# data[].attributes.body
In paragraph 3 of Passage 1, West criticises the individualism that has been treasured by democracies around the world, arguing that it is merely an excuse for selfish behaviour that enables free-riders to benefit without having to sacrifice anything, at the expense of society. Vikram on the other hand argues in paragraph 3 of Passage 2 that individualism is not selfish but could be the ultimate act of altruism.

# data[].attributes.body
West goes further to argue in paragraph 3 of Passage 1 that the selfish free-rider behaviour that individualism enables can prove to be a great challenge for governments and to be chaotic for society when it happens en masse. Yet this is precisely what Vikram argues in paragraph 4 of Passage 2 can be valuable about individualism, especially when those in authority at that time perpetuate systemic evil and need to be challenged.

# data[].attributes.body
In paragraph 4 of Passage 1, West asserts that individualism plain and simple has proven to endanger lives in the precarious circumstances we live in today. He argues that in order to ensure collective survival, we need to embrace putting society above the self. Yet, as mentioned by Vikram in paragraph 5 of Passage 2, individualism can lead to new innovations and novel solutions to existing pressing issues.

# data[].attributes.body
West argues in paragraph 5 of Passage 1 that there is no place for individualism as we seek to effectively confront pressing global challenges like pandemics and environmental disasters. He believes that for society to move ahead, we urgently need collective action and sacrifice instead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are starting a new term of Government under the shadow of Covid-19. Singapore has been fully engaged in this fight. New infections have been brought under control. We have completed testing all the migrant workers in the dormitories, and are progressively returning them to work safely. Fatalities have been kept very low.

But the situation continues to unfold. Many cities that had initially suppressed the virus are seeing infections rise again as they reopen their economies. Scientists are still learning new things about the virus - including how best to protect ourselves, and how new medical treatments and vaccines can help.

We must therefore adjust our Covid-19 strategies and plans along the way.

We have prepared our healthcare system and expanded reserve capacity to deal with a possible resurgence of cases. We are continuing to ramp up our ability to conduct aggressive testing and contact tracing. Most importantly, all of us must stay vigilant to prevent a new wave of infections.

At the same time, we are facing our worst recession since independence. Our economy will likely shrink by 5 per cent to 7 per cent this year.

The Government has acted decisively to save jobs and provide emergency support to workers and companies. We are injecting almost $100 billion into the economy, including the latest package that Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced last week. These measures have reduced the immediate pain, but things will remain grave for quite some time.

IMPERATIVES FOR CHANGE

The situations globally and domestically have changed and there is no going back to the status quo ante.

For decades, Singapore has thrived under globalisation and a stable international order. But our external environment has become less benign and predictable. Covid-19 has reshuffled the deck. It has revealed new threats, while also opening up fresh opportunities.

Global fault lines have sharpened, and US-China rivalry has intensified. Supply chains have been disrupted. Countries are fighting to meet their own needs, fuelling a new wave of protectionism. This is especially challenging for Singapore as we make our living by doing business with the world.

Domestically, Singapore is at an inflection point of our history.

New generations of Singaporeans are coming of age. We have new aspirations and expectations, including a desire for more diverse voices to be heard, and stronger checks and balances. At the same time, new leaders are emerging to take Singapore the next steps forward.

The new generation of leaders and Singaporeans will have to form bonds and connections afresh, forge their own compact, find their own ways of working together and strike their own balances.

They have to continue to deliver effective and sound government, while accommodating the growing diversity of views. And they have to foster a more open spirit in our society, even as we strengthen the common cause holding us together as Singaporeans.

For Singapore to continue to succeed, we need to understand these changes in our external and domestic environments, rethink our problems and improve on the status quo.

The Government will continue to evolve our economic and social models and our policies to suit the new circumstances. We will encourage citizen initiatives and participation. We will listen to and examine novel ideas objectively, recognising that no solutions are right for all time.

President Halimah Yacob at the opening of Parliament yesterday. In her speech, she urged Singaporeans to come together to "pursue the greater good, united by a belief in Singapore and a desire to turn our vision into reality". PHOTO: GOV.SG

Sometimes, staying the course will remain the best way forward and we must convince Singaporeans to persevere. Other problems will require fresh approaches and the courage to take a different direction. In all cases, we will seek to do what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Despite the sea change in our environment, one thing remains constant: Singapore is still a little red dot in an uncertain world. To survive and thrive, we must stand out compared to other countries.

We need to be more resilient and nimble than others in responding to change. We must do things that others cannot do, and do the things that others can do, even better.

This requires us to reach a broad consensus on the economic and social changes necessary, the Singaporean identity we aspire to forge, and the kind of politics we want to have.

SECURING JOBS FOR SINGAPOREANS

We recognise the fears and anxieties about jobs that Singaporeans have today. Covid-19 has amplified the pressures caused by a slowing global economy in recent years, especially on certain groups of workers, such as our lower-wage workers, mature workers and mid-career Singaporeans with heavier financial commitments and families to support.

Jobs will remain our top priority for the next few years. Keeping people in work is the best way to help them take care of their families, and to keep their skills current until the economy improves.

We are doing all we can to help. We are supporting businesses, especially SMEs, with cash flow and credit so that they stay afloat and hold on to their workers. The National Jobs Council is working closely with tripartite partners to create new job and skills upgrading opportunities for Singaporeans.

We will continue to look out for our lower-wage and mature workers, many of whom are also essential workers who have been keeping Singapore going during the crisis.

We are also making a concerted effort to help workers in their 40s and 50s, by matching them to suitable jobs and SkillsFuture programmes. I urge employers to see mid-career Singaporeans as valuable assets, and provide them with opportunities and training for new jobs.

To sustain job creation, we must keep our economy strong and competitive. Our economy will undergo significant structural changes. Some sectors will not return to what they were before.

Some jobs will disappear altogether. Much of our economy thrives because we have made ourselves a vibrant hub for the region and an attractive place for trade, investments, talent and ideas. We cannot take our hub status for granted, or assume that its scope and role will remain the same.

There is therefore great urgency to transform our economy and find new ways to make a living.

We will resume air travel safely, to maintain Singapore's role as a global and regional hub. We will strengthen digital connectivity and help companies develop their links to new markets. Our efforts to fortify our resilience in critical areas like food, healthcare and supply chain management can become new sources of growth.

We will also make a major push for sustainable growth. We will reimagine how we plan our city, redesign urban mobility and grow using less resources in a low-carbon future. We will push for green financing and sustainable infrastructure development across the region, to ride on Asia's growth while protecting the environment.

With creativity and resourcefulness, we can turn our aspirations for a greener Singapore into a competitive advantage.

BUILDING A FAIR AND JUST SOCIETY

While we pursue economic growth to create opportunities for Singaporeans, we must also share the benefits of progress widely with all citizens.

We started strengthening our social safety nets more than a decade ago. In this crisis, we have implemented many emergency measures to help Singaporeans cope. These are temporary relief measures, but we do expect a permanent shift to a new normal after the crisis. We are entering an era of volatility, uncertainty and disruption in people's lives. Individuals will need greater social support than before.

We will have to consider carefully how to strengthen our safety nets, to give Singaporeans more assurance coping with life's uncertainties. And we will have to be careful to do so in a way that is financially sustainable for future generations.

As part of this shift in social policy, the Government will do more to support every Singaporean, at each stage of life, to build a stronger and more cohesive society.

We will support young families to own their homes, and to improve their own and their children's lives through quality education and training pathways. We will offer middle-aged Singaporeans more help to secure good jobs and greater assurance of retirement adequacy. We will take good care of our seniors to enable them to age well and with dignity.

But more redistribution cannot be the only way to level up those who are doing less well. We also have to continue strengthening social mobility and broadening our conception of merit.

Meritocracy has been a crucial pillar of our society. It has served us well over the past 55 years. However, just as our social norms and policies have evolved in tandem with Singapore's development, so too must our model of meritocracy.

We recognise that unfettered meritocracy can foster excessive competition. We also realise the need to level up families who are at a disadvantage, and give their children a fair start in life.

We want to keep our society open and socially mobile, and not allow it to stratify and ossify over time.

That is why we have made a concerted effort to value a wide range of talent. Schools and institutes of higher learning admit students through yardsticks other than academic results. The Public Service Commission has widened its catchment of scholars.

Employers are encouraged to hire people based on skills, with the public service taking the lead. Political parties are fielding candidates who took different life paths and have diverse talents and strengths.

This is also why we must continue to invest heavily in education and training, from the earliest years of childhood through the schooling years. We are developing many pathways, so that young Singaporeans can achieve their fullest potential regardless of their starting point.

And through the next bound of SkillsFuture, we will enable every worker to upskill and progress throughout their career, beyond their initial qualifications. Employers must support lifelong learning as the new norm. Society must value people for what they contribute, in every job and every role.

Building a fair and just society goes beyond government actions. It requires the support and participation of all Singaporeans. It turns on how we look after our most vulnerable members, such as helping students from disadvantaged families through Uplift and KidStart, providing training and job opportunities for people with disabilities, and bridging the digital divide for our seniors.

We have made progress over the last decade, and we will do much more in this term of Government to see our people through this crisis and beyond. The more closely knit we are as a people, the further we can move ahead as a nation.

STRENGTHENING OUR SINGAPOREAN IDENTITY

In the longer term, the key to Singapore's success lies in our sense of shared identity. Singapore can endure and secure her place in history only if Singaporeans feel passionately about our country, and put our hearts and souls into making this a better home.

Since independence, we have gradually built a distinctive Singaporean culture and identity. Regardless of race, language and religion, we all think of ourselves as Singaporeans. You can see this in our attitudes, memories and experiences; it is in our arts and heritage, and the way we cheer for Team Singapore together. You see it in the way we can gladly identify one another in an unfamiliar foreign land, and the way we have each other's backs in a crisis.

These are emotional ties that are strengthened over the years.

There is still much more to do to strengthen the sense of togetherness in our society. We must start young and shape the multicultural instincts in our children early in life; our approaches and methods must therefore evolve with the outlook and attitudes of the young. We must then sustain this mindset across our communities and workplaces.

We must also recognise that larger forces are at play that test our solidarity and pull us in different directions. The social media has amplified contending voices and views. We are more exposed than ever to causes, attitudes and values from other societies that may not be relevant to our social context, but will influence us nonetheless. Economic distress arising from Covid-19, or social inequality, can breed a sense of insecurity amongst different groups of Singaporeans.

Multiracialism will always be a core element of our Singaporean identity. Everyone, regardless of race, language, or religion, must have an equal place in our society. Here in Singapore, we embrace our plurality and diversity, even as we continue to develop a stronger Singaporean ethos and strive together to become more than the sum of our individual parts.

