, you have a cushy side gig paying an allowance that is five times the national average wage. At least politicians have to face some form of competition every five-years. Lower down the line you have senior civil servants being appointed CEO of big companies in businesses that are unrelated to their previous work experiences. It’s called “Sharing talent” with the private sector and everyone is supposed to believe this will benefit the rest of us. Doesn’t work like this in 2021/2022. Bosses are expected to understand the ground and know how their organisations work. Yet, nobody expects the former civil servants to know the businesses they have been parachuted to run. Why are we surprised when the companies run by former civil servants end up with floundering share prices and un-balanced sheets despite having a national monopoly on essential services and products? The leaders of the media industry once claimed that the market was “too small for competition.” The reality is that it is “too controlled” to punish managerial incompetence. Too many of our leaders across all sectors fall in love with being the boss without understanding that bosses need to do work. Hence, they rush out of their way to lavish luxuries and opportunities on hedge fund owners but struggle to pay what is due to movers and stationary providers without understanding that their business needs the support of partners. Yet, the system shields them from incompetence. This has to change if Singapore Inc is to have a future. Market forces must be allowed to punish leaders who fail to do the work of leaders. In religious terms we all want the divine glory that Jesus brings but are we prepared to put the work that Stephen died for? Unless we are willing to answer in the affirmative, we shouldn’t get the divine glory.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

The government won’t call it that, of course. They are simply barring the unvaccinated from returning to the workplace, even with a negative pre-event test, starting 15 January. Partially vaccinated workers have until 31 January to complete their vaccination regimen. Employees who cannot work from home risk being placed on no-pay leave or being fired outright. The government justifies this by claiming it is to ‘protect the unvaccinated’ and ‘create safer workplaces’. This comes on the heels of reports of new Omicron clusters and infections, especially among travelers who arrived in Singapore through the vaccinated travel lanes and their close contacts. Instead of passing a law through Parliament, where it can be scrutinized and debated, the Ministry of Manpower sent down an ‘advisory’ at 11pm on 26 December informing the public of these new measures. In December 2020, Professor Tan Chorh Chuan, chief scientist at the Ministry of Health, claimed that 80% of the population will need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Presently, 96% of Singapore’s eligible population is fully vaccinated. Singapore has exceeded this target—but restrictions on the unvaccinated have only grown tighter. What about the vaccinated? The fully vaccinated were once allowed to use the vaccine travel lanes to travel overseas. New VTL ticket sales have now been frozen. Mask mandates are still in force. Limits on social gatherings and household visits remain. Social distancing is still required. Life has not returned to normal. The government has merely lifted some restrictions partway for the vaccinated, and can re-impose them anytime it wishes. Mass compliance will not lead to freedom. Everywhere in the world, mass compliance merely brought more lockdowns, more mandates, more restrictions. The rise of Omicron isn’t going to change things. The freezing of ticket sales is just a precursor. Given its highly contagious nature and its ability to evade vaccines, Singapore is likely to once again see an explosion of Covid cases in the near future, on par with Europe, North America, and everywhere else that Omicron has arrived. Should this happen, I expect the government to call for more vaccinations, more boosters, and more restrictions. The government is already hinting that it will revise the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ to include the booster shot—specifically, the mRNA vaccine. The government already requires those who choose the Sinovac vaccine to take three doses before they are deemed fully vaccinated—and ‘encourages’ them to take the mRNA vaccine to complete their regimen. With this report that the third Sinovac vaccine fails to protect against Omicron, it may be likely that Sinovac will eventually be withdrawn, or at least demoted to a vaccine of last resort. The government is also offering booster shots to those aged between 50 and 59, and those above 18 are ‘recommended’ to receive the booster five months after the second dose. The UK is planning to offer boosters three months after the second dose, and is already preparing the public for a fourth dose. Data from Denmark suggests that vaccine efficacy against Omicron drops off after 90 days. While Moderna and Pfizer promise they can produce a vaccine tailored for Omicron by early 2022, there is no guarantee that this new vaccine will remain effective against the next variant. In the same vein, there is no reason to think the Singapore government will stick to the five-month interval between the second