Written By : R.Gunasekaran
A member of one of Singapore’s Opposition parties — Progress Singapore Party — resigned last Wednesday after intense criticism of comments he made comparing the Singapore government’s response to Covid-19 to the actions of the Nazis.
The Israeli embassy in Singapore even stepped in to criticise posts made by Brad Bowyer where he implied that Singapore’s current Covid-19 restrictions and the pressure being exerted on citizens to take Covid-19 vaccines were leading the country down a Nazi path.
Bowyer, who wasn’t an MP, resigned and the party leadership issued a statement saying they did not endorse his anti-vaccine position.
And that ended the matter.
The incident does raise some important issues. How is Singapore going to deal with its small but vocal anti-vaccine community and what are the acceptable limits of free speech on this issue for people and politicians?
The extent of the pressure on people to get the vaccine is also unprecedented.
Today in Singapore, unvaccinated persons cannot dine out in groups of more than two while the vaccinated can gather in groups of up to five.
There are also restrictions on the unvaccinated participating in some indoor gatherings and activities. There have even been reports of some public toilets refusing entry to the unvaccinated.
Surely there should always be space to express scepticism of prevailing wisdom, but this conversation is becoming increasingly difficult to have. Not just in Singapore but across the world.
The United States has seen a split along its party lines — so much so any opinion on this topic is now a political stand no matter one’s individual rationale or reasoning.
Interestingly, a new study by Carnegie Mellon University shows that the most educated are the least likely to get jabbed so a lot of these fears are much more than misinformation or conspiracy theories about the government installing chips into our bodies.
The political nature of the conversation has undermined a lot of efforts to encourage vaccine adoption.
For example, when Trump’s administration first mentioned the necessity of a vaccine — granted in Trump’s now trademark incoherent fashion — the opposing side shut it down as unrealistic and dangerous.
At that point, the criticism to his championing of a “quick” solution were valid — was there enough time to safely test before roll-out?
In fact, in May of last year, MSNBC’s medical expert said it was “impossible” for there to be a safe and effective vaccine ready so fast.
Of course, the nature of these developments changes as we get more data, and our conclusions will shift accordingly. So, of course what seemed ridiculous a year ago is now possible — but such rapid developments do merit questioning.
Personally, I am fully vaccinated, but I see no reason to alienate a friend or family member who chooses not to.
And the more we try to shut down a conversation or disagreement, the further we will be divided.