But our multiracialism is still a work in progress. Each successive generation will bring different life experiences and perspectives. In each generation, some will want to discuss sensitive issues afresh. Younger Singaporeans prefer talking about these issues more candidly and openly, which is a positive development. But the conversation needs to be conducted with restraint and mutual respect, because race, language and religion will always be visceral subjects. If each group pushes its own agenda to the extreme, we risk eroding the common space and fracturing our social cohesion.

Another potentially divisive issue closely connected to our Singaporean identity is the sense of competition for jobs from work pass holders. This has become a major source of anxiety, especially among mid-career Singaporeans. We understand these concerns. They not only touch on matters of livelihood, but also on our sense of identity and belonging. They will be addressed.

As masters of our own land, Singaporeans must have confidence in the rights and privileges of citizenship. Our strong education system and training pathways have produced a workforce that can compete against the best in the world. We will work with employers to further strengthen the capabilities of our workforce in every field, and ensure that firms treat Singaporeans fairly when they recruit or retrench workers. In all that we do, the interests of Singaporeans are always paramount.

At the same time, we must not turn inwards, away from the world. We must keep our hearts open to those who come from beyond our shores. We should continue to welcome and integrate those who can contribute to Singapore, and improve our lives and our children's future.

Our Singaporean identity has been formed and strengthened not by excluding those who arrive later, but by successive arrivals adding to the richness of our society. These are emotive issues that can evoke strong reactions. Debates on such sensitive matters can easily become polarised. So as we open up more areas for meaningful discussion, Singaporeans must work even harder to listen to and understand one another.

We must break out of the echo chambers that form so easily online, and make genuine attempts to bridge the gap with those who think differently from us. We must strive to obtain greater insight, build shared understanding and use our diverse perspectives and ideas to achieve better outcomes for all.

EVOLVING OUR POLITICS

These must also be the guiding principles of our politics.

Parliament is the central platform to debate national policies and set the tone for our political discourse.

One significant change in this term is the designation of a Leader of the Opposition, reflecting the larger number of Opposition MPs in Parliament. The Government and the Opposition both have roles to play to build trust in our public institutions, and achieve good outcomes for Singapore.

Given the magnitude of the challenges and uncertainties, we must expect to encounter more differences in views and interests among Singaporeans. We must learn to handle these differences constructively. On some issues, we can agree to disagree. But on issues core to Singapore and our survival and future, we must do our best to find common ground and build a broad consensus.

The Government will be open to constructive criticism and rational debate, and to new ways of doing things. But the Government, having been elected by the people, must also govern for all our people. It cannot shy away from taking difficult and tough decisions in the national interest, or shirk the duty of winning support for such decisions.

The Opposition too has its part to play. In Parliament, besides raising questions and criticisms, the Opposition should also propose policy alternatives to be scrutinised and debated. And when the situation demands, both the Government and Opposition should set aside differences and work together to secure the safety and future of our nation.

Singaporeans' expectations and choices will determine what kind of politics Singapore will have. The key question is how to forge a common cause together, regardless of our own political inclinations. We need to base our rhetoric on a responsible sense of the realities, and come to a shared understanding about our goals and constraints.

Our public debates should be honest and open about the trade-offs of different options and what they will cost society. Only in this way will our system continue to encourage able and committed individuals to step forward to serve.

SINGAPORE TOGETHER - THE NEXT PHASE OF NATION BUILDING

Ultimately, we want Singapore to evolve in a way that engages the aspirations and creative energies of all our people.

Singaporeans aspire to make this a better place, and have interesting and diverse ideas to pursue. Such a diversity of views and ideas can be a source of strength for us to navigate the challenges and possibilities ahead.

To realise this strength, we need a sense of common purpose, and a readiness to act to make a difference to causes we care about. Singaporeans must come together, in partnership, to pursue the greater good, united by a belief in Singapore and a desire to turn our vision into reality. This is the spirit of Singapore Together.

We invite all Singaporeans to partner each other and the Government in this journey.

CONCLUSION

In the coming years, we will confront major changes in the world. But we can face the future with confidence, having built up deep strengths since our independence. Our pioneers prevailed against great odds to build Singapore, and it is now our turn to tackle this crisis of a generation.

How we respond to the pandemic and economic crisis will define Singapore for many years to come. We must continue to command confidence and respect in the world, and emerge a stronger and more united nation.

So let us work in close partnership, as Singapore Together - one people uniting behind our elected Government - to save lives, protect livelihoods, and secure a brighter future for ourselves and our children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Securing Singapore's future in a changed world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are starting a new term of Government under the shadow of Covid-19. Singapore has been fully engaged in this fight. New infections have been brought under control. We have completed testing all the migrant workers in the dormitories, and are progressively returning them to work safely. Fatalities have been kept very low..

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/community-heroes-hailed-for-their-efforts-to-help-others-during-covid-19-pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Community heroes hailed for their efforts to help others during Covid-19 pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - With the coronavirus pandemic raging, Ms Sherry Soon, 39, founder of local ground-up movement Be Kind SG, wanted to give frontline healthcare workers an extra boost. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with West's view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For example, in 2017, the group helped raise nearly S$40,000 to help hawkers who had lost their stalls to a fire in Jurong West.

Stand Up For SG has also mobilised hundreds of volunteers to start conversations with members of the public on social issues, said a pioneer of the group, organisational development consultant Wally Tham.

On Tuesday (Feb 11), the group introduced the social media hashtag #BraveHeartSG and invited people to write notes of encouragement for doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers.

Such contributions would be photographed and uploaded onto social media using the hashtag. Stand Up For SG will then print the notes and send them to healthcare institutions.

So far, four of such institutions - Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, National University Hospital (NUH), Ng Teng Fong Hospital and Singapore General Hospital (SGH) have come on board, said Mr Tham, adding the group is still in talks with other hospitals.

Stand Up For SG is also working with businesses to make the initiative a success. HSBC is sponsoring snacks to be sent along with the notes. A company called PrintLab is helping defray some of the printing costs and most of the group's media collaterals are the work of an agency called Big Red Button.

"Our general goal is to reach every healthcare professional in Singapore and this is where we're starting. We are referring to these notes as 'love notes' because it's Valentine's Day (on Friday), but this is not going to end after Valentine's Day.

"We intend to stick it out with them until this virus is sorted," Mr Tham told CNA.

To date, more than 1,000 contributions have come in.

One of them is a Valentine's Day card by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, thanking the medical professionals for "looking after your patients day after day, especially during this COVID-19 outbreak".

They also include notes written by groups from schools like Crest Secondary School and Serangoon Secondary School, as well as non-profit organisations like Our Better World.

Artists too, have chimed in, like poet Gwee Li Sui, who wrote a haiku.

"There are many drawings because kids love to draw. They're quite cute," said Mr Tham.

But he pointed out that while the notes help to encourage Singapore's healthcare workers, the initiative is ultimately aimed at addressing public anxiety.

"Anxiety makes us have thoughts like 'there is not going to be enough food, so let's buy six trolleys of groceries', 'four masks are not enough' and 'this train is dangerous because someone here is wearing a medical uniform'.

"This anxiety is what we need to address. It's okay to be anxious for your family but we need to find a more sustainable way forward. If we keep suspecting each other, we won't be able to tackle this problem," he said.
BENTOS FOR HEALTHCARE WORKERS

Lawyer Stefanie Yuen Thio was spurred to take action after coming across social media posts about how nurses and other workers fighting the novel coronavirus in Singapore were being snubbed because they could have come into contact with infected patients.

"I read about how an ambulance driver was turned away by a stall owner when he went to buy lunch, and how nurses are shunned on the MRT and public buses. It made me heartsick," she told CNA.

Her Hail our Healthcare Heroes initiative will be organising free bento lunch deliveries to SGH from Feb 17, and has inspired Singapore companies to do so for other hospitals.

On Wednesday, healthcare workers at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) and NUH received 400 bento boxes sponsored by property and investment firm Mapletree.

"The bentos are from our tenants like Orange Lantern and Swissbake, to give variety and not the usual foodcourt takeaways," said the group's chief corporate officer Wan Kwong Weng.

"We are happy to serve yummy food from our mall tenants to the frontline medical heroes. As this fight against the virus situation may be long-drawn, we hope to give cheer and support, and encourage everyone."

As a gesture of appreciation for the hospital workers, Ms Thio has also sent 2,000 packets of halal snacks to SGH, co-sponsored by her law firm TSMP Law Corporation and Golden Duck, which is known for their salted egg yolk snacks.

Far East Organisation told CNA it will be sending 200 packets of food to NUH and Tan Tock Seng Hospital each day from Feb 24 to Feb 28.

Comfort DelGro has also offered to work with sponsors to deliver meals to hospitals in the weeks ahead, and the transport company has committed S$10,000 in taxi vouchers to the Community Foundation's Sayang Sayang fund.

SAYANG SAYANG FUND

The fund, which aims to raise S$500,000, will provide transport vouchers to healthcare workers in hospitals and polyclinics as well as give help to community partners supporting vulnerable communities such as seniors and families who are impacted by heightened precautionary measures, said the Community Foundation in a press release on Wednesday.

The foundation has received funding requests to cover additional manpower costs for home visits for needy seniors and to distribute food to needy families, but it will also adapt the use of the fund to evolving needs.

Donations to the fund have jumped to S$300,000, from S$84,000 on Wednesday, the foundation told CNA on Thursday. A public portal on Giving.sg collected more than S$65,000 as of Thursday evening.

Ms Thio, a Community Foundation board member, personally contributed S$25,000 to the fund. She said that the support she has received since she posted a call to action on social media has been "mind-blowing".

"There was a pent-up desire on the part of ordinary Singaporeans to help," she said.

"But what would be an even better outcome is if the ordinary Singaporean, seeing medical staff being treated badly, would step up and call out the bad behaviour, or just tell the staffer how much their selfless service is appreciated."

ComfortDelGro's senior vice-president for corporate communications Tammy Tan said that the company has also been conducting spot checks at hospital taxi stands to make sure that taxi drivers are not avoiding hospital workers in uniform.

"We read with distress that hospital staff in uniform have been ostracised, not just by the public but by cabbies. We immediately conducted checks to ensure that none of our cabbies are guilty of such discriminatory behaviour," she said.

"Thus far, the statistics have been encouraging. The cater rate of our taxis at the hospitals has in fact gone up. We have also not received any complaints about cabbies turning away any medical staff in uniform."

Members of the public who wish to support the Sayang Sayang fund can visit giving.sg or email contactus [at] cf.org.sg . All donations above S$50 are tax deductible.

