Debated in Parliament on 21 Mar 2023.
Debate resumed.
Thank you. I believe that with the experience of SARS, H1N1 and now COVID-19, the Government knows much better, what measures are necessary and appropriate; and the people of Singapore understand much better, what to do during a pandemic crisis. With that, there is a lower chance of having a panic.
The fifth area of improvement, we need to ensure that we have early access to efficacious vaccines for future pandemics. Without sufficient doses of vaccines, our mass vaccination strategy would have been a non-starter. So what if we are willing to take the vaccines, if there are no supplies? But securing vaccines is an art in itself, at best, an inexact science.
This is where the judgement I spoke about at the start of the speech, made all the difference. How the vaccine procurement decisions were made in the early stages of the pandemic, is an important story to be told in this House and we shall do it today. Spoiler alert – this story has a happy ending, as noted by Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Despite our small size and despite the worldwide shortage, Singapore was the first country in Asia to obtain COVID-19 vaccines, enough for all our people. But we also paid a price. So, here was what happened.
During the early phase of the pandemic, we set up an inter-agency workgroup chaired by the Head of Civil Service and comprising senior officials from agencies, such as Prime Minister's Office (PMO), MOH, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Economy Development Board (EDB) and Health Sciences Authority (HSA), to develop our vaccine procurement approach.
Once they were formed, they immediately faced two challenges. First, COVID-19 was a new virus. Although several vaccines were concurrently being developed at that time, nobody knew which one would work. So, which one to buy?
Second, every country was clamouring for vaccines and there was limited manufacturing capacity to meet that demand. As a small market, we lack negotiating power. That has always been so. This would normally push us down the priority queue for delivery. The situation was worsened by supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic. But time was of the essence. So, how to secure assured and early deliveries for vaccines?
On the first question of what to buy, the workgroup recommended a portfolio approach. Do not put all our bets on one vaccine, but buy a selected number of vaccines across different technological platforms. This includes both mRNA and non-mRNA vaccines.
To identify the most promising candidates, the workgroup was advised by a panel of experts from the research institutes, hospitals and industry. Since we did not know which vaccine candidate would work and we had to buy several types – if one does not work, we must make sure the other one had enough volume to cover our population. Therefore, we needed to over-procure such that the combined volumes of all the vaccine candidates more than covered the population of Singapore.
On the question of how to secure assured and early delivery, we leveraged our relationships with the pharmaceutical companies and entered into advance purchase agreements with fixed delivery schedules and quantities. That made them bite and we entered into the agreements.
Then, to ensure quality and safety, all selected vaccine candidates were reviewed by HSA thoroughly before being authorised for emergency use in Singapore. The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination provided a second layer of independent review and gave recommendations on how to optimise the use of the vaccines.
The first batch of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines arrived in late 2020, Singapore being the first country in Asia to receive them. We rolled out the National Vaccination Programme shortly after, from December 2020 – again, one of the first few countries in the world to do so. I think only after the UK, US and maybe, Israel. The Moderna vaccine was added to the National Vaccination Programme in March 2021, and Sinovac and Novavax in October 2021 and February 2022 respectively.
While the mRNA vaccines were found to be highly-effective in protecting against severe COVID-19 infections, around the middle of 2021, we faced two new concerns.
First, there were early indications that vaccine protection could wane over time, especially amongst the elderly. So, boosters would be needed. We, therefore, procured additional vaccine doses to administer boosters to the whole population.
The second concern came up. New COVID-19 variants were emerging. There was a real possibility that one or more might break through vaccine protection and cause new major infection waves, causing many deaths or many cases of severe illnesses.
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech therefore developed new bivalent vaccines that provide better coverage against the newer virus strains. In September 2022, we took the decision to make a clean switch to these new bivalent vaccines. The monovalent ones had to be stored away.
Looking back, today, if we can go back in time, given the uncertainties, the high stakes, what we knew, what we did not know and the challenges we faced, I think we would have done things the same way.
Because we secured safe and efficacious vaccines, delivered when we needed them most, Singaporeans took them with confidence, even with relief. I was relieved. When they arrived, I can take the vaccine and we were one of the first in the world. We built up our population immunity and achieved DORSCON Green today.
But there is a price to be paid. Because we deliberately over-procured to mitigate the uncertainty of the selected vaccine candidate not working and the possibility of supply chains being disrupted, there would be spare vaccine stock, which will expire.
Some months ago, MOH was asked by the media how many of our vaccines had expired. We could only reply that about 10% of our stock had expired because of confidentiality agreements that we have entered into with vaccine suppliers.
I would have preferred to be more transparent and forthcoming with the information. We have since discussed with the vaccine suppliers and they have agreed we can reveal the total value of the expired vaccines so long as we do not give further breakdowns of quantity that enable people to guesstimate or estimate the cost of each dose, which is what they are sensitive about.
So, these are the numbers. To date, expired vaccines are about 15% of the doses we ordered, with a total value of S$140 million. In the coming months, this is likely to rise to close to 25%, as more vaccines expire. After that, it should stabilise.
We had tried to donate our spare vaccines, but there have been no takers because there has been an oversupply of vaccines in the world. Manufacturers have ramped up their production capacity and demand has been going down as the pandemic stabilises. There are reports estimating that expired vaccines globally could range up to 500 million doses or more.
The expiry of unused vaccines was an insurance premium – the price we were prepared to pay to stave off the risk of catastrophic consequences.
What are these consequences? Let me illustrate.
Before vaccines were available, we had to resort to a circuit breaker in April 2020 to contain the pandemic. The two-month circuit breaker cost us around $11 billion in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) loss. We spent close to another $60 billion, over two financial years, to cushion the hardship for businesses and workers, not to mention all the heartaches and difficulties families had to go through.
Without vaccines, we would certainly have to resort to further circuit breakers during the Delta and Omicron waves in late 2021 and throughout 2022. But we did not have to; because the vaccines, we got them early and they protected us. More importantly, our approach averted many deaths due to COVID-19 infections and protected Singaporeans against that catastrophic consequence.
Let me now address a few questions regarding vaccines posed by Members yesterday.
Ms Hazel Poa thought that MOH favoured mRNA over other non-mRNA vaccines in our regulatory approval. Actually, she is mistaken. Several non-mRNA vaccines could not secure HSA's approval because of insufficient data on safety and efficacy, and we cannot compromise on our standards.
Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked if VDS were too harsh on the unvaccinated. In a pandemic, measures can be harsh. The circuit breaker was harsh on everyone. The relevant question is, whether from a public health perspective, the measures are necessary and justified. We need to be mindful that while everyone should make their own medical choices, in a pandemic, individual actions affect not just yourself but also others around you.
When the vast majority chose to take the vaccine, they not only protected themselves but also their loved ones; they raised our collective resilience. As for those who did not take the vaccine, they do not just put themselves in danger and at risk, they also put others around them, including their colleagues at their workplaces, at risk. Hence, VDS was needed as a public health measure.
But we understand the hardship some of them have to go through. Some of them are allergic to the vaccine. Therefore, the moment we could step down VDS, we did so. More importantly, we must continue to be prepared in case a dangerous variant of concern emerges.
So, this is our vaccine strategy going into the future.
First, MOH will maintain and periodically refresh an adequate stock of COVID-19 vaccines, to allow continued protection of the elderly and vulnerable as needed and to facilitate a rapid response should there be a major or more severe pandemic wave.
Second, we will maintain a network of vaccination centres – primary care clinics, polyclinics and a baseline footprint of five to 10 Joint Testing and Vaccination Centres – even during DORSCON Green. With this, we will be able to administer a booster to all persons aged 50 and above and the medically vulnerable within three weeks, if necessary.