shot and the booster. Only a tiny minority of Singaporeans remain unvaccinated, yet that isn’t enough for the government. They say the vaccine is voluntary, but they will impose penalties on those who do not make the choice they want. Singapore has approved vaccination for children aged 5 and older. As with adults, it is ‘voluntary’, but I won’t be surprised if the government will soon impose penalties for noncompliance. When the new Covid vaccine policy comes into effect, I expect a large section of the population to be reduced to the status of partially vaccinated. As of time of writing, only 36% of the population has received booster shots. Today’s fully vaccinated will become tomorrow’s pariahs. The hospitalization risk of Omicron is 40 to 45% lower than Delta, according to Imperial College London. South Africa has seen a decoupling between new infections and ICU admissions and deaths. Presently, with the Delta variant, only 1.3% of patients in Singapore develop severe illness. The risk of overwhelming Singapore’s medical capacity, the official explanation for the previous round of Covid restrictions, is therefore likely to be markedly reduced. Only 0.2% of Covid patients passed away from the disease, and per the CDC, 94% of Covid deaths tend to be the elderly and those with multiple comorbidities. People outside the at-risk demographic have little to fear from the new variant. The Covid case fatality rate of children up to 19 years old in Singapore is 0. Omicron is so mild that the current treatment protocol is home-based recovery and self-testing in lieu of quarantine, in line with the other variants. Any unvaccinated person who catches the virus is likely to be surrounded by vaccinated people, who are supposedly protected against the virus, which again further reduces any threat to public health. Yet the government continues to push mass vaccination and to enforce vaccine discrimination to ‘protect the unvaccinated’ and ensure a ‘safer workplace’. The de facto mandate has come. What can you do? Do not hope for the Opposition to speak up for you. The few Opposition politicians who have spoken up have produced limited impact on government policy. Do not hope for the Singapore legal community to defend you of their own accord. With rare exceptions, they have remained silent. Do not hope for the medical community to save you. Their silence is resounding. Do not hope for any institution to save you. You must save yourself. You bear all the risks of vaccination. The Establishment bears none of the responsibility. The government has the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme, but as Yvonne Lian recounts, securing a successful claim is far from guaranteed. You must assume that if you are injured or die after taking the vaccine, you will not be compensated. Likewise, neither your employer nor healthcare provider will take responsibility for you or your dependents. Vaccination should be—must be—a personal choice. Only you can decide whether you want to take the vaccine or not. No one else. For weeks, I’ve been warning readers to get off the system. If you choose to remain unvaccinated and you haven’t already developed a side gig, you are running out of time. If your employer threatens to fire you, make them fire you. If you need your job, do everything in your power to retain employment—negotiations, legal representation, working from home—but do not give up. You still have time to turn things around. Unless you are confident you can secure another job, in which case you should walk away immediately. They have shown that they do not care about you as a sovereign human being, with autonomy over your life, or else are unable to accommodate you. If you can’t hold on to your job and will not vaccinate, you need to pivot. Fast. Identify out what jobs you can do from home, or else start an online business. There is no longer any reason to delay. Identify your strengths, see how you can solve a problem for people, then get to it. Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers has launched a legal campaign to overturn two critical Covid directives: allowing employers to fire the unvaccinated, and requiring the unvaccinated to cover their own hospitalisation fees. TR Emeritus is launching a class action against the Multi-Ministry Task Force in a bid to challenge Singapore’s Covid vaccine discrimination policies. They are going to need your support. You may feel alone. You may feel that you are only one person, surrounded by people who demand that you make the choice they want you to make. The reality is, there are 52,000 people in the same boat as you. That’s more than enough to create a parallel economy, more so if you link up with others who are willing to help you. You need to create options for yourself. Connect with likeminded people. You can start with Healing the Divide. Start your own Internet businesses, and support those who do not discriminate against the unvaccinated. SG Connect Concerned Parents can help with that. Develop income streams that the Covid restrictions cannot touch. Walk away from a society that rejects you. In the gravest extreme, despite your best efforts, if you feel no choice but to take the vaccine, then keep this in mind: Never forget what they made you do.   Benjamin Cheah * The author blogs at https://www.benjamincheah.com/.      Read More →