Happy Valentine's Day to a very special group of people, going above and beyond the call of duty to keep us all safe and well, and to keep Singapore going! - LHL #BraveheartSG #SingaporeTogether (Photo by me)
Posted by Lee Hsien Loong on Thursday, February 13, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'We intend to stick it out with them': Volunteers write notes, send food to healthcare workers fighting COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: Pockets of people in the local community are reaching out to healthcare workers - on the frontline of Singapore's fight against the novel coronavirus - to offer their support in various ways. These initiatives come amid reports of discrimination targeting certain groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Parliament session on Sept. 2, 2020 saw a crossing of rhetorical swords between the leader of Singapore and the Leader of the Opposition (LO) over a slew of issues.

"Free-riders": New buzzword

However, the buzzword of the day, which managed to seize the Singapore public's attention, was "free-riders" -- a concept thrown into the fiery exchange and igniting some impassioned arguments across the political divide.

MP Jamus Lim's economics territory

Following the marathon seven-hour session on Wednesday, Workers' Party (WP) Sengkang GRC MP Jamus Lim took to his various social media accounts to explain why he felt opposition voters cannot be classified as free riders in Singapore's political system, just because they did not pick PAP candidates to represent them.

Lim posted his arguments on social media after 8pm:

What MP Jamus Lim argued?

Lim's views were to shift the public's understanding of the free-rider phenomenon, which in economics and outside of it, is often used as a pejorative term and presented frequently as a negative issue.

Lim was essentially saying that the "free-riders" label should not be applied to opposition voters because:

- Free-riders are people who reap the benefits of other people's actions or underpay for it.

- Free-riders cannot be excluded from enjoying the benefits that others pay for.

- And that opposition voters are incurring their own costs as well by virtue of not picking the incumbent.

Lim elaborated:

Moreover, in Aljunied, Hougang, and Sengkang, the votes were potentially costly: it required trust in our candidates, that we would be good town councilors and MPs. Yet voters were willing to do so. This does not strike me as consistent with free riding. Moreover, our sense-having spoken to voters in the aftermath-is that they did not vote tactically (for the WP, hoping that the PAP would still form government). If anything, they overcame their fear of the untested, and voted for the WP regardless.

Context of opposition voters as "free-riders" debate in Parliament

Lim's comments have to be read in the context of what transpired in Parliament earlier on between the two leaders.

What PM Lee argued

The "free-rider" concept was brought up by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, following his one-and-a-half-hour speech during the debate on the President's Address.

It was raised during PM Lee's subsequent clarification to WP chief and LO Pritam Singh.

PM Lee said: "What I would say, however, if you stand and you tell people, vote for me, I would be a better MP than the other PAP MP, I think that's entirely reasonable."

"But if you say, vote for me, somebody else will vote for the PAP and therefore the PAP will be the government, that, the economist will call a 'free-rider'."

"It means you are taking advantage of somebody else, who is doing their duty of electing a government for the nation."

Such an action, PM Lee argued, will bring the system to ruin.

He said: "But if you say, vote against the government, because somebody else will look after getting the PAP government, and you just become a free-rider. And you vote opposition, no harm, the PAP will still be there, then I think the system must fail."

"Because the system can only work if people vote sincerely, honestly, in accordance with what they really want, and to produce the result, which matches their true intentions."

PM Lee added that if a voter truly believes the government is not up to scratch, they should vote to change it.

PM Lee added that the WP campaigned on the platform of forming a strong opposition, but explicitly not seeking to form the next government.

Supposing the other opposition parties such as Progress Singapore Party and Singapore Democratic Party have been "as persuasive as" Singh, and more voters took such an attitude, PM Lee queried, "where would Singapore be?"

PM Lee's argument has come to be understood that voters who vote for the opposition are doing so tactically, almost second-guessing the outcome, on the assumption that the PAP government will still be returned to power -- resulting in opposition voters having their cake and eating it, or having the best of both worlds.

What Singh argued

However, Singh responded by turning attention away from the rhetoric of the election campaign into a voter issue.

He said the voters who pick the opposition are not free-riding, given that opposition MPs still have to run town councils and prove their worth, or else, they too would be voted out -- just like the PAP would.

And political choices can be made because of an underlying stratum of stability, an assertion Singh borrowed from PM Lee's father.

Singh said that Singapore's ability to function resides in its non-political public service -- one that has been recognised as reliable and functional.

Citing the late Lee Kuan Yew, Singh said it was the first prime minister who said that if the ruling party is ever voted out of government, the "machinery" must be there so that the civil service, police and armed forces can continue.

But the first and foremost challenge, Singh highlighted, was the need for good people to step up to join the opposition in the first place.

Singh added, in a voice shaky with emotion at some points: "When my colleagues and I joined the opposition cause, we didn't have heady dreams of becoming government."

"It's certainly not me. Why did I do this? I believe in an opposition, in a parliamentary democracy. It's not going to happen with people just hoping someone else does it."

"Somebody has to put his flag in the sand and say, 'I'm going to do it'. And then it's the duty of myself, my party colleagues, to make sure that the people who are on board, do their very best. This is my commitment to Singaporeans and this is my commitment to the prime minister as well."

This elicited some applause from the MPs, including a few ministers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WP Sengkang MP & trained economist Jamus Lim: Opposition voters can't be defined as 'free riders'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Parliament session on Sept. 2, 2020 saw a crossing of rhetorical swords between the leader of Singapore and the Leader of the Opposition (LO) over a slew of issues. However, the buzzword of the day, which managed to seize the Singapore public's attention, was "free-riders" -- a concept thrown into the fiery exchange and igniting some impassioned arguments across the political divide.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with West. Sovcits in SG claim laws don't apply to them, but still want to benefit from SG's efficient handling of the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the alternative reality of 'sovereign citizens'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - They say governments are illegitimate and laws do not apply to them. Yet, they want access to what countries provide. Sovereign citizens, also known as "sovcits", have had their claims labelled as strange or dangerous. Sovcits recently gained prominence in the media, with many making headlines around the world for refusing to comply with measures to deal with the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
"Dr. Maarvi and Dr. Levy also noted how the more individualistic participants were, the higher their chances of not adhering to epidemic prevention measures."
"Countries that recorded higher levels of collectivism such as Thailand, Singapore, and South Korea, all suffered much lower mortality levels from the virus."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For almost one year, governments have been urging, convincing, begging, and at times forcing their citizens to stay home, abide by social distancing measures, and try to keep Covid-19 from overwhelming healthcare facilities around the world. While it is well documented that some countries have tackled the pandemic better than others, researchers at Israel's IDC Herzliya and Yale University have found that the culture of a country's citizens may be a leading factor in its success in battling Covid-19.
"Some countries suffer a devastatingly high Covid-19 related death toll while others are less affected," explained Dr. Maarvi and Dr. Levy, researchers of the study titled, ''The Tragedy of the Commons': How Individualism and Collectivism Affected the Spread of the Covid-19 Pandemic'. "One cultural aspect that may explain the disparity in fatalities among different countries is the public cooperation and willingness to sacrifice to support the common good and adhere to health guidelines."

The relationship that individuals have with others and their roles within society is sometimes measured using Hofstede's individualism-collectivism scale. It takes into account qualities and traits such as Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Indulgence, Masculinity, and Long Term Orientation. In three studies, they examined the attitudes of Israelis and Americans, and the "degree to which individuals in a given culture see themselves as independent-vs. interdependent-of the society they live in." In general, they found a correlation between individualism vs. collectivism, prevention measures at the personal level, and the relation between countries' individualism (vs. collectivism) and the mortality rate they suffered. "It is important to note that despite the overall trend we found, there may be country-specific differences in the underlying mechanisms that should be further explored," they added. According to the research, which included data from 69 countries and the relationship between their culture and the impact of Covid-19, there is a clear correlation between the level of individualism within a country's culture and the more Covid-19 cases and deaths that subsequently occurred. Dr. Maarvi and Dr. Levy also noted how the more individualistic participants were, the higher their chances of not adhering to epidemic prevention measures. The countries that rated high in individualism, with high mortality rates to match, included the United States, the U.K., and Belgium. In contrast, countries that recorded higher levels of collectivism such as Thailand, Singapore, and South Korea, all suffered much lower mortality levels from the virus. The consequences of individualism that are encouraged or supported by policy or media landscapes can have long-reaching impacts on pandemic adhesion, including abiding by mask-wearing mandates or social distancing measures. Israel, which originally saw one of the world's best responses to the pandemic, struggled to contain its passionate and individual citizens more than once, resulting in weakened lockdowns to try and curb the second and third waves. Even though the country ranks in the midpoint of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism model that tracks individuals' relationship with society, it seemed almost impossible to keep sporty and social Tel Avivians off the beach during the summer.
In the United States, a country whose citizens often describe themselves as the freest in the world and rank highest in the Hofstede Individualism chart, there is a constant struggle between those who wish to mandate mask-wearing and vaccinations at a federal level versus those who see it as an infringement on their God-given individual rights. Even within the country itself, different states can outline separate strategies on how to combat the virus, avoiding federal interference and serving constituents with ideologically diverse priorities.
Examining the specific cultural response to Covid-19 is important when assessing the best practices in adopting a global strategy. Since different citizens will likely favor different methods to combat the pandemic, a global policy may not be the best approach as the world opens up again. "Leaders should consider the unique culture of each country (or state) and its residents in formulating policies," they said. "Thus, leaders in collectivist countries should emphasize these perceptions, while in countries where individualism is deeply rooted in the local culture, it may be better to highlight the individual's value resulting from compliance with health guidelines, rather than their contribution to the whole." One area of tension nowadays is the vaccination rollout currently taking place around the world. While no country is mandating a forced vaccine, some countries are battling the ideological challenge of strongly advising that everyone gets vaccinated for 'the greater good' of the community. While Israel may have by far the highest percentage of its citizens vaccinated, there are still the remaining few who will need to be incentivized by free food or beverages. "While we see that there are individuals that refrain from being vaccinated, messages that speak to ones' responsibility toward the community might be more effective within collectivistic communities. Within individualistic societies, on the other hand, self-protection messages should be considered," they advised. Dr. Yossi Maaravi is the Vice Dean of the Adelson School of Entrepreneurship at IDC, Herzliya. His research is based on behavioral decision-making, negotiation, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Dr. Aharon Levy is a social psychologist and interpersonal dynamic researcher, as well as a postdoctoral Associate at Yale Department of Psychology. Their research was published in February 2021 and is based on data collected in the first phase of Covid-19, dated in April 2020. In a follow-up preliminary examination conducted this month, similar correlations were found.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individualism vs. Collectivism: How a country's culture determined the severity of Covid-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For almost one year, governments have been urging, convincing, begging, and at times forcing their citizens to stay home, abide by social distancing measures, and try to keep Covid-19 from overwhelming healthcare facilities around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Individualism Makes Us Altruistic and Happy

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with Vikram

# data[].attributes.body
agree with west's view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - The issue of "free rider" opposition voters in Singapore has become something of a talking point online following a charged parliamentary exchange between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh.