Third, we are negotiating agreements to secure early access to vaccines against other pathogens with pandemic potential. These might include new influenza and other respiratory viruses.
Fourth, we will invest in vaccine research and development like the PREPARE programme I spoke about earlier. One of our objectives is to establish how to quickly develop a working vaccine, based on either the mRNA or protein-subunit platform and bring it to clinical trials locally.
Fifth, through the Economic Development Board's (EDB's) efforts, we will be anchoring six vaccine manufacturing plants in Singapore. In response to Dr Tan Wu Meng, EDB will continue to engage other vaccine manufacturers to invest in Singapore, grow our biomedical sector capabilities and cement our position as a pharmaceutical hub of Asia.
Finally, we will continue to do our part to strengthen global health security and support fair and equitable access to vaccines. There is now a global effort to develop safe, effective vaccines within 100 days of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern being declared. MOH is actively contributing to that effort.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I will conclude with the last lesson – and that is to recognise that a crisis forces us to do or try new things. What we thought was not possible to do or would have taken years to implement were accomplished in a matter of months because we were pushed by the crisis. We were stretched and when released, will not rebound back to the old equilibrium. We will reach a new equilibrium.
For example, today, we are in a new era of flexible work arrangements. Our schools built up strong digital capabilities and all secondary school students today have their own learning devices because of COVID-19. I am sure Changi Airport will rebound to a new level of capability, post-crisis.
In healthcare, the changes are even more profound. During the crisis, public and private healthcare providers became connected by the same IT network. Everyone downloaded and got familiarised with healthcare apps. As pointed out by Ms Ng Ling Ling, telehealth became the norm. We became converts of preventive care as we became conscious of hygiene, got used to diagnostic tests, wearing masks and vaccinating routinely.
This is really what sparked Healthier SG. It is a strategy born out of crisis and will profoundly change the landscape for healthcare in Singapore.
The chapter on COVID-19 is a thick one in the story of Singapore, one with high drama, dark days, personal tragedy; as well as bright spots and many high points of courage, collective will and resourcefulness. The story featured so many men and women who fought to keep Singapore safe. I cannot name everyone but they are reflected today in the stories of some of their brethren.
Dr Tan Chee Keat at Ng Teng Fong Hospital, who was part of the team to develop a negative pressure isolation chamber used to intubate infectious COVID-19 patients and helped keep her team safe during dangerous procedures.
Dr Annitha Annathurai, who personally oversaw the set-up of medical operations at the S11 dormitory and helped calm and assure the migrant workers there, that they would be taken care of.
Mr Salman Imtiaz, a volunteer with the SG Healthcare Corps, who helped as a vaccinator with Raffles Medical Group while pursuing his undergraduate studies.
Ms Christine Joy Cordevilla Solacito, Senior Staff Nurse at Singapore General Hospital, who used her experience with MERS and Ebola to handle early COVID-19-positive patients from Wuhan, when she cared for ICU patients, administered chemotherapy in the isolation ward and delivered babies for the COVID-19-positive pregnant mothers.
Dr Wong Jiayi from Minmed Group, who became a father three times over during the pandemic – one pair is a twin. But he stayed at his post, leading vaccination centres, a regional swab centre, mobile vaccination teams and home recovery operations.
Captain Lee Jia Wei, who volunteered to care for migrant workers being isolated at Singapore Expo and, to protect his family, did not go home for 60 days and stayed at Changi Expo.
Ms Sandra Goh, a lead stewardess with Singapore Airlines, who was furloughed when borders closed, switched to become a Care Ambassador at a hospital and now she is a manager at the Specialist Outpatient Clinics at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. She told me she could transfer her skills from cabin to ward.
Mr Mahmod bin Mohd Yahya and Mr Humam Sufi bin Mohamed Ali, they are a driver-medic pair from Ambulance Medical Services Pte Ltd, who at the height of the pandemic, they worked 14-hour days for several weeks, making up to 16 trips a day to ferry patients to and from COVID-19 care facilities.
Mr Toh Guan Ru, one of my community volunteers, who, between the Institute of Technical Education and polytechnic, requested to work for MOH and handle home recovery cases. When he discovered that he did not qualify for the COVID-19 Resilience Medal because his stint was slightly short, he says, "It's okay. I am just proud that I was able to help."
I sincerely thank all of them and the hundreds of thousands who contributed.
We write the story to record suffering and sacrifice, but also the strengths and remarkable commitment on the part of so many to successfully overcome the crisis. We write to remember, but also to learn. If we do, then, in the next chapter, our hospitals and healthcare systems will be better, our laws more complete, our vaccines and medical supplies more secure. So, we write our next chapter, not knowing whether the world will dawn bright or dark, be hostile or friendly; but confident in ourselves that Singapore has become stronger through this crisis and we can stand taller to meet the next one. [Applause.]
Minister Gan.
Mr Speaker, let me thank Members for their comments and suggestions on the After Action Review. Members’ support during the COVID-19 pandemic played a critical role in rallying fellow Singaporeans to battle against this crisis of a generation together as a nation. Many Members have also spoken about the unprecedented challenges the pandemic had brought and its impact on the economy and businesses.
Indeed, the world economy ground to a halt in 2020 and the Singapore economy contracted by 3.9% – our worst recession since Independence. Many businesses were affected by the pandemic.
First, they had to implement the various safe management measures, or what we now know as SMMs. Food and beverage (F&B) services, for example, had to observe the dining-in rules, from two to four to zero, to four to two and many changes; and implement the TraceTogether SafeEntry system, or TTSE – many of you have forgotten what they mean. Coupled with a weaker demand, their revenues fell as a result. Some businesses were also affected as their workers fell ill or had to be isolated. Some workers were stranded overseas and could not return to work, because the borders were closed.
On the other hand, those in our essential services sectors, such as those producing food and water, electricity and operating public transport, had to keep their operations going to meet the daily needs of Singaporeans even during the circuit breaker, braving the risk of COVID-19 infections.
Some businesses had to quickly pivot to new business models and new markets and embark on transformation and training to improve productivity and stay competitive.
Beyond coping with the pandemic, the private sector also contributed to our fight against COVID-19. They worked in the background to secure lifesaving essential supplies, operated the critical facilities or provided services for those infected with COVID-19. People-public-private partnerships played a critical role in helping us overcome the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Today, I will elaborate on three key challenges that impacted our businesses, how we worked with industry partners to overcome them together and the lessons we learnt.
First, securing essential supplies and strengthening our supply chain resilience; second, preserving Singapore’s hub status and safely reopening our borders; and, finally, working with our industries to chart our road to recovery.
One of the earliest challenges we faced was securing essential supplies and strengthening our supply chain resilience. When countries across the world locked down their economies and closed their borders, production and transport lines were severely disrupted during a time when global demand for essential goods actually surged.
Mask supplies was a good example. Mr Gerald Giam asked why we did not have sufficient stockpiles of masks and local production capacity. Prior to the pandemic, masks were rarely worn outside of the clinical environment, even during SARS. Our national stockpile of masks was, therefore, maintained at a level that would be sufficient for the healthcare sector's needs. To supplement our stockpile, Singapore companies produced masks overseas as it is more cost-effective to do so.
Therefore, when we decided to require everyone to wear a mask whenever they left their homes, we had a problem. We were faced with an unprecedented situation where everyone in Singapore and around the world was suddenly looking for masks for daily use. In Singapore's case, we were looking at a utilisation rate of more than five million masks each day, around the number required by the public healthcare system for one month. That is 30 times more than our usual consumption.