On Wednesday (Sept 2), PM Lee and Mr Singh sparred over how the Workers' Party (WP) had during the recent general election campaigned on encouraging Singaporeans to vote for the opposition, with the assurance that the PAP would still form the government of the day.

"If you say, vote for me, somebody else will vote for the PAP, and therefore the PAP will be the government, that (is what) the economists will call a free rider," said PM Lee.

"It means that you are taking advantage of somebody else who is doing their duty of electing a government for the nation. And you are not doing your part expressing your true views and preference, as a voter, whom you want to be the next government. And if everybody takes that attitude, then you are going to end up with a government which you do not want."

PM Lee, in his speech, also asked: "Can we continue to get good people into politics, to maintain the quality of the ministers and MPs, and make things happen for Singapore if more and more citizens prefer one party to form the government, yet vote for another party's candidates to be their MPs for diversity?

"At what point does a vote for a strong opposition become a vote for a different government?"

In his response, Mr Singh countered that he did not think the residents in Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang who voted for the WP "would appreciate being called free riders".

"They're not free riders," he said. "We're not just doing nothing having been voted in. We're not just letting the other guy, the government of the day, do something. We've got to do what we have to do."

He added that when he and his colleagues joined the opposition cause, they certainly did not have "heady dreams" of becoming the government.

"Why did I do this? I believe in an opposition in a parliamentary democracy. It's not going to happen with people just hoping someone else does it. Somebody has to put his flag in the sand and, say, 'I'm going to do it'."

The WP MPs had worked hard to prove their worth to residents, he said, and residents voted for them because they know that having elected opposition MPs is ultimately good for Singapore.

"It's when you have elected opposition MPs that the government listens harder, and that means something to people. That's my view," he added.

The exchange sparked some discussions on various platforms online. Within a day, hundreds left comments on Facebook posts by politicians and observers who shared their take on the issue. A thread on online discussion site Reddit also attracted over 270 comments in a day.

The term "free rider" is often used in economics to refer to a person or group who wants to enjoy a benefit without having to pay the fair or full cost.

Free riding is seen more commonly with public goods and services, where the benefits are non-excludable - everyone stands to benefit and no one can be stopped from doing so.

While some social media users said it was not fair to point fingers at Singaporeans for voting tactically and there was nothing wrong in doing so, others felt that it would be a risk to game the system.

Some also felt that it was not the right time for politicians to engage in an "us versus them" debate.

PM Lee, in a Facebook post on Wednesday night, reiterated his points on the mindset Singaporeans should have in elections.

He stressed that they should vote because they truly support the party, whether PAP or opposition, and not because they want "the best of both worlds".

Shortly after the exchange in Parliament, MP Jamus Lim, an economics professor and WP MP in Sengkang GRC, weighed in on Facebook, saying the actions of WP voters did not strike him as free riding.

He said that Parliament seats are excludable and "when a PAP MP is elected, the opposition is necessarily prevented from accessing it".

He added that the votes in the three WP constituencies were "potentially costly" and required residents to trust that candidates would become good town councillors and MPs.

Residents were willing to do so, he added, and they had not voted tactically for the WP hoping that the PAP would still form the government.

Some observers wondered if the term free rider was being conflated with free loader, and that the difference between the two may not be clear to most Singaporeans when listening to the debate.

Among them was former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng, who in a Facebook post on Thursday, gave an example of a free rider in social sciences.

"For example, we all want clean streets. But if one of us decides to litter, we think it won't matter because everyone else is not littering. But if everyone thinks like this, then the streets will become dirty," he posted.

Free riding leads to failure as the result is now opposite to the one that was intended, he said.

"It has nothing to do with riding, and nothing to do with being a free-loader. It is definitely not an insult," he added.

In another Facebook post the same day, Mr Cheng, seemingly in response to Mr Lim's post, said it was wrong to say that just because there are costs, there is no free-rider problem.

Noting that the key is underpaying with respect to others, he said that for the majority, the costs comes in the possibility that there are no elected opposition MPs.

But many vote for the PAP because they consider the cost of not having the PAP governing to be even higher, he said.

Opposition voters who actually want the PAP to govern pay a smaller cost compared with those who want the PAP to govern and voted for them, he added.

But he noted that it is not free riding if people who voted for opposition do, in fact, want them to govern.

"However, I think many swing voters are those who want the PAP to govern, but vote for the opposition instead.

"This is an issue. Because it can lead to the opposite result," he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PM Lee and Pritam Singh's debate on 'free rider' election tactics fuels discussions online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - The issue of "free rider" opposition voters in Singapore has become something of a talking point online, following a charged parliamentary exchange between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh.. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/will-singapores-collective-spirit-prevail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHEN August comes around each year and the national flag adorns Housing Board apartments and major buildings, one's thoughts turn to Aug9, 1965.

Singaporeans who lived through that period will recall what they were doing when they heard the announcement of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. It was totally unexpected and everyone - outside a small circle within the Malaysian and Singapore governments - was taken by surprise. The afternoon announcement was carried live on radio and television and was followed by a televised press conference by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, whose choking sobs revealed his anguish.
Moment of trauma
WE ARE now jaded by 24-hour news channels. But in 1965, the anguish and trauma of the moment was instantly conveyed to homes throughout Singapore.

I was studying for my A levels and living in Telok Kurau. Soon after the announcement, there was far less traffic than usual on the road which was clearly visible from my home. People went home and gathered around their radio sets and, for the more fortunate ones, their TV sets as black-and- white television had only been introduced to Singapore in 1963.

I learnt later from our neighbours that they had hurried to the nearest provision shop. Panic buying occurred as families rushed to stock up on essential goods like rice, tinned provisions, sugar and coffee. They feared another outbreak of violence similar to the two race riots in 1964 that had pitted Malays against Chinese as a result of inflammatory appeals from political extremists.

Years later, I realised that my mother had kept a stockpile of essential rations in our home from the time of the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950, in which Caucasians and Eurasians were targeted by Muslim mobs. As we grew our own fruit and reared our own poultry, we were more self-sufficient than most of us would be today.

Many homes did not have telephones and neighbours went across to inform those living near them in case they had not heard the news. People gathered in homes to discuss and ponder an uncertain future ahead.

Some saw it as a moment of celebration as occasional bursts of firecrackers were heard through the evening. Living in a mixed neighbourhood and with a brother who taught at a secondary school in Kaki Bukit that had a majority of Malay students, I quickly became aware of the trepidation of Malay friends and neighbours.
You knew your neighbours
WHAT was striking was that at the local level, there was a sense of community and of shared interests. You knew your neighbours and interacted frequently with them. No one worried when a child went down the sandy potholed lane to play with a friend.

At a broader level, in the months following independence, the mood of national vulnerability created a willingness to forego immediate gains and to forge a new state from the disparate elements of a colonial Singapore. Some left the new country as they feared an uncertain future, but the many who stayed saw this as home and sought to build their future here.

Fast-forward to today, 48 years later. Such kampungs have been replaced by condominiums and HDB estates. The sense of social solidarity has diminished. We are less likely to know and interact with our neighbours, especially if we live in condominiums and posh bungalows. As common corridors are replaced by direct access lifts in new-generation apartments, interaction will decline.

But housing arrangements are not the only reason for this change. The pace of life today, the pressures of school work, the prevalence of dual-career families and smaller family units have led to an increasing focus on the individual. We may mix more with other people in Singapore but we tend to do so with those who share a similar education, jobs and social status.

Rising domestic inequality creates fissures that will pose a major policy challenge. Although Singapore is increasingly middle-class, attention is being focused on the gains made by those who have benefited most, not on the rising living standards enjoyed by nearly everyone.
Shaping expectations
IRONICALLY, this is happening at a time when there is greater convergence with demands and concerns elsewhere - as increased mobility, better education and access to the Internet create an instant awareness of global trends. Governments will have to deal with rising aspirations and increased grievances as experiences are transmitted instantaneously.

Singaporeans are increasingly influenced by news of developments elsewhere, which shapes their expectations. Better education and greater confidence have led to a willingness to speak out, to articulate their demands.

The result is more individual empowerment even as social solidarity declines. Developments in Singapore mirror global trends. The rise of the middle class is the most significant global change in recent years. While there is greater scope for individual initiative, many societies will find it increasingly difficult to pull together to achieve common objectives.

Greater job mobility is accompanied by more insecurity as there is increased competition for jobs. The complaints by Singaporeans about foreigners taking over available jobs are mirrored by people in the United States, Europe and Australia.

On the other hand, Singaporeans are becoming more mobile. Young Singaporeans who have studied abroad are now more likely to seek employment overseas, especially if the jobs are located in economically vibrant regions like Silicon Valley, New York City or Shanghai. I have seen colleagues move to jobs in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, just as Singapore institutions are seeking to recruit internationally for globally competitive positions.
Building a Singapore core
AS WE become more globally oriented, the issue of maintaining a local identity will attract more attention. The challenge is to build a Singaporean core so that institutions which are being established will take a long-term view and reflect a Singapore identity.

This task is made more difficult as the information and communications technology revolution results in the individual becoming more empowered - a positive development in that it can lead to greater individual responsibility.

But the flip side is a process of self-selection. People read blogs they agree with, search for the like-minded and interact less with those physically present around them. Technology reinforces the decline of social solidarity at the local level even as it creates bonds across borders and distance.

For a country like Singapore, which is at the technological cutting edge and whose population is almost universally connected through the Internet and mobile telephony, it will be increasingly difficult for mass media, long-established religious institutions and universities to exert their traditional influence. Likewise, governments will find that individuals and private groups with shared interests will gain more autonomy and will pay less heed to the concerns of the state.

Although Western observers assume that this transformation will have a democratising effect, it could also lead to greater intolerance and a closing of minds as people only read and hear views they agree with. In China, for example, the ultra-nationalism of online reactions has been a constraint for the government in responding flexibly to developments in relations with the US and territorial disputes with Japan.

A cursory scan of chat groups in Singapore would reveal that they tend to gather those who share identical perspectives, drowning the reactions of dissenting views.

In the next decade, the continued rise of the middle class, divergent economic gains for different sectors and greater individual empowerment with technological change will result in a more fluid social and political landscape in Singapore.

Expect more ideological competition as traditional values are challenged by varied perspectives resulting from a widening of educational opportunities, international exposure and global connectivity.

The risk is that the collective community spirit of the nascent nation of the 1960s will be eroded by the soaring individual well-being of a cosmopolitan and maturing Singapore.
stopinion@sph.com.sg The writer is dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University. This story was first published in The Straits Times on Aug 9, 2013 To subscribe to The Straits Times, please go to http://www.sphsubscription.com.sg/eshop/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Singapore's collective spirit prevail?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHEN August comes around each year and the national flag adorns Housing Board apartments and major buildings, one's thoughts turn to Aug9, 1965. Singaporeans who lived through that period will recall what they were doing when they heard the announcement of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

# data[].attributes.body
agree with west’s view

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/coronavirus-covid-19-panic-buying-singapore-dorscon-orange-777771

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/why-responsibility-must-come-freedom-singapores-fight-against-covid-19 renee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why responsibility must come before freedom in Singapore's fight against Covid-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A BBC writer recently commented that in Singapore the law does not prize personal freedom over collective responsibility. This is correct. We make no apologies for it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/tommy-koh-laments-that-singapore-is-a-first-world-country-with-third-world-citizens renee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh laments that Singapore is a First World country with Third World people. Many Singaporeans lack the civic-mindedness that citizens of an advanced country should have, he said on Tuesday (Oct 1).

"I am more critical of Singaporeans than of the Government. Many of our people don't give a damn for the environment when they should. Many of our people are selfish and unkind. Just look at the way they drive," Prof Koh said, drawing laughter from his audience.

He was speaking at the Singapore Bicentennial Conference, organised by the Institute of Policy Studies. It was held at Raffles City Convention Centre and ended on Tuesday.

During the dialogue, which was moderated by Straits Times editor and editor-in-chief of Singapore Press Holdings English/Malay/Tamil Media Group Warren Fernandez, Prof Koh and Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait both highlighted areas in which Singapore society can improve.

Mr Micklethwait pointed out that meritocracy has created its own problems, both in Singapore and other cosmopolitan capital cities. In such cities, the result is "a tribe of people who are working insanely hard to keep pushing ahead", often pumping money and resources into their children.

"That is a very good thing for your children, but it means society gets a bit harder for others to catch up, and that is one of the dilemmas of a modern country," he said.

He recounted how a friend had attended a dinner at which none of the guests, including Singaporeans, could understand why people in the United Kingdom had voted for Brexit.

"Nobody could understand why anybody had voted for Donald Trump. Nobody could understand why the protesters in Hong Kong had anything to protest about at all," he said.

The troubling conclusion that his friend came to was that the dinner guests - even though they came from different parts of the world - had far more in common with each other than others living a block away from them.

"He worried that his children only ran into poor people when they were delivering their Internet shopping," he said, adding that societies must find a solution to be more inclusive.

Prof Koh called for Singapore to set a poverty line and raise the wages of workers, noting that there is often a vast pay gap between a company's top executives and its rank and file employees.

Responding to a question on whether there is an alternative to capitalism, he said the right question to ask is what kind of capitalism Singapore wants.

Moral capitalism is where companies consider themselves accountable to not only shareholders but to the wider society, where they care for the environment and take good care of employees, and champion gender equality and diversity, he said.

He added that he had many ideas for Singaporeans, which he will write about in his next few columns for ST.

"I love Singapore. I would die for Singapore. But are we a perfect people? We are not," said Prof Koh, who turns 82 next month.

"But I believe that we can always be better and in the remaining years of my life, I want to dedicate my time, energy to making Singapore an even better place, and Singaporeans an even better people," he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tommy Koh laments that Singapore is a First World country with Third World citizens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh laments that Singapore is a First World country with Third World people. Many Singaporeans lack the civic-mindedness that citizens of an advanced country should have, he said on Tuesday (Oct 1). "I am more critical of Singaporeans than of the Government.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/culturally-tight-societies-like-singapore-fare-better-in-covid-19-fight-study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Culturally tight societies like Singapore fare better in Covid-19 fight: Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The study also found that countries with cultural looseness had almost nine times the number of deaths. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/22179222/covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic-individualism-collectivism

Experts believe there’s a need for more focus on systemic action, not the individualistic approach.
Countries that have done the best against Covid-19 such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea,  all approached the issue collectively, leveraging government aid and public health systems to let people stay home without losing as much income or health insurance, to test and trace infections, and, when necessary, to close down to stop the spread.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of a group of stories called

Finding the best ways to do good.

Americans have spent much of the Covid-19 pandemic blaming one another for the coronavirus's spread.

Don't go to that beach or park. Don't go to that bar or restaurant. Don't do anything for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Wear a mask! You don't want to kill Grandma, do you?

Public officials have joined in. Increasingly, they are blaming private gatherings, not the restaurants and bars they insist on keeping open, for the spread of the disease. In some places, such as the Dakotas, framing Covid-19 prevention as an individual responsibility became the core of the strategy to fight Covid-19. As cases and deaths climbed to among the highest rates in the world, South Dakota's leaders preached "personal responsibility" and refused to require masks, much less stricter measures. Ian Fury, a spokesperson for Gov. Kristi Noem (R), told me his boss gave citizens "up-to-date science, facts, and data, and then trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones."

It's true that individuals have an important role in fighting Covid-19. Everyone should wear a mask, and, unfortunately, everyone should reconsider big family gatherings this holiday season. But relying on individual action to fight a deadly virus - an approach that the US has leveraged for problems ranging from the opioid crisis to global warming - simply hasn't worked.

Today, America is among the worst performers at fighting Covid-19. Despite recent surges in Europe and Israel, the US remains within the top 20 percent for most coronavirus deaths per person among developed nations, with more than twice the death rate as the median developed country. If the US managed the same Covid-19 death rate as Canada, more than 190,000 Americans would likely be alive today.

There are many reasons for that, not least President Donald Trump's awful leadership. But part of it, experts say, is America's inability to address structural problems, instead relying on demanding more from individuals. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, highlighted this problem when he remarked that the "independent spirit in the United States of people not wanting to comply with public health measures has certainly hurt us a bit."

That was clear in much of the public's response to lockdowns starting in the spring. With "Don't Tread on Me" flags hoisted in the background, protesters often took to statehouses to demand the end of government-mandated closures. At the demonstrations, attendees claimed they could take care of themselves and didn't need the government to tell them what to do.

It's also been apparent in the government responses. The emphasis on individualism helps explain why Trump and his conservative allies, like Noem, have resisted more government mandates on masks and stay-at-home orders in lieu of letting people deal with the virus for themselves.

But it's not just Trump and friends. Every state in the country, Democratic or Republican, has at some point reopened restaurants or bars, allowing people to congregate in indoor areas that experts widely agree are breeding grounds for Covid-19. While resisting shutting down such places, local and state officials have argued that it's on people to wear masks, cancel private gatherings for the holidays, and avoid nonessential activities - while leaving room for people to not follow at least some of those guidelines. Every state in the country has also, subsequently, seen surges in the coronavirus this fall.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo exemplified the failure of this approach. In the lead-up to Thanksgiving, he said, "My personal advice is you don't have family gatherings - even for Thanksgiving." Days later, it came out that Cuomo was planning to host a family gathering with his 89-year-old mother and two of his three adult daughters. He only canceled after a public backlash. Even Cuomo wasn't planning on following his own advice. (Cuomo's office argued his comments were misinterpreted.)

Meanwhile, much less attention has gone to addressing Covid-19 from a truly structural perspective. The coronavirus has revealed America's pathetic public health infrastructure - there's still no national testing-and-tracing program, and no state has an adequate contact tracing program, if they have such a program at all. Businesses and workers have been left to fend for themselves, as Congress failed to pass an economic relief bill before the last one started to expire. For all the talk about outdoor activities being safer during the coronavirus pandemic, there's been next to no action in most of the country on getting people outside - at times, governments have even eliminated outdoor venues by closing parks or beaches.

"It's a structural issue," Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. "Systemic challenges in the United States - that predate the pandemic but have gotten worse [during the pandemic] - lead to the situation we're in."

It's easy to yell at people over their Covid-19 failures - simply log on to Twitter and blast away. It's costless for a governor to tell people that it's on them to stop the spread of the coronavirus by voluntarily giving up things they love, especially if the same governor doesn't even plan on following his own advice.

So rather than do anything about it, Americans are stuck blaming each other for Covid-19. But until we truly realize this is a collective failure, not an individual one, the problems will linger.

Structural problems are really to blame here

Since the start of America's epidemic, experts have warned that indoor dining and bars are among the worst places for the spread of Covid-19: People are in poorly ventilated indoor areas where the virus spreads more easily sit close for possibly hours, can't wear masks as they eat or drink, and spew germs at each other as they shout, sing, and laugh.

So many experts have called on governments to close bars and restaurants. Acknowledging the economic toll of this, economists and public health experts have also asked for a bailout of the industry to make employers and their workers whole until the pandemic resides.

None of that happened. Instead, America started to reopen before Covid-19 cases were under control - at the US's best point in the spring and summer, it still had more than 60 times the daily new cases of Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea - with bars and restaurants reopening in every state by the fall. Public officials acknowledged the risks but merely moved to limit capacity and called on everyone to be responsible by physical distancing, wearing a mask, and limiting contact with people from other households.

This has not gone well. Coronavirus cases have shot up across much of the country, with the US in the middle of its third and biggest surge of Covid-19 yet. At the same time, we've gotten more data showing how dangerous bars and restaurants can be for the spread of Covid-19: A study published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science found that a person in South Korea may have been infected with Covid-19 in a restaurant in as little as five minutes. Another study in Nature found, "Reopening full-service restaurants was associated with a particularly high risk."

Despite that, officials across the country have by and large resisted shutting down again. Many of them, instead, have cited another culprit for Covid-19 spread: private gatherings. New York, for example, put out a PSA to stop "living room spread," and the state published data suggesting households and private gatherings are driving 74 percent of coronavirus spread.

It's true private gatherings and households are driving some transmission. Most experts agree Thanksgiving dinners likely led to a surge on top of a surge, and similar Christmas and New Year's events likely will too.

But that's why at least some experts believe there's a need for more focus on systemic action, not the individualistic approach. "People, in general, are horrendous risk assessors - we're awful at assessing risk," Daniel Goldberg, a medical historian and public health ethicist at the University of Colorado, told me. "I hate to say people can't be trusted, but."