We worked very quickly with the private sector, such as ST Logistics, to source for additional mask supplies from around the world. At the same time, we worked with industry partners, such as ST Engineering, to quickly set up surgical mask production capabilities here. The first batch of made-in-Singapore surgical masks was produced in February 2020. ST Engineering also stood up capabilities to produce the melt-down polypropylene filters in Singapore from January 2021. This made us less reliant on imports of this critical material and enhanced the resilience of our local mask manufacturing capabilities.
Various homegrown textile and apparel companies, such as Ghim Li Group and Ramatex, also stepped forward to help produce reusable masks. Many of us would remember the masks with a Merlion logo in your 2020 National Day Parade pack, that was from Ramatex. A*STAR and the Nanyang Technological University also lent their expertise to develop reusable masks that were more effective at reducing COVID-19 transmission, but also more breathable and comfortable.
Besides ramping up our mask production, we also worked with various partners to distribute masks island-wide. The Government started distributing masks to all Singapore residents from as early as February 2020, with the support of the SAF and grassroots volunteers from the People's Association (PA). Temasek Foundation funded and led more of these distributions thereafter. Many of you would be familiar with the Temasek Foundation's StayMasked vending machines installed across the island. They distributed a total of more than 31 million reusable masks to Singapore residents by the end of 2021.
Besides masks, many Singapore companies also supported our efforts to keep our supplies of food and other essential items flowing by maintaining our supply lines. As we know, Singapore imports more than 90% of our food from overseas. We worked with our shipping lines, such as the Pacific International Lines, to deploy ships to ports in the region and beyond, at times at our request, to bring food supplies to Singapore.
When Malaysia issued a Movement Control Order in January 2020 and closed the land links with Singapore, we introduced strict "bubble-wrapping" arrangements for Malaysian cross-border delivery workers, to prevent cross-infection with locals when they deliver their supplies to Singapore.
We also worked with importers to diversify our import sources. During the pandemic, we secured new import arrangements for eggs, frozen vegetables and frozen chicken from Poland, red sea shrimps from Saudi Arabia, dried fruits from Uzbekistan and tomatoes from Türkiye.
We also established the Singapore-New Zealand Airfreight Project, or SNAP in short, in April 2020 to provide a secure, two-way "air bridge" to carry almost 140 metric tons of food supplies to Singapore and medical supplies back to New Zealand. Sixteen local food importers participated in this project and cargo flights by Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flew these food supplies to Singapore.
Once supplies were brought in from abroad, many Singapore companies also played a part in managing our local distribution network from warehousing to retail shops. PSA International stepped up warehousing capacity to ensure we had sufficient space for our upsized stockpiles of essential goods.
Supermarkets, such as NTUC Fairprice, Sheng Siong and Dairy Farm International Retail Group, also worked very hard to keep our shelves well-stocked. For example, frontliners at Sheng Siong, Mr Sivakumar and Mdm Lee Cheng Hui, were involved in these efforts. At the height of the pandemic, they worked overtime everyday alongside their colleagues to replenish shelves as fast as possible and patiently explained the SMMs to their anxious customers. Mdm Lee also offered Mr Sivakumar the spare room at her home to stay in when borders closed, and he could not commute daily in and out of Singapore.
Mr Seah Kian Peng, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of NTUC Fairprice, also went out of his way to assure Singaporeans that we had enough supplies and that panic buying was not necessary. Many Members in this House did so, too, including Mr Speaker yourself.
Much work also went on behind-the-scenes to ensure that our shelves are restocked regularly. Trucks ferrying supplies from warehouses were coming into some supermarkets twice as frequently, at six to eight times a day.
The Government has employed a combination of strategies to enhance our supply chain resilience: first, diversification of imports; second, enhancing our local manufacturing capability; and finally, stockpiling. We have been doing this since before the pandemic. As Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned, the COVID-19 pandemic has only reinforced the importance of these strategies.
The Minister for Health, Mr Ong Ye Kung, earlier explained how we worked with commercial players to secure vaccines and how we will review regulatory levers to improve our response to future public health crises. As mentioned by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, these initiatives do come at a cost. We will work with the industry and our trade partners to find cost-effective solutions.
I would also like to encourage Singaporeans to support our diversification strategy by trying different sources of supplies, different brands when you go about doing your daily shopping. Strengthening our supply chain resilience not only helps us meet our domestic needs, but also helps Singapore strengthen our status as a business and trading hub.
Instead of resorting to protectionist measures during the pandemic, we continued to allow our manufacturers and distribution centres based locally to export goods to meet their obligations to their customers.
I join Mr Melvin Yong in thanking our transport workers, including our maritime workers. Indeed, because of their dedication, our ports remained open 24/7 amidst disruptions at major transport hubs elsewhere. Singapore played a critical role in ensuring that global supply chains continued to function. We remained the world's largest transhipment hub and our ports continued to rank first in various international maritime indices and rankings. This was due to the efforts of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, the maritime industry, and tripartite partners who worked closely together to keep our ports open while facilitating crew changes safely. PSA Singapore handled record numbers of container throughput in 2021 and 2022.
However, people flows were significantly disrupted due to border restrictions overseas and here. These were complex decisions that had to be made urgently and we took a risk-based and calibrated approach to manage our borders.
At the beginning, we took some time before deciding to close our borders. This was an unprecedented decision that we did not take lightly. As a small and open economy, our connectivity is our lifeline. Border closures are also highly disruptive to businesses, travellers and families. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we could have erred on the side of caution and tightened border measures earlier when there were signs of virus spreading across borders, even if there had not been any large infection clusters here.
As the pandemic persisted, we often had to adjust our plans, sometimes at short notice, to respond to new variants of concern and new COVID-19 waves that emerged overseas. The multiple delays in the launch of the Singapore-Hong Kong air travel bubble, was a notable example. Thereafter, we decided not to call it a travel bubble anymore, because it kept bursting. [Laughter.]
One key concern we had in mind when we made decisions on border restrictions was ensuring that workers, especially those in essential services, could still enter Singapore while managing the potential risks of COVID-19 transmission.
When Malaysia introduced their Movement Control Order, a sizeable group of Malaysian workers who normally cross the border daily were faced with the dilemma of either staying in Singapore for work and be separated from their families, or potentially giving up their jobs and returning home. Businesses were also affected, with many at risk of critical manpower shortages.
We worked with our businesses to introduce several measures, such as the Periodic Commuting Arrangement and Reciprocal Green Lane, to address this problem. We also coordinated closely with our Malaysian counterparts to ensure that the implementation was as smooth as possible.
There were also other times when we erred too much on the side of caution, which created disruption and uncertainty for businesses and workers. For example, when we experienced spikes in local infections, we temporarily suspended the entry of foreigners and Long-Term Pass (LTP) holders, including work pass holders, into Singapore. This was to minimise the number of imported cases to avoid overloading our healthcare system.
But, as highlighted by Ms Janet Ang, these restrictions created significant difficulties for the LTP holders, some of whom endured prolonged family separation and disruption to their work. This also affected our global reputation as a hub and open economy and strained the manpower situation of our businesses and services.
As we learnt more from experience and understood more about the virus, we were able to strike a better balance and find ways to safely reopen our border. We unilaterally opened to general travellers in late 2020, but we did so gradually, for a handful of very low-risk countries. We regularly updated this list of countries, taking into account COVID-19 transmission trends.
When more than 75% of the Singapore population was fully vaccinated, we decided to pilot the Vaccinated Travel Lanes in September 2021. This allowed for a larger number of travellers to enter Singapore, as long as they were fully vaccinated.