There are other problems with this framing. For one, the New York data doesn't separate within-household transmissions from social gatherings - so the 74 percent figure includes someone spreading Covid-19 to the husband he lives with (not as avoidable) and someone spreading the virus to someone he invited over for drinks one night (very avoidable). This also only includes the cases that New York could actually contact trace, and it's much easier to trace transmission between family and friends in a household than strangers in a bar.

The big problem, though, is that there's nothing unusual about Covid-19 spreading among people who live together. It's typical for the bulk, even the majority, of the transmission of any disease to happen within households. If you're infected, the people you live with or come into close contact with at home are simply likely to get it too. That's how pathogens work. What matters most, though, is where that virus originated from in the first place.

To put it another way: People couldn't infect others in their homes if they hadn't picked up the coronavirus in bars, restaurants, or other public spaces. So if these places weren't open, individual choices to gather - including over Thanksgiving and Christmas - would be of far less concern. There would simply be much less virus out there jumping from person to person.

So it largely comes down to the lack of systemic action, not solely the individual choice.

It's not just bars and restaurants. If officials want people to wear masks, they can mandate masks and actually enforce those mandates. If they want more adults to stay home, they can replace any income individuals might lose by not going into work, or take steps to make work-from-home life more bearable, like deeming schools "essential" or subsidizing day care. If they want people to stay outdoors and not indoors, they can do things that can encourage people to go outside instead of congregating inside - like offering free outdoor activities like ice skating or art installations, or even just places to eat (with some heating during the winter) - rather than shutting down parks. If they want to address racial disparities for Covid-19, they need to address systemic racial disparities across society and health care.

Otherwise, we're going to be stuck with relying on people to make decisions - almost always against their own social, cultural, and economic interests - to do the right thing. So far, that just isn't working.

It's easier to blame individuals than fix big problems

Public leaders and government officials face their own structural forces too.

Brown University School of Public Health dean Ashish Jha told me of a recent conversation with a governor. Jha argued that risky indoor spaces like bars and restaurants should be closed, or hospitals will soon overflow. The governor responded that such closures would require money to support affected businesses and their employees, and the state simply doesn't have that money. The governor added, "Maybe I should spend a little bit of money and try to campaign for people to be more careful" - a pivot to an individualistic approach.

"I came to appreciate that, ultimately, the problem wasn't this governor," Jha said. He later added, "The right answer is not we need better governors - the right answer is we need a different structure and a better federal government."

Structural issues are, almost by definition, much harder to fix than simply asking people to do the right thing. It's easy and cheap to yell at people for getting together for Christmas - especially when they really shouldn't be doing it. Closing down bars and supporting them economically, in turn, requires both political and financial capital.

In some cases, governments legitimately can't do what they would prefer. Local and state officials, unlike the federal government, can't print money and usually have to balance their budgets. Given that reality, a governor might decide that she has to keep bars open simply because she can't bail them out - the economic cost is so high, and, who knows, maybe the state might get lucky and avoid an outbreak anyway. States, counties, and cities face a structural barrier in the federal government's inaction.

There's a cultural component, too. Americans pride themselves on their individualistic and libertarian qualities - what Fauci described as an "independent spirit in the United States." That creates an innate resistance, among the public and its leaders, to look at problems in a collective over an individual manner. So with Covid-19, we yell at people for not distancing or wearing masks in bars, but not as much at public officials for allowing that bar to open in the first place.

The truth, as Covid-19 has shown us, is this individualistic approach doesn't work well for public health (even if it does serve us well in other areas). The alternative to not taking collective action is more death. The countries that have done the best against Covid-19 - including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and, to a now lesser degree, Germany - all approached the issue collectively, leveraging government aid and public health systems to let people stay home without losing as much income or health insurance, to test and trace infections, and, when necessary, to close down to stop the spread.

In fact, America's best - and perhaps only - success against Covid-19 so far came about with the power of collective action. The vaccines that are now being shot into the arms of health care workers and people in nursing homes came about with the strong support of various governments, which funded research or, at the very least, paid for tens of millions of doses before the vaccines were even proven to work. Crucially, this came about by acknowledging the structural risks involved in developing a vaccine, particularly that drug companies might be reluctant to gamble on the medications if they may not pan out, and mitigated those risks.

The problem runs deeper than what America did and can do about Covid-19 alone. One advantage that other countries had as the pandemic began is stronger social safety nets, which guaranteed people would retain some income and health care even if a lockdown was needed. The US has no such guarantees - the programs that do exist are notoriously underfunded (hence Congress needing to boost unemployment insurance in its economic relief bills), and far from universal. So while British and German workers could rely on some significant government support even if they lost their jobs, Americans could claim no such certainty.

We see that today. Even as Congress nears a deal on economic relief, the truth is it's already too late for many Americans. With much of the previous stimulus measure expiring, people who lost their jobs have languished for months with little to no support. And even if the new deal passes Congress (which is still uncertain), there will likely be a lag in actually rolling out those benefits to the people who need them, leading to more prolonged suffering. It could have been avoided if these kinds of benefits were permanent, or kicked in automatically if the economy begins to weaken, as government programs in other developed countries do.

That's just one example. From building up the social safety net to actually funding public health infrastructure to reforming government so it's more responsive, there's a lot of work America could do to make sure it's better equipped to handle crises as they come up. That won't completely end the need for leadership in troubled times - European countries with large social safety nets have still passed additional economic relief measures - but it would put the US in a much better place.

It won't be easy. It means committing to a more hands-on governing structure, costing us more in dollars and cents and forcing many Americans to rethink how they view the role of government.

But if Covid-19 has taught us anything, those changes are worth the cost. It begins with taking a structural, rather than individualistic, view of the problems facing the US today.
We have a request
Millions rely on Vox's journalism to understand the coronavirus crisis. We believe it pays off for all of us, as a society and a democracy, when our neighbors and fellow citizens can access clear, concise information on the pandemic. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive. Support from our readers helps us keep it free for everyone. If you have already made a financial contribution to Vox, thank you. If not, please consider making a contribution today from as little as $3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why America can't rely solely on individuals to stop Covid-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finding the best ways to do good. Americans have spent much of the Covid-19 pandemic blaming one another for the coronavirus's spread. Don't go to that beach or park. Don't go to that bar or restaurant. Don't do anything for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Wear a mask! You don't want to kill Grandma, do you?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/agencies-volunteers-step-up-cleaning-efforts-as-monsoon-season-brings-more

Arguable for either stance since Samantha Thian took matters into her own hands and started this independent of the government’s efforts, but this is done as a collective effort with other people in the society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - The tides are bringing trash to Singapore's southern coastlines.

At East Coast Park, for example, visitors may have noticed a hodge-podge of plastic items such as cups and bottles, and styrofoam containters strewn on some of the beaches there.

And those who think the trash situation looks worse than usual would not be wrong.

The cause? Not so much the beachgoers, but the way the winds blow during the south-west monsoon season, which Singapore is currently experiencing.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) said there has been an almost 90 per cent increase in the amount of flotsam collected from the beaches in East Coast Park during this period, compared to other times of the year.

The National Parks Board (NParks) and the NEA said that while there have been more visitors to the park in the second phase of Singapore's reopening, most visitors continue to practise good park etiquette, including throwing their litter in designated bins.

"The wind blows from the south or south-east between June and September, bringing an increased amount of flotsam from the immediate region, which accumulates on the shores of neighbouring countries and islands, including East Coast Park," said the agencies in a joint statement.

A Straits Times check at one of the beaches in East Coast Park on Friday (July 31) showed debris bearing the names of Indonesian brands, such as Pop Mie instant noodles and Ale-Ale brand drinks.

The NEA said it has increased the frequency of cleaning operations, from four times a week to twice daily during this period.

But the spokesman added: "Despite these intensified cleaning efforts, it is not possible to eliminate the presence of flotsam on our beaches altogether, as during each high tide, new waves of flotsam from the open sea will be washed onto our shores."

The sight of the trash-strewn beaches during her jogs so irked local marine enthusiast Samantha Thian, 25, that she decided to take matters into her own hands.

In early-July, she started a movement calling for volunteers to help pick up trash at the beaches in East Coast Park.

The clean-up sessions are initiated by individuals over the "Best East Coast Cleanup Plan" group on messaging application Telegram, which has more than 500 members as of Saturday.

Volunteers put down the date, time and location of a clean-up session, and people can sign up for slots in groups of up to five. They bring along their own tongs and trash bags as well.

Ms Thian said 32 clean-ups have been carried out so far, and she has taken part in more than 20 herself.

The founder of social enterprise Seastainable, which sells items such as metal straws and reusable cups to encourage people to use less disposables, said she hopes that the beach clean-up initiative could raise awareness about the harm of single-use items.

She said that while it may be the winds and currents that bring trash onto Singapore's shores, the amount of plastic debris that washes up highlights the broader problem of the world's reliance on these single-use items and the impact it could have on the oceans and marine life.

Volunteers picking up trash at the beach in East Coast Park on July 31, 2020. ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY

The NEA said it has increased the frequency of cleaning operations, from four times a week to twice daily during this period. ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY

Said Ms Thian: "The bodies of fish or mammals are unable to breakdown plastic, causing plastic to remain in their stomachs, which eventually causes them to starve."

NEA said it collected over 1,000 tonnes of flotsam from the beaches in East Coast Park in 2019.

A 2015 scientific paper published in the journal Marine Pollution Bulletin had noted that the impact of marine debris on marine life can be wide reaching, with the detrimental consequences from ingestion and entanglement.

Ms Thian also pointed to signs of the pandemic in the trash: Volunteers have found debris further inland near walking paths, including medical equipment such as surgical masks, glove and even a box of syringes, she said.

NParks and NEA urged visitors to be considerate of others when enjoying the park's facilities.

"Our parks, gardens and nature areas are for all to enjoy. Keeping our parks clean is everyone's responsibility. Littering not only spoils the beauty of our parks, they may harm wildlife too," said the agencies.
LISTEN TO GREEN PULSE PODCAST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Agencies, volunteers step up cleaning efforts as monsoon season brings more trash to S'pore's southern coastlines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - The tides are bringing trash to Singapore's southern coastlines. At East Coast Park, for example, visitors may have noticed a hodge-podge of plastic items such as cups and bottles, and styrofoam containters strewn on some of the beaches there. And those who think the trash situation looks worse than usual would not be wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with Vikram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Life List: 7 kind acts by Singaporeans during the Covid-19 outbreak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social distancing may be the new buzz word but that has not dampened community spirit during the Covid-19 outbreak.From helping schoolmates get groceries to freelancers sharing gigs with their counterparts, these seven acts of kindness by Singaporeans show that compassion can spread faster than any virus. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with West's view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - Countries have to avoid thinking about economic objectives as separate from social objectives, said Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Thursday (Nov 19).

"If you are not socially sustainable, you are not going to have a competitive economy in the long term," he said, adding that this is something seen across the world.

Speaking during a virtual dialogue at the Singapore Tech Forum, Mr Tharman said a competitive and efficient economy can create a lot more opportunities for people.

But if left entirely to the market, these opportunities become more polarised over time, with those who have an advantage staying ahead and those who start off with less ending up with less, he noted.

"But if you think of an economy as a social ecosystem - not just a business ecosystem - you are able to create opportunities, starting upstream in education, but moving into work, because work is still fundamental to any sense of equality of opportunity," he said.

This will help create a society where everyone feels they and their children are more likely to do well if the economy is doing well, said the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies.

Conversely, in a society that lacks cohesion and has divisions widening over time, it is very hard to sustain an economic strategy that involves being open, finding the most efficient ways of doing things, and being able to grow, he added.

Mr Tharman noted that Singapore is one of the few advanced countries that has managed to sustain the middle majority of its society moving up over the decades.

It has managed to lift up those lower down the ladder not just by tax and transfer, but also by improving jobs, he added.

"There is still a significant work to be done, significant collaboration to upskill people and help them to take opportunities and move up. It will make us a better society. We are not at all done."

Asked by moderator Koh Shiyan from venture capital firm Hustle Fund on his views about culture and social resilience required, Mr Tharman said a sense of "togetherness" among people is needed.

That is different from conformity, different from just sameness, he noted.

"We need a sense of togetherness, but at the same time that we need a greater sense of individualism in thinking, in creating, in wanting to do things differently. And that is not a contradiction."

Unlike the old model of a certain conformity and moving together that East Asia was known for some time ago, the new model is about developing a streak of wanting to be different, but at the same time retaining a sense of togetherness in society, he said.

And I think we can achieve that...You need to have the that sense of individualism in thinking, without being socially individualistic, or where you try to elbow other people out."

Mr Marc Benioff, who is the chair, chief executive and founder of tech firm Salesforce, also participated in the dialogue.

Singapore is a safe haven for companies around the world to do business due to its good governance, he said, citing the country's response to Covid-19.

Unlike many places in the world, Singapore has managed the pandemic's spread well while keeping its workers safe, he added.

During a recent visit to Singapore, Mr Benioff said his employees told him they felt quite safe, and he felt free to meet with customers and conduct business.

"I can work while I was there, wow, that is very important. A functional government that can operate and keep the economy going during a crisis," he said.

The Singapore Tech Forum, a global industry and networking event in its third-year running, is organised by the Singapore Global Network - a division of the Economic Development Board - and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think of the economy as a social ecosystem, says Tharman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Countries have to avoid thinking about economic objectives as separate from social objectives, said Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Thursday (Nov 19). "If you are not socially sustainable, you are not going to have a competitive economy in the long term," he said, adding that this is something seen across the world.

# data[].attributes.body
https://bizbeat.nus.edu.sg/thought-leadership/article/covid-19-tells-us-societies-need-social-consciousness/

jovan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Globally, nations have adjusted their rules in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Singapore, which was about to relax its social distancing rules, is now reining them in, following the emergence of large KTV-related clusters.

This country together with some of its Southeast Asian neighbours such as Vietnam and Thailand, were initially pegged as virtuosos in handling the pandemic. Aside from good decisions by government leaders, much of their success was ascribed to the collectivist nature of these societies.

Follow the rules for the good of all. Follow social distancing measures, wear your mask, stay indoors. This collectivism was contrasted with individualism in Western nations. I decide whether I want to wear masks, I decide where I want to go. The individual freedom is viewed by some to be more important than the safety of others.

Not just collectivism vs individualism

However, the Eastern and Western approaches to the virus are not as simple as a contrast between collectivism and individualism. No question, the ethos of a society affects how its people react to a crisis. But to understand more about the different societal responses to COVID-19, we need more nuance in our understanding of societies.

The collectivist and individualist arguments were first made in the early days of the response. Now, we have more than another year of data to understand societal responses. With these data and the variances in national responses, we can see these nuances.

Unsurprisingly, the two most striking contrasts are between China and the United States. China is arguably the nation that has had the most success combating COVID-19. Is its success related to the collectivism that inured its population to the trials of long and demanding lockdowns, or is it another element of society that guided behaviour?

People know what needs to be done

China is a nation that has long valued the social stability created by a strong central government. As a large and diverse country, with a history filled with centuries of growth and turmoil, a strong centre anchors the country. The people put their faith in the authority in return for stability and security.

This social pact enables the government to do the hard, but right, thing. When COVID-19 initially struck, Beijing acted swiftly and decisively. They subsequently acted with clarity and authority for each smaller outbreak. These actions, however forceful, were accepted as part-and-parcel of the bargain struck between the people and its leaders.

Is this collectivism? Certainly, there is an underlay of collectivism, but more than this, it is about a nation that understands how it will be governed during crises.

The contrast with the United States could not be clearer. People in the US have long held a suspicion of the government. They tolerate the government, but value their own independence to decide. When crisis strikes, Americans are cultured to act in their own interests, which can be chaotic.

Under the Trump administration, mixed signals about the pandemic left the populace scattered. Under the Biden administration, the message was clearer. Wear your masks and go for vaccination. Americans made their own choice on whether to follow. In the end, 70 percent did.

Now the economy is reopening in the US. Cases are rising, but individuals and organisations, as guided by the laws of the country, are creating a new post-pandemic US. Contrasted with China, this societal response has a foundation of individualism. But it is also about people that understand how they can act during a crisis.

Does your nation have a shared consciousness?

Between these two are nations in Southeast Asia and in the West. The so-called socialist democracies in Western Europe and Canada likewise value individualism, but they have rules in place and an understanding of what creates equity for all. They have a shared social consciousness, which is knowing what they need to do for the overall good.

Social consciousness is an ideology, but it does often reflect in behavior. Just like how employees will do something good for the company because they belong to it, citizens of socialist democracies have a sense of doing what is good for the state. They are not extrinsically compelled to do so because they are afraid of fines or stares by others. They do it because they believe it is right.

Canada's rapid vaccination rate reflects this point. Even though the vaccinations began late in Canada, as of July 2021, 85 per cent of those aged above 80 are now fully vaccinated, with another 10 per cent partially vaccinated. Meanwhile, close to 70 per cent of the population has been at least partially vaccinated.

When a lack of social consciousness becomes a problem

In a world where only vaccination can alleviate the pandemic, we need people to have either internal or external motivation to be vaccinated.

This leaves Singapore and the other Southeast Asian and East Asian democracies at an inflection point in their development. These burgeoning democracies are caught at a point where citizens are used to following clear instructions during crises.

However, guidance in these countries has not carried a stick or a carrot during the pandemic. Instead, governments leveraged on citizens' goodwill during the initial lockdowns. Then as COVID-19 increasingly seemed to be a problem for other nations but not in our own country, social behaviours began to fray from the guidelines. When a government does not strictly sanction and punish behavior, it can be interpreted as a tacit acceptance of social misbehaviour.

The problem becomes more acute with vaccination. Collectivism as a cultural attribute is not strong enough to motivate people to put an unfamiliar foreign substance in their body. We hence need a social consciousness to emerge.

In some Asian nations, a strong social consciousness is still waiting to be born. For nations emerging from the yokes of colonial centralised oppression or other forces of authoritarianism, having citizens selflessly act out of an intangible social consciousness is still a new norm. This is one reason it has been so hard for Singapore to achieve the vaccination penetration levels that are critical to be free of the pandemic.

From "me" to "us"

These ideas suggest that we need to carefully consider the drivers of social consciousness in these East and Southeast Asian nations. For them to mature as inclusive societies with a sense of social consciousness, we need to pay attention to its key institutions.

The first two decades of the 2000s have seen much emphasis on the creation of innovation and digital economies. Alongside that, leaders should consider how its decisions cultivate social values in increasingly well-educated and wealthier citizens.

For example, Singapore has long positioned itself as a low tax society in which individuals have to bear substantial responsibility for their own welfare. Yet slowly, the tax system has been refined, with an increase in the Goods and Services Tax on the near horizon. This has been coupled with more public financial support for the silver generation, as they encounter rising healthcare costs.

Changes such as these in a nation's fiscal and healthcare institutions cultivate a stronger idea of a nation's populace sharing in the gains of its successes, which helps to foster social consciousness. There is a shift from a focus on "me" to a focus on "us".

Action versus rhetoric is also an important step in this process of cultivating a social consciousness. A nation's leaders can preach about diversity and inclusion. But only when these words are backed clearly in policies, laws, and regulations, will it foster a sense of equity and fairness in people's independent actions.

COVID-19 has exposed that the ideal of a social consciousness is a core component of resiliency to crisis. The question of what drives people to do good things is an important aspect of a nation's progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19 tells us societies need social consciousness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Globally, nations have adjusted their rules in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Singapore, which was about to relax its social distancing rules, is now reining them in, following the emergence of large KTV-related clusters. This country together with some of its Southeast Asian neighbours such as Vietnam and Thailand, were initially pegged as virtuosos in handling the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/102m-donated-on-givingsg-in-a-year-amid-covid-19-pandemic

I agree with Vikram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - More than $100 million was donated in a year online to about 600 charities amid the Covid-19 pandemic, surpassing previous annual records.

The National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) said on Monday (April 5) that its online donation platform Giving.sg received $102 million in donations for the financial year from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

This is more than 2½ times the $39.5 million raised in the last financial year.

The increase is due to factors such as donations from the $600 Solidarity Payment given to each adult Singaporean in April last year, as well as the waiver of the 3 per cent transaction fee on the platform, meaning charities receive the full amount of the donations, said NVPC.

To continue supporting the non-profit sector and help the 600 charities on the platform in the upcoming year, Giving.sg is extending the transaction fee waiver till March 31, 2022, said the centre.

NVPC deputy chief executive officer Tony Soh said that charities had been working extremely hard throughout the pandemic to meet the increased needs of their beneficiaries and the communities at risk.

"Extending the 3 per cent transaction fee waiver for another year is NVPC's contribution towards encouraging the public to continue giving generously, knowing that charities will receive 100 per cent of their donations," he said.

"We hope that Giving.sg can be a unifying national giving platform as we recommit ourselves to supporting members of our community who are in need. In this unusual time, more than ever, we need to give our best for others."

Mr Soh added that giving has always been part of Singapore's DNA, but it really shone through the crisis last year when regular Singaporeans went above and beyond their call of duty to uplift those in need.