I would like to thank Singaporeans, Singapore residents and businesses for adjusting to the frequent changes in our border restrictions, and for accommodating the inconveniences and uncertainties caused. These reopening efforts were also supported by our home-grown COVID-19 testing capabilities. The Diagnostics Development Hub worked closely with local medical technology firms MiRXES and Advanced Medtech Holdings to develop and scale-up FORTITUDE and RESOLUTE 2.0 COVID-19 test kits, which were also used to test incoming travellers.
Today, we have fully opened our borders. Passenger traffic through Changi Airport is expected to recover to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2024 and we are also making good progress on our long-term infrastructure projects, such as Changi Terminal 5 and Tuas Port.
Ms Poh Li San raised the need to support our aviation companies and workers as they continue on the road to recovery. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government has provided close to $2.5 billion of support towards the aviation sector's recovery. With the continued support of our industry partners and workers, I am confident that our status as a hub will grow from strength to strength.
The final challenge I want to touch on today, is how we worked with our industries to chart the road to recovery. When the pandemic struck, almost every sector of our economy was affected. Through the eight COVID-19 Budgets, the Government provided more than $72 billion of support for businesses and workers and these include:
(a) Enhancements to the Enterprise Financing Scheme and the introduction of the Temporary Bridging Loan Scheme, which helped small and medium enterprises address their cashflow difficulties;
(b) Enhancements to capability development grants, like the Enterprise Development Grant, Market Readiness Assistance and Productivity Solutions Grant, which helped businesses transform and enhance their competitive edge in preparation for recovery;
(c) Wage support for employers to help them retain their local workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the Job Support Scheme; and
(d) Support measures for businesses affected by the SMMs, such as the Rental Support Scheme and Small Business Recovery Grant. We also provided grant support to businesses, such as the nightlife establishments, to pivot to other business activities.
The Emerging Stronger Taskforce was set up to chart out our long-term response to the structural shifts in our economy arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The taskforce worked with partners from businesses, trade associations and chambers (TACs), unions, the Institutes of Higher Learning and the Government to form nine Singapore Together Alliances for Action (AfAs). These AfAs prototyped ideas to address industry challenges and the successful ones were then implemented across the industry.
One of the Singapore Together AfAs focused on Enabling Safe and Innovative Visitor Experiences. The AfA was co-chaired by Ms Kwee Wei-Lin, President of the Singapore Hotel Association and Mr Lee Seow Hiang, Chief Executive Officer of Changi Airport Group. It was supported by the Singapore Association of Convention and Exhibition Organisers and the suppliers of the National Association of Travel Agents Singapore, or NATAS.
The AfA's mandate was to pilot prototype arrangements for the safe resumption of large-scale international business events, design of safe itineraries for business and meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE) travellers, and deployment of digital enablers to facilitate a safe and seamless journey for visitors. These prototypes were piloted at TravelRevive in November 2020 and Geo Connect Asia in March 2021 – the first international travel roadshows to take place physically in Asia Pacific during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Learnings from these pilots were then incorporated into more than 550 events, subsequently, under the Safe Business Events Framework and other strategically important events, such as the Singapore Airshow and the Singapore International Water Week.
Although the tourism sector was hard-hit by the pandemic, the efforts of the AfA and other industry partners helped the sector bounce back quickly from the pandemic when international travelling resumed. Notably, we also brought back the Formula 1 night race in 2022, which attracted more than 300,000 participants. This was the largest turnout since we first hosted the race in 2008.
As earlier mentioned by Ms Janet Ang, another scheme that gave the sector a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic was the SingapoREdiscover Voucher (SRV) scheme. More than 450 hotels, attractions and tour providers benefited from this SRV scheme. Many of these merchants seized the opportunity to adapt their products for the domestic market and boosted their revenues amidst this challenging period. I am sure many Members and your residents have enjoyed the SRVs.
Other segments of our economy that were particularly affected by COVID-19 were our heartland enterprises, retail and F&B sectors. They were the worst-hit by SMMs imposed on business operations. As Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms He Ting Ru mentioned, the multiple changes and granular differentiations in SMMs for business operations caused uncertainty and disruption for their operations.
During the various phases of restrictions and reopening, some SMMs were overly calibrated. This made them difficult to operationalise and caused confusion to businesses and members of the public. As we learnt more from experience and received feedback from industry partners, we simplified our SMMs in the later stages of the pandemic. Striking a balance between mitigating the risk of infection and providing certainty and clarity to businesses and consumers.
For example, we simplified our SMMs into five core parameters: group size, mask wearing, workplace requirements, safe distancing and capacity. This allowed us to calibrate and communicate our SMMs more easily and clearly. Therefore, one important lesson we learnt – keep it simple, especially during a crisis.
I am glad that despite these disruptions, many of our businesses showed resilience amidst adversity. Many heartland enterprises accelerated their digitalisation efforts, as their physical storefronts and workplaces were closed. This helped them overcome the constraints of the SMMs and grow their businesses.
To date, I am happy to say that around 93% of our heartland enterprises have adopted e-payment solutions, which is almost 40% more than before the pandemic. Over two-thirds now have online presence, about 30% more. I am glad to hear from Mr Shawn Huang and other Members in this House about how digitalisation has benefited heartland enterprises in your constituencies.
We should thank the business advisors from the Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore and the digital ambassadors from IMDA's SG Digital Office for their hard work. Together, they conducted over 66,000 ground engagements with heartland enterprises on e-payment and online presence solutions under the Heartlands Go Digital programme.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how we would sustain the momentum of these digitalisation efforts. Digitalisation is a journey without an end. We will launch a third phase of the Heartlands Go Digital programme later this year. This will tap on the expertise of new partners from the private sector and IHLs to help heartland enterprises develop capabilities in digital marketing and visual merchandising. Even though the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the Government will continue to work with our businesses as you progress along this journey of transformation.
Sir, let me conclude. The key lesson we learnt from the pandemic was that there will always be unexpected challenges that will surprise us. We do not know when the next pandemic will happen, or what future crises may be like. But the one thing we can be confident of and rely upon, is the Singapore Spirit – working together, trusting one another and looking out for each other like family.
We witnessed this Singapore Spirit, when staff from Scoot, Raffles Medical Group and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs risked their own personal safety to evacuate Singaporeans from Wuhan when the crisis first emerged.
When we face the worst crisis, we will see the best in Singaporeans. It is precisely this Singapore Spirit that will see us through future challenges that may come our way.
Many people also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to contribute towards our COVID-19 efforts, even taking up functions and responsibilities they were unfamiliar with. A total of about 10,000 individuals and teams from the people, public, healthcare and private sectors will receive the National Awards (COVID-19), in recognition of their contributions to our COVID-19 efforts.
The Meritorious Service Medal (COVID-19) was also awarded to three individuals whose unwavering commitment and exemplary leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic helped us safeguard lives and livelihoods and chart our road to recovery.
They are: Prof Kenneth Mak, Director of Medical Services at MOH. He is a familiar face to many Singaporeans due to his professional and calming presence at the MTF's press conferences. He led the efforts of the professional healthcare team in managing the crisis.
Mr Pang Kin Keong, Permanent Secretary of MHA, who chaired the Homefront Crisis Executive Group to execute our responses to the pandemic. He and his team of dedicated public servants, helped navigate Singapore safely through the storm.
Mr Tan Chong Meng, Lead for the Community Care Facilities (CCF) Taskforce, Temasek COVID-19 Workgroup, co-chairman of the Emerging Stronger Taskforce and Group CEO, PSA International. He coordinated many private sector efforts, including the setting-up of the CCFs and keeping our supply lines open.
However, in the end, it is not just individual efforts, but the whole society coming together that ensured that we would prevail. The best example that illustrates the importance of such people-public-private partnerships, is the setting up of the CCFs, where different parties came together quickly and worked together under a tight timeline, with very limited resources, to overcome unknown challenges and achieve a common mission.
Companies, like PSA International, Surbana Jurong, SingEx, Certis Cisco, ST Engineering, Parkway Pantai, Sheares Healthcare, Woodlands Health Campus and Resorts World Sentosa (RWS), worked as a team to set up the first 960 beds within record time at the Singapore Expo, which eventually expanded to around 8,000 beds.
RWS involved all its business units to also set-up and run other CCFs and recruited over 2,000 volunteers to ensure smooth operations. This benefited more than 34,000 COVID-19 patients. These companies and volunteers may not have worked with each other before. They have not met each other but they came together nonetheless, each offering their expertise and resources to ensure the smooth set-up and operation of our CCFs.
Mr Edward Chia, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas highlighted the importance of strong collaboration between the TACs and the Government in times of crisis. Indeed, we have built strong partnerships through regular engagements and collaboration between TACs and Government agencies over the years.
During the pandemic, this rapport allowed us to come together very quickly, alongside industry partners, to resolve the challenges we faced. For example, the Singapore Hotel Association and the Singapore Tourism Board worked closely with over 90 hotels across the island, to urgently transform hotels into Government isolation facilities.
The Singapore Business Federation worked together with Enterprise Singapore, other TACs, landlords and tenant representatives, on a Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises. This established industry norms on tenancy practices and terms, which helped resolve rising tensions between landlords and retail tenants regarding Rental Agreements.
Finally, let me extend our appreciation to all businesses and TACs for their contributions towards our COVID-19 efforts. Our partnership played an important role in a crisis and we need to continue to strengthen this partnership even in the absence of a crisis.
I would also like to join my colleagues in thanking all our frontline workers stationed at our supermarkets and warehouses, at our air- and sea-ports, our care facilities and other essential services, for your dedication and sacrifices, which has helped us overcome this crisis of a generation and put us on a strong foundation for recovery. [Applause.]
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.19 pm until 3.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
SINGAPORE'S COVID-19 RESPONSE
(Motion)
Debate resumed.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken and shared your views on Singapore's response to COVID-19 and on this Motion.
We have also received feedback from the public on the White Paper. Many Singaporeans agreed with the broad observations and lessons and gave us further ideas on how we can strengthen our defences against future pandemics.
We take all of the feedback and suggestions seriously and we will study them carefully. In their speeches, my colleagues have shared several specific moves that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) have made and will soon be undertaking. Our work will not end with this debate. We will continue to consider additional inputs, put our plans into action and adjust them along the way. This is an ongoing, multi-year effort and commitment to learn and to improve.
The points raised by Members can be summarised into three broad themes: first, preparing for the next pandemic; second, ensuring effectiveness of our spending; and third, upholding solidarity and trust. Let me address each of these in turn.
First, as I highlighted in my opening remarks yesterday, the purpose of the White Paper and this debate, is for us to learn, improve and be better prepared for the next pandemic.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh agrees with this and supports the Motion. I do note, though, that Mr Pritam Singh, in supporting the Motion said, "he supports the Motion to the extent it expresses gratitude to all in Singapore who contributed to the fight against COVID-19 and affirms the Government's efforts to learn from the lessons of the last three years."
I may be mistaken and, if so, please pardon me. But this suggests that it is a qualified support; "to the extent" suggests it is a qualified support. I am not sure why there is a need for such qualification because after all, Mr Pritam Singh himself did highlight the need for us to set aside politics, to close ranks and to uphold unity of purpose in a crisis, which I fully agree with. So, I would urge Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party to give us their full and unreserved support, so that we can truly demonstrate unity of purpose in dealing with and learning from this pandemic.
Perhaps, Mr Pritam Singh had held back his full support because of the questions he asked about the report prepared by Mr Peter Ho. So, let me explain.
The Government had asked Mr Peter Ho, in late 2021, to undertake a review of our COVID-19 experience from the start of the pandemic until August 2021 and to draw lessons from this. At that time, we had envisaged it as an interim or mid-term review, because we were not clear when we would be able to fully transition to endemic COVID-19.
In parallel, various Government agencies embarked on their own After-Action Reviews (AARs). These focused on the policy and operational decisions within their respective domains. Mr Peter Ho knew about these reviews, and he decided to focus his efforts on the key strategic lessons for the Government, so as to minimise duplication and to complement the agency AARs.
By the time Mr Peter Ho's report was completed, we also had further experiences with the fast-changing COVID-19 threat, including the implementation of the Home Recovery Programme and our responses to the Omicron variant in late 2021. By then, we were also clearer about the way out of the pandemic. Because the situation had stabilised, and we could envisage a full transition to endemic COVID-19.
There was therefore a need to pull together the findings from Mr Peter Ho's interim report and the agency AARs, as well as the lessons from our more recent experiences, into a consolidated report that would fully reflect all that had transpired over the last three years and provide a fuller synthesis of all our learnings.
And that is why PMO – the Prime Minister's Office – was tasked to put together this consolidated report, which the Government decided to release as a White Paper. Some may ask, "if that is the case, why can't you release Mr Ho's findings and if it is deemed sensitive, why not have it redacted, with the non-sensitive portions released?"
But that is precisely what we have done. Whatever is relevant and fit for release, we have incorporated into this White Paper. The White Paper is, in fact, more comprehensive than what Mr Ho's review has set out to cover, because it includes information from the agencies' AARs as well as learnings from our experience after August 2021.
The White Paper will not be the final word on our COVID-19 response. I am sure academics and experts will continue to undertake more detailed studies, like the one mentioned by Mr Leon Perera on our H1N1 pandemic response. Incidentally, that study was done by MOH's public health officials. They decided to publish their findings in an academic journal.
We welcome all academics and experts to do their own detailed assessments of our COVID-19 response and to put out their findings. They may have a different conclusion and view from the Government on specific issues, like wearing of masks, border measures or SMMs, and that is perfectly okay. In fact, we welcome the diverse perspectives, because this will help us challenge our own assumptions and learn and improve.
Members generally agreed with the broad thrusts of the White Paper and offered many useful suggestions to strengthen our capabilities and support frameworks. Clearly, there is much work to be done across all domains.
In healthcare, we need to build up our primary care and hospital capacities, our vaccination capabilities, as well as our public health expertise – as several Members highlighted, including Mr Leon Perera, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Mark Chay, amongst others.
In economic resilience, as Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat said, we need to invest in alternatives like local production, diversify our import sources and strengthen the robustness of our infrastructure and transport links. I would also like to assure Ms Janet Ang, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Desmond Choo, that we will continue to harness the strength of our tripartite model, our trade associations and industry partners in all of these efforts.
We need to do more to improve public communications, including frontline crisis management communications, as suggested by Ms Jessica Tan and Ms He Ting Ru. We also need to do more to look out for and care for the more vulnerable amongst us, including our migrant workers; and to address mental wellness issues, especially for our youths; something which many Members, including Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Ng and Miss Rachel Ong all made reference to.
We recognise that the Government cannot do all of this work alone. We will need to work more closely with the people and private sectors. We will go beyond the usual corporate and tripartite partners to involve other stakeholders, including community groups and NGOs. We will involve our partners not just in execution and implementation, but also in upstream planning and emergency preparedness. So, we will follow-up on all of these systematically, in order to strengthen our crisis management muscles – something that Ms Poh Li San and Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted in their speeches.