"Online giving platforms such as Giving.sg made it easier for anyone to contribute because of how safe, simple and trusted it is, and how it makes giving opportunities across 600 charities and 14 causes accessible to the public - we quite literally bring giving opportunities to your fingertips," said Mr Soh.

The past year has seen several milestones in donations on Giving.sg.

This includes the largest amount donated in a single day - $2.5 million on Dec 31, 2020.

In addition, $93.4 million was collected for the calendar year of 2020, which was more than double the $35.8 million collected in 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Record $102m donated on Giving.sg in a year amid Covid-19 pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - More than $100 million was donated in a year online to about 600 charities amid the Covid-19 pandemic, surpassing previous annual records. The National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) said on Monday (April 5) that its online donation platform Giving.sg received $102 million in donations for the financial year from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with West
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/will-singapores-collective-spirit-prevail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHEN August comes around each year and the national flag adorns Housing Board apartments and major buildings, one's thoughts turn to Aug9, 1965.

Singaporeans who lived through that period will recall what they were doing when they heard the announcement of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. It was totally unexpected and everyone - outside a small circle within the Malaysian and Singapore governments - was taken by surprise. The afternoon announcement was carried live on radio and television and was followed by a televised press conference by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, whose choking sobs revealed his anguish.
Moment of trauma
WE ARE now jaded by 24-hour news channels. But in 1965, the anguish and trauma of the moment was instantly conveyed to homes throughout Singapore.

I was studying for my A levels and living in Telok Kurau. Soon after the announcement, there was far less traffic than usual on the road which was clearly visible from my home. People went home and gathered around their radio sets and, for the more fortunate ones, their TV sets as black-and- white television had only been introduced to Singapore in 1963.

I learnt later from our neighbours that they had hurried to the nearest provision shop. Panic buying occurred as families rushed to stock up on essential goods like rice, tinned provisions, sugar and coffee. They feared another outbreak of violence similar to the two race riots in 1964 that had pitted Malays against Chinese as a result of inflammatory appeals from political extremists.

Years later, I realised that my mother had kept a stockpile of essential rations in our home from the time of the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950, in which Caucasians and Eurasians were targeted by Muslim mobs. As we grew our own fruit and reared our own poultry, we were more self-sufficient than most of us would be today.

Many homes did not have telephones and neighbours went across to inform those living near them in case they had not heard the news. People gathered in homes to discuss and ponder an uncertain future ahead.

Some saw it as a moment of celebration as occasional bursts of firecrackers were heard through the evening. Living in a mixed neighbourhood and with a brother who taught at a secondary school in Kaki Bukit that had a majority of Malay students, I quickly became aware of the trepidation of Malay friends and neighbours.
You knew your neighbours
WHAT was striking was that at the local level, there was a sense of community and of shared interests. You knew your neighbours and interacted frequently with them. No one worried when a child went down the sandy potholed lane to play with a friend.

At a broader level, in the months following independence, the mood of national vulnerability created a willingness to forego immediate gains and to forge a new state from the disparate elements of a colonial Singapore. Some left the new country as they feared an uncertain future, but the many who stayed saw this as home and sought to build their future here.

Fast-forward to today, 48 years later. Such kampungs have been replaced by condominiums and HDB estates. The sense of social solidarity has diminished. We are less likely to know and interact with our neighbours, especially if we live in condominiums and posh bungalows. As common corridors are replaced by direct access lifts in new-generation apartments, interaction will decline.

But housing arrangements are not the only reason for this change. The pace of life today, the pressures of school work, the prevalence of dual-career families and smaller family units have led to an increasing focus on the individual. We may mix more with other people in Singapore but we tend to do so with those who share a similar education, jobs and social status.

Rising domestic inequality creates fissures that will pose a major policy challenge. Although Singapore is increasingly middle-class, attention is being focused on the gains made by those who have benefited most, not on the rising living standards enjoyed by nearly everyone.
Shaping expectations
IRONICALLY, this is happening at a time when there is greater convergence with demands and concerns elsewhere - as increased mobility, better education and access to the Internet create an instant awareness of global trends. Governments will have to deal with rising aspirations and increased grievances as experiences are transmitted instantaneously.

Singaporeans are increasingly influenced by news of developments elsewhere, which shapes their expectations. Better education and greater confidence have led to a willingness to speak out, to articulate their demands.

The result is more individual empowerment even as social solidarity declines. Developments in Singapore mirror global trends. The rise of the middle class is the most significant global change in recent years. While there is greater scope for individual initiative, many societies will find it increasingly difficult to pull together to achieve common objectives.

Greater job mobility is accompanied by more insecurity as there is increased competition for jobs. The complaints by Singaporeans about foreigners taking over available jobs are mirrored by people in the United States, Europe and Australia.

On the other hand, Singaporeans are becoming more mobile. Young Singaporeans who have studied abroad are now more likely to seek employment overseas, especially if the jobs are located in economically vibrant regions like Silicon Valley, New York City or Shanghai. I have seen colleagues move to jobs in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, just as Singapore institutions are seeking to recruit internationally for globally competitive positions.
Building a Singapore core
AS WE become more globally oriented, the issue of maintaining a local identity will attract more attention. The challenge is to build a Singaporean core so that institutions which are being established will take a long-term view and reflect a Singapore identity.

This task is made more difficult as the information and communications technology revolution results in the individual becoming more empowered - a positive development in that it can lead to greater individual responsibility.

But the flip side is a process of self-selection. People read blogs they agree with, search for the like-minded and interact less with those physically present around them. Technology reinforces the decline of social solidarity at the local level even as it creates bonds across borders and distance.

For a country like Singapore, which is at the technological cutting edge and whose population is almost universally connected through the Internet and mobile telephony, it will be increasingly difficult for mass media, long-established religious institutions and universities to exert their traditional influence. Likewise, governments will find that individuals and private groups with shared interests will gain more autonomy and will pay less heed to the concerns of the state.

Although Western observers assume that this transformation will have a democratising effect, it could also lead to greater intolerance and a closing of minds as people only read and hear views they agree with. In China, for example, the ultra-nationalism of online reactions has been a constraint for the government in responding flexibly to developments in relations with the US and territorial disputes with Japan.

A cursory scan of chat groups in Singapore would reveal that they tend to gather those who share identical perspectives, drowning the reactions of dissenting views.

In the next decade, the continued rise of the middle class, divergent economic gains for different sectors and greater individual empowerment with technological change will result in a more fluid social and political landscape in Singapore.

Expect more ideological competition as traditional values are challenged by varied perspectives resulting from a widening of educational opportunities, international exposure and global connectivity.

The risk is that the collective community spirit of the nascent nation of the 1960s will be eroded by the soaring individual well-being of a cosmopolitan and maturing Singapore.
stopinion@sph.com.sg The writer is dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University. This story was first published in The Straits Times on Aug 9, 2013 To subscribe to The Straits Times, please go to http://www.sphsubscription.com.sg/eshop/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Singapore's collective spirit prevail?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHEN August comes around each year and the national flag adorns Housing Board apartments and major buildings, one's thoughts turn to Aug9, 1965. Singaporeans who lived through that period will recall what they were doing when they heard the announcement of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Culturally tight societies like Singapore fare better in Covid-19 fight: Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The study also found that countries with cultural looseness had almost nine times the number of deaths. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with West's view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - Countries have to avoid thinking about economic objectives as separate from social objectives, said Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Thursday (Nov 19).

"If you are not socially sustainable, you are not going to have a competitive economy in the long term," he said, adding that this is something seen across the world.

Speaking during a virtual dialogue at the Singapore Tech Forum, Mr Tharman said a competitive and efficient economy can create a lot more opportunities for people.

But if left entirely to the market, these opportunities become more polarised over time, with those who have an advantage staying ahead and those who start off with less ending up with less, he noted.

"But if you think of an economy as a social ecosystem - not just a business ecosystem - you are able to create opportunities, starting upstream in education, but moving into work, because work is still fundamental to any sense of equality of opportunity," he said.

This will help create a society where everyone feels they and their children are more likely to do well if the economy is doing well, said the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies.

Conversely, in a society that lacks cohesion and has divisions widening over time, it is very hard to sustain an economic strategy that involves being open, finding the most efficient ways of doing things, and being able to grow, he added.

Mr Tharman noted that Singapore is one of the few advanced countries that has managed to sustain the middle majority of its society moving up over the decades.

It has managed to lift up those lower down the ladder not just by tax and transfer, but also by improving jobs, he added.

"There is still a significant work to be done, significant collaboration to upskill people and help them to take opportunities and move up. It will make us a better society. We are not at all done."

Asked by moderator Koh Shiyan from venture capital firm Hustle Fund on his views about culture and social resilience required, Mr Tharman said a sense of "togetherness" among people is needed.

That is different from conformity, different from just sameness, he noted.

"We need a sense of togetherness, but at the same time that we need a greater sense of individualism in thinking, in creating, in wanting to do things differently. And that is not a contradiction."

Unlike the old model of a certain conformity and moving together that East Asia was known for some time ago, the new model is about developing a streak of wanting to be different, but at the same time retaining a sense of togetherness in society, he said.

And I think we can achieve that...You need to have the that sense of individualism in thinking, without being socially individualistic, or where you try to elbow other people out."

Mr Marc Benioff, who is the chair, chief executive and founder of tech firm Salesforce, also participated in the dialogue.

Singapore is a safe haven for companies around the world to do business due to its good governance, he said, citing the country's response to Covid-19.

Unlike many places in the world, Singapore has managed the pandemic's spread well while keeping its workers safe, he added.

During a recent visit to Singapore, Mr Benioff said his employees told him they felt quite safe, and he felt free to meet with customers and conduct business.

"I can work while I was there, wow, that is very important. A functional government that can operate and keep the economy going during a crisis," he said.

The Singapore Tech Forum, a global industry and networking event in its third-year running, is organised by the Singapore Global Network - a division of the Economic Development Board - and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think of the economy as a social ecosystem, says Tharman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Countries have to avoid thinking about economic objectives as separate from social objectives, said Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Thursday (Nov 19). "If you are not socially sustainable, you are not going to have a competitive economy in the long term," he said, adding that this is something seen across the world.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/2020-the-worst-of-times-brings-out-the-best-in-singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Many Singaporeans step up to give their time, money to the needy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pandemic sees a surge in volunteers and donations, as well as ground-up initiatives.
. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/collective-effort-build-singapores-future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A collective effort to build Singapore's future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public Service leaders need to be able to manage diversity, collaborate as a team across agencies and build for the future, says Head of Civil Service Peter Ong.