I also agree with all Members that this work is of great urgency. Around the world, the risk of animal viruses spilling over to humans continues to rise – due to population growth, urbanisation and increasing proximity to animals. Climate change has exacerbated these problems by generating more habitat loss, forcing wildlife to migrate out of their usual patterns and come into contact with new species and more people.
In other words, disease spillovers and outbreaks are inevitable. Just in the summer of 2021 alone, when we were all focusing on and grappling with COVID-19, the World Health Organization (WHO) received alerts on more than 5,000 new outbreaks around the world, few of which made global headlines, because most spillovers lead to smaller clusters of disease that quickly die out. But every now and again, we encounter a pathogen that becomes a pandemic, causing global chaos.
The urgent global task, therefore, is to reduce the spillovers and, importantly, to prevent any such spillovers from turning into pandemics. This is where early detection is of utmost importance. That is why, there is a crucial need for an enhanced global surveillance system, especially in potential hotspots around the world.
With early knowledge of the characteristics of the new pathogen, along with the dimensions that Minister Ong shared just now, if we know this before the virus reaches our shores, we will be able to buy precious time to decide on our posture and measures. That is why Singapore is plugging fully into the global network of international pandemic research and we are working hand-in-hand with the global community to improve our collective pandemic response. Singapore was a co-chair of the Friends of the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) Facility, which helped countries in need secure access to COVID-19 vaccines.
The G20 recently set up a Global Health Security Financial Intermediary Fund, or what is now called The Pandemic Fund, to ensure more reliable financing for future pandemics. Singapore was one of the founding contributors to the Fund and we continue to shape initiatives through our membership of the G20 Joint Health and Financing Taskforce.
As Minister Ong shared just now, we will continue to leverage GISAID to keep up-to-date with genome sequencing of pathogens with pandemic potential. We are a part of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to keep up-to-date with vaccine developments. We also have professionals and specialists from our scientific community, who represent us on technical platforms at the WHO and other international bodies. So, we are doing everything we can to be better prepared, not just within Singapore, but also internationally.
Next, let me touch on the overall effectiveness of spending in enabling Singapore to get through this pandemic. Ms Hazel Poa had asked about this. At the macro level, governments around the world grappled with the twin challenges of lives and livelihoods. And, Sir, with your permission, may I display some slides on the screens?
Please do. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
In terms of lives, as of 31 December 2022, our mortality rate for COVID-19 was around 300 deaths per million. We mourn every death and express our deepest condolences to their families and loved ones. But what we have in Singapore, is much lower compared to other countries with five or even 10 times mortality rate. [Please refer to Annex 2.]
The key reason for this, is that we did not allow our hospitals to be overwhelmed, as Minister Ong had explained just now. That was always our key objective throughout this crisis and so, we made full use of the tools at our disposal – whether it was vaccinations and boosters, border measures and SMMs – to achieve this goal. This is on mortality rate. It is not excess mortality, but just looking at mortality from COVID-19, as one measure.
In terms of livelihoods, our economy recovered quickly to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2021. Our employment rates, today, are even higher than pre-COVID-19. Our recovery – it is very hard to put this out into a picture, so, I do not have a chart for this – but our recovery was faster, compared to many other economies. You can use different indicators to track these, but it is quite clear, our recovery was faster compared to many others.
These are, of course, not comprehensive outcome indicators. But I think most would agree that they are among the more important ones. How much did we spend compared to other countries to achieve these outcomes? As I mentioned yesterday, we had budgeted more than $100 billion and we eventually spent $72.3 billion over FY2020 and FY2021, which is equivalent to about 15% of our FY2020 GDP. [Please refer to Annex 3.]
So, we mounted a strong response. What did other countries do? It is not so easy to get actual data from other countries, but the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has some estimates, so we put out what the IMF has estimated for the different countries. Clearly, we are not the lowest, in terms of this chart, with the sampling of countries. But certainly, we are not excessive either, and there are many countries, like the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Germany, which put out much larger fiscal packages.
For the amount of public funds spent, we achieved relatively good outcomes compared to other countries.
There were other achievements, beyond those I have highlighted, that were not so easily quantifiable but no less important. For example, we kept schools physically open and education going for our students. We minimised disruptions to in-person learning, particularly for younger students, and mitigated the potential loss in learning outcomes due to the switch to home-based learning. This was not the case in many other places, where lengthy school closures had long-term scarring effects, in terms of human capital development, particularly for students from less advantaged backgrounds.
We kept businesses afloat and local unemployment rates low through the JSS and other financing support. This helped to preserve firm capabilities and allowed businesses to bounce back quickly when the worst of the crisis was over. Through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, we also helped those who were in-between jobs transit to growth sectors; and fresh graduates maintain their skills and human capital while waiting for the economy to pick up.
We kept supply chains open throughout the crisis, and continued to service the world as a transshipment hub for air and sea cargo. Even at the height of the pandemic when many countries, including Singapore, were short of supplies, we never imposed export controls. Vaccines came through our airport. We had cold chain facilities, so we facilitated the shipment of vaccines to the rest of the region. This not only enabled supplies to keep flowing to and through Singapore, but also boosted our reputation as a reliable and trusted node in the global network.
So, on the whole, when you look at all of these outcomes and what we had spent, on the whole, compared to other countries, we have achieved good value for the monies we spent – to stave off the most severe downsides of COVID-19 and to mitigate long-term economic and social scarring.
The resources we deployed enabled us to buy insurance and options, sometimes at substantial cost, like what we did when we moved quickly to secure advance commitments for the vaccine supplies.
Not every insurance option will pay off. But, in the end we have to judge whether it is worthwhile to pay a bit more, so that we can be in a stronger position to deal with the crisis and head off potentially very costly downside scenarios. When you look at what we have achieved overall in this crisis in the last three years, I am convinced that, on the whole, it is money well spent.
Beyond the macro picture, we can, of course, drill down into specific areas of spending. This is being done through the various ongoing reviews and audits and I am sure through these processes, we will pick up areas where we could have done better.
But I should acknowledge and give credit to all our public officers who worked hard round-the-clock to administer and implement the various schemes. There may have been occasional lapses in their work, but I hope Members understand that all our officers were working under crisis and emergency scenarios. Where there were lapses or mistakes, I have every confidence that our Ministries and agencies will learn from them and will do better the next time.
More than 80% of the Government spending went directly to beneficiaries, as I have mentioned, to keep businesses going, preserve jobs for Singaporeans and help those who were hard-hit by the pandemic, especially the vulnerable. Ms Poa had asked whether we could have been more discriminating in the support we had extended to businesses or, for example, to recover payments from businesses that were profitable.
We significantly expanded the JSS during the circuit breaker. At that time, everyone was worried, businesses were very worried over whether they could survive and how they may retain and pay their workers. That is why the JSS was designed to be across the board and automatically disbursed, so that businesses, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), could receive the much-needed support quickly.
And, indeed, the timely cashflow enabled firms to retain their local employees and capabilities, and to bounce back from the crisis once demand recovered. As soon as we could, we started to tier the JSS support – different levels of support for different industries and, eventually, phase out the JSS support.
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) had earlier published a study on the impact of our key COVID-19 measures. Our estimates show that 165,000 jobs were saved in 2020, as a result of JSS. Behind this aggregate number are real Singaporeans and their families. I am glad we helped these workers to stay employed, earn their keep and support their households through the crisis.
Sir, at every point, we tried our best, to help fellow Singaporeans retain their livelihoods and live their lives with as much normalcy as possible, under the shadow of the pandemic.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about Temasek's involvement in our efforts to fight COVID-19. As I had explained earlier, more than 80% of Government's spending went directly to beneficiaries. Another 10% was for grants to medical providers and the remaining 10% was procurement with third-parties. So, talking first about Government spending, this was the breakdown.
Out of the 10% of procurement, most of it, in fact, went to non-Temasek entities. For example, most of MOH’s partners in the COVID-19 Treatment Facilities and Vaccination Centres were non-Temasek entities. Temasek's entities were involved in very specific operations, for example, in the swift setting up of the COVID-19 facility, the community care facility at the Expo. That was invaluable, because it helped us to get through the very difficult situation we faced with the dormitory outbreak.
Then, what about the resources that Temasek itself spent on COVID-19, for example, the distribution of test kits and masks? The resources for this come from the portion of its positive Wealth Added returns that Temasek would typically set aside for community initiatives in the Temasek Foundation. This is part of Temasek's CSR – to do good and give back to society. It is something which we encourage of all companies in Singapore – to be good corporate citizens.
Over the last three years, because we were fighting a crisis, Temasek redirected a significant proportion of these community funds to support the fight against COVID-19. This is a decision that Temasek and its Board made, independently of the Government, and there is no draw on Past Reserves from such spending.
Temasek's community initiatives do not in any way detract from its mandate, which is to deliver long-term sustainable returns. Temasek and its portfolio companies operate independently as commercial entities. But like all commercial entities, we welcome them to do their part in a crisis, where it really should be all hands on deck.
Tapping on Temasek's capabilities, as well as that of the broader private and people sectors, is just one way we have harnessed our whole-of-nation resources to help bring our society and economy back to normality. This is not a form of dependence or over-reliance by the Government, which Mr Giam seems to suggest, but really a manifestation of Singapore's distinct and unique strength.
In fact, many other countries struggled to galvanise their private sector to contribute to pandemic-fighting efforts. In contrast, we were able to harness public and private resources to fight the crisis. We worked closely with all stakeholders to ramp-up vital services and to make up for shortfalls.
That is what good governance is about. It is about how well we organise ourselves and marshal resources across the public, people and private sectors, and how we mount responses and deliver the best outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans
In the end, dealing with a national crisis requires a whole-of-nation approach. So, we hope that partners from all segments of society can come together again in any future crisis and we welcome the expertise and contributions from all companies and organisations, whether they are Temasek-linked or not.
Finally, no matter the shape and form the next virus will take, there is one element that is crucial in shaping our response – and that is trust. Singaporeans trusted the Government to make the right decisions, and to act in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. The Government did not take this trust for granted. We were open and honest throughout the crisis. We shared information candidly, even when things did not go well, and even when we did not have complete information. This was essential so that Singaporeans could continue placing their trust in the Government.
Equally, if not more important, the trust amongst Singaporeans has been strengthened. This is not the case in many other places, where trust amongst their citizens had been declining, even before COVID-19, and may even be at historic lows today, post-crisis. Hence, during the pandemic, it was hard for these governments to implement tough COVID-19 measures – after all, if trust is low then people may say: why should I comply with your measures, because if my neighbours or friends are not complying, then why should I do so?
You can see this is what has happened in many other places where there is little trust, public health becomes politicised and individualised, and the countries' pandemic response is quickly compromised and impaired.
Fortunately, social capital and trust have been high in Singapore over the decades, and the silver lining in this terrible crisis is that social capital and trust have increased. A post-COVID-19 survey commissioned by the Ministry of Communications and Information, showed that social capital grew over the course of the pandemic. Most notably, trust amongst citizens strengthened. More than seven in 10 Singapore residents felt that their relationships with their neighbours and friends remained the same or became stronger during the pandemic. A similar proportion of respondents were confident that the Government would know do what to do in a future pandemic and that Singaporeans would help one another tide through the next crisis together.
We are heartened by these survey results. This trust is extremely precious and we will work assiduously to preserve and strengthen it, so that Singapore will always remain a high-trust society.
Mr Speaker, I shared in my remarks yesterday, that it is important we approach the lessons from our COVID-19 experience with the right attitude and mindset. Lessons learnt should never be hardcoded into doctrine. Lessons should not be blindly applied from one crisis to another, because while there may be similarities, there will also be differences. The key is to have the flexibility and wisdom to adapt and devise solutions that are fit for purpose and fit for the situation at hand.
Indeed, through this COVID-19 experience, we have expanded our toolkit to manage disease outbreaks and pandemics. For example, look at border measures, we now have a wider range of measures to apply at the borders. We can impose Not-to-Land (NTL), which is the most stringent; we can allow travellers to enter Singapore, subject to tests and the test can be pre-departure tests or on-arrival tests; we can allow them to come in, subject to both tests and quarantine requirements, and the quarantine can be done at home or in dedicated facilities; and if it is done at home, we have improved the system now so that we have electronic tagging and remote monitoring, it is quite effective. So, just thinking about the kinds of border measures we have from SARS to now, we have really expanded our toolkit considerably.
For SMMs, we have identified the five key parameters which are important: group sizes, mask wearing, workplace requirements, safe distancing and capacity limits. So, hopefully, if we ever have to do this again, it will not be as confusing and complex, as was the case these last three years. By tweaking and adjusting these five parameters, we will be able to manage transmission risks, depending on the severity of the threat.
So, be it surveillance, border measures, SMMs, testing or vaccine development, we now have a wider range of policy options and measures to tackle the next pandemic. With our enhanced capabilities in detection, surveillance, identification of threat which we are doing, not just by ourselves but hand-in-hand with international partners, we will be in a much better position to protect ourselves and deal with the next pandemic, if and when it comes.
We will not stop here. We will continue working hard to expand our toolkit and to build up our capabilities, because, ultimately, that is the best way for us to honour the dedication and sacrifices that everyone had made to fight the pandemic these past three years. That is why we acknowledge, with humility, the learnings and points of improvement as a country, a people and a Government. We pledge to keep on doing better and be better prepared, if and when the next pandemic strikes.
At the same time, we are grateful and thankful for all the positives that we have seen and experienced these past three years: the dedication of our healthcare and other frontline workers, the acts of kindness within our communities and the solidarity and trust of our people.
Sir, we know the road ahead of us will always be unpredictable. We have focused in this debate on pandemic threats, but there will be other challenges. Sometimes, it almost feels like the next crisis is just around the corner. We have got uncertainty now in the global economy and financial market, we have got geopolitical tensions, super-power rivalry in Asia, climate change, and the list goes on. There is no guaranteed formula to navigate these challenges.
But, if Singapore and Singaporeans take all what we have been through these past three years to heart, we will be able to overcome any challenges that come our way and prevail as one united people. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Clarifications. Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for the round-up speech on the Motion.
Just a quick point on the matter I brought up in my speech. As I mentioned, COVID-19 was, indeed, an unprecedented crisis and it would not be realistic to expect no mistakes or missteps by the Government.
That said, I maintain the position that we do not know what we do not know. We do not know what is stated in Mr Ho's report and the AARs from the respective Ministries. It would be important, in my view, for Singaporeans to consider the details and the breadth of perspectives secured from all who participated in the various AARs. I hope this information can be made available to the public at some point. But this difference of opinion does not overshadow the Workers' Party's support for the Motion.
Sir, I already explained just now, Mr Peter Ho's report focused on lessons for Singapore in crisis management. It included details, like the internal workings of the Government, our crisis management structures. These internal workings and crisis management structures are not just to deal with a pandemic. The same structures are used for dealing with external security threats and that is why we are unable to publish that part of the report for national security reasons. I am sure everyone understands that.
Then, there are other parts of his report, which went into commercial sensitivities. For example, how we leveraged on different partners, scrambled to get essential supplies and managed our supply chains. Those had some commercial sensitivities, and we cannot reveal them.
If we redact all of these sensitive materials, we will essentially end up with the lessons for the Government, which are already in the White Paper. In fact, it will be a subset of the White Paper. Because as I explained just now, the White Paper goes beyond Mr Ho's report. It covers the lessons from the agencies' AARs and it also covers the lessons learned after August 2021. So, it is a fuller synthesis of all the lessons that we have learned from the last three years.
So, I hope everyone understands and can see that we have been upfront in doing this. We have maintained this approach in dealing with the crisis throughout the last three years and we continue to do so in the White Paper, which covers the lessons for the Government.
By all means, there can be debate on the lessons, on the recommendations. By all means, disagree with the lessons and the recommendations. Have your own view. We are happy to hear the differences in views and to be better prepared. But, I think, it is quite uncalled for to suggest that there has been any withholding of information by the Government in putting together this report. I hope that Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party will live up to the ideals that he called for, in upholding national unity when we deal with and learn from this pandemic.
Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Speaker, I have just one clarification for Minister Ong. In July 2021, I asked if the Government could develop a COVID-19 risk index that aggregates indicators to provide guidance to policy-makers on decisions to ease or tighten SMMs. Minister Ong replied then, that it would not be wise to define a definitive threshold for full reopening and that it would not be very useful to devise an index to guide our public health actions.
However, just now, Minister Ong just announced that four public health situational tiers will be introduced as part of an amended Infectious Diseases Act (IDA). Will objective thresholds and matrixes be used to decide which situational tier we are in, and how does that differ from a risk index that relies on factors, such as the number of daily infections, hospital capacity and vaccination rates?
Sir, Mr Giam actually raised two separate issues. I think most of our clinicians and public health experts will continue to maintain the view that an index, somehow, you put different ingredients into it, you will come up – viola! – with one number and use that to decide your policy. That would tie our hands.
As we learned during COVID-19, it is so fluid. It keeps changing. There are so many facets. You need the flexibility to decide what best to do. Having said that, a separate issue is what I mentioned just now, in reviewing the IDA, even with DORSCON today, you have different tiers. That is quite different from an index.
In different tiers, you have a range of options, a range of public health options. So, when you have a pathogen that is dangerous, you first decide which tier you are at. Within that tier, what the range of options are. Then, from the range of options, you mix and match depending on the characteristics of the pathogen. If it proves to be insufficient, then, you upgrade and you explain to people why you need to upgrade the situational tier.
I think this is a lot more flexible. There is a framework, but the framework is not equal to an index.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Thank you, Speaker. I, likewise, have a clarification as well as a question for Minister Ong. I believe that the Minister shared that we were among the first to pursue vaccines, just after the UK, US and Israel – is what I believe he said.
Of course, not to take away from the hard and undeniably difficult work of the expert group on procurement, I believe our first vaccination occurred on 30 December 2020. It was a nurse, I believe – a frontliner nurse.
Based on a quick search, at that time, actually, a large number of developed and emerging economies had already commenced their vaccination programmes, many with mRNA vaccines. Switzerland did so on 23 December; Spain, 27 December; Hungary, 26 December; Canada; 14 December; Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on 17, 22 and 14 December, respectively. Even developing countries like Mexico, Costa Rica and Serbia, all rolled out before 30 December.
So, just to clarify, did our vaccination programme commence substantially after we procured and, if so, why the delay?
To follow up on that, my question is that, if there was a relatively slower rollout in the first months of the National Vaccination Programme in January, February, March and so on, was that due to a lack of vaccine supply? If so, why was this a constraint if we had already secured the stock via advance purchase agreements?
Thank you for pointing that out. I think I stated wrongly. We are the first in Asia. You see, in Europe, they have the European Union (EU). In America, Pfizer is an American company. They are big markets. They are at the front of the queue. The Global South is very far down in the queue. Asia, too.
But due to the reasons and the decisions we made, we leveraged relationships with the pharmaceutical companies, particularly EDB, we were able to be higher-up in the queue, outside of the EU, outside of the Americas. I think we were still very fast, from that perspective.
The Member seems to suggest there is a gap between procurement and rollout. As I mentioned just now, we got our first batch of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines late in the year – I forgot which month, could be September or so – and then we rolled out in December.
The first batch was not very much. It was 20,000, 30,000. Then, weeks later, more came. When we had sufficient volume – during that time, we had to set up a whole new machinery to handle the vaccine.
Remember, mRNA vaccines need an ultra-cold chain. You have to maintain minus 70°C, all the way to the vaccination centre. Once you open it, it has a limited lifespan. Within days, it is gone. So, within those days, you accept appointments and jab it into the arms of people. Which also explains why – one of the questions that Mr Leon Perera raised yesterday – we did not use general practitioners (GPs) at that point. That is one reason, because of the ultra-cold chain and the logistical challenges. So, we had to set-up dedicated vaccination facilities and then push it out.
There is no reason for us to delay. Absolutely no reason. We were racing against time. We had danger at our doorstep. At the earliest possible juncture, we delivered the vaccines safely, efficiently, quickly to the arms of our people.
Ms Hazel Poa.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for showing us the comparison with other countries, in terms of how our budget measures have benefited Singapore. But, I think, here, we are not just comparing with other countries, but we also want to compare with ourselves – how we want to make sure that we deal with this better in the future, as compared to now.
So, it is in that spirit that I ask, whether a review on each of the budget measures has been done or are they ongoing. Specifically, in future responses, does the Government still feel that giving grants to profitable companies is the way to go?
Sir, we have been reviewing. We published, as I mentioned just now, a paper looking at the impact of our COVID-19 measures. Ms Poa may have seen it. If not, I will encourage her to look at the detailed studies which highlighted the outcomes we have achieved from our measures, including the JSS.
So, that has already been done. We will continue to review and we will continue to improve, because we do want to do better.
On the specific point that Ms Poa raised, which is, can we put in place a criterion to give out help that will not allow for some recovery of payments to profitable companies, I would put it this way.
First of all, to do it ex-post is not the right thing to do. That means, we will only wait until you know the results, later on. Then, there will be a lot of uncertainty for companies. If you want to do that, you have to do it with a priori – upfront. Then, later on, if it exceeds a threshold, yes, you can claw back.
In principle, in theory, yes, you can think of it like that. That is, in theory, possible. But, I think, it is not so straightforward in practice. It is administratively going to be quite complex. It may lead to gaming by companies. How do you set the right threshold upfront? It is not so straightforward either. Companies will start to game. Businesses will start to game. All may try to operate below the threshold.
So, while what she has highlighted is something that can work in theory, I think there are administrative complexities. But from MOF's perspective, we will continue to study and review because our interest is to continually make sure that we achieve value for money in what we spend.
A bit of supplementary information for Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. He mentioned several countries that rolled out their vaccination programmes earlier than us. I should point out that many of them used non-mRNA vaccines – AstraZeneca and others. So, we probably need some time to compile the data, then we know where we stand. But we were one of the first in Asia.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Just a very quick clarification. Those countries that I did mention all had mRNA vaccines. There were, indeed, other countries that had non-mRNA vaccines, but I did not cite those.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
*"That this House expresses gratitude to all in Singapore who contributed to the nation's fight against COVID-19; affirms the Government's effort to learn from the experiences of the last three years; and, to that end, endorses Paper Cmd 22 of 2023 on 'Singapore's Response to COVID-19: Lessons for the Next Pandemic'." (proc text)]
PAPERCUTS