Disclaimer: This article is meant to be an opinion piece. The views expressed in the article are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, organisation or individual. All views expressed in the article belong to the author unless explicitly stated.
2021- The Year of Vaccinations
Article first published on Medium on 4 January 2022.
2021 has come and gone, another year marked with living with Covid-19. It has been a year since I wrote ‘Placemaking in a post-Covid-19 World’. It did feel like yesterday when I wrote that. I wrote that article with a tinge of optimism because I genuinely believe that things would get better. Well, some might argue that international borders are starting to reopen, vaccinated travel lanes are getting more traction. Less and lifting of restrictions on citizens. Indeed, we have held out well to where we are now, but this fight against Covid-19 is far from over. That optimism I had is starting to fizzle with an uncertain future, yet-to-discover variants, and roadmaps filled with unpredictable changes. It’s time to ask a question so pertinent to 2021, especially after the introduction and distribution of vaccines: are public spaces truly public?
When I wrote my previous article in December 2020, vaccines were not yet available for the majority of the general public. Singapore received its first shipment of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines on 21 December 2020. 9 days later on 30 December 2020, Singapore started its vaccination programme. It was not till 2021 where the majority of the population would complete the 2 doses of vaccination. And as of 27 December 2021, 87% of the total population have completed the full regime of 2 doses, making Singapore one of the highest vaccinated countries in the world.
I had my 1st booster shot on the morning of 31st December 2021, meaning that I have 3 doses of vaccines in my body, more than enough to be counted as a ‘fully-vaccinated’ person at the time of writing. However, with waning protection over the months it seems that governments around the world are entertaining the thought of additional booster shots. Israel is doing it. Singapore is considering doing it.
At the start of 2021, we were encouraged to get vaccinated. Now we had to get vaccinated to enter most public spaces. Not doing so results in major inconveniences. Governments have provided reasons such as that there will be less strain on the healthcare system, that vaccinated individuals are better protected against Covid-19 and therefore less prone to spread. Statistics have shown that the vaccinated who got infected would have a higher chance of getting milder symptoms from Covid-19, and would not require hospitalisation as much as unvaccinated-infected people.
Take-up rate of vaccines
Is the take-up rate favourable? Herd immunity was out of the question early on in the year, vaccines now reduce symptoms of infection and not completely prevent getting infected itself. Yes as citizens we ought to spare a thought for the safety of our fellow citizens and more importantly for our own families, and the onus is on us to ensure that we make the best possible decision at the current juncture, all things considered. In the case of Singapore, the take-up rate of vaccines is definitely favourable.
How have public spaces been affected by vaccines?
Perhaps one of the greatest impacts on public spaces in 2021 is the introduction of vaccine-differentiated measures (VDM) imposed by various governments across the world. These have resulted in more than just inconveniences among the unvaccinated. Last year in October 2021, Singapore’s Ministry of Health stipulated that unvaccinated individuals were required to undergo pre-event testing (PET) and that a negative test result is needed to be granted entry into shopping malls, hawker centres, retail and F&B establishments, etc.
Closely tied with public spaces is placemaking, a topic that I’ve discussed in my article in 2020. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has published a Placemaking book titled ‘How to make a great place’, with lessons taken from Singapore. On pages 10 and 11 of the book, it shows a graph taken from an online survey published by Design Singapore Council. Conducted from March-April 2021 from a pool of 2,000 respondents aged 16 and above, the survey was about finding the places people love in their neighbourhoods and their reasons. From the survey, the top 3 places people love in their neighbourhoods are:
- Supermarkets (46%)
- Neighbourhood shopping malls (46%)
- Hawker centres (44%)
As to reasons why people love these places in their neighbourhoods, the top 3 reasons were:
- I can spend time with my loved ones there (48%)
- I can take a breather and escape from everyday life there (35%)
- I feel a sense of attachment to the places (30%)
In Singapore, shopping malls are an indispensable identity node in neighbourhoods. In every neighbourhood, you’ll be able to find a shopping mall within its vicinity. Everyday amenities and services like supermarkets, pharmacies, family clinics, etc. are located in these neighbourhood shopping malls. These malls come in various scales depending on the size of the neighbourhood, and many of these malls are linked to underground train stations and bus interchanges- public transportation that help people get around the country. Whilst VDM does not prevent the unvaccinated from using public transport, it does in some way provide them with a false sense of hope should they want to purchase a drink beyond the station’s gantry and into the mall. These are the instances of inconveniences. Buying a drink now would have to be done at a shop outside a mall.
The recent announcement by the government and updated as of 22 December 2021 will now see a change in stance regarding the unvaccinated. A negative PET result for the unvaccinated will no longer work and are denied entry when the new rules started on 1 January 2022. The unvaccinated will not be able to return to their workplaces starting from 15 January 2022. The government calls this a ‘concession’ that ended when 2022 began. Surely it doesn’t affect the majority of the populace since the majority of them are vaccinated? Well, with Singapore looking to change its fully vaccinated status to a 3 dose regime, one can begin to think otherwise. Mentally preparing for a 4th vaccine dose at the end of the year would not seem like a far-fetched idea either. Does this mean that access to public spaces would then entail a time limit, counting down to the next booster dose for renewed access? Going back to the graph above, how will this affect people’s perception of placemaking? After all, the top 3 places that people love and are fond of are public spaces.
A Smart city is a Safe City?
According to the Smart City Index (SCI), Singapore has remained the smartest city in the world for 3 years. In SCI’s context, a smart city is an ‘urban setting that applies technology to enhance the benefits and diminish the shortcomings of urbanisation for its citizens.’
Singapore is a city-state that has been pushing for the adoption and integration of technology in its everyday life. The Smart Nation Initiative started on 24 November 2014 shows its commitment in its push to becoming a smart nation of the future. Since the inception of the program, there have been several milestones reflected on its website. Some of these initiatives include the National Steps Challenge™ by the Health Promotion Board in 2015. Under the program, step trackers are distributed to citizens to promote an active and healthy lifestyle. Participants sync their daily step count to an app and get rewarded based on their participation. In 2016, the Housing Development Board unveiled its ‘Smart HDB Town Framework’, mapping out smart initiatives across 5 key areas: Planning, Environment, Estate, Living, and Community. These 5 areas highlighted will see smart initiatives carried out over the years to enhance the lives of Singaporeans through the use of technology.
During the pandemic, Singapore has developed technology to help reduce the spread of transmission through contact tracing. SafeEntry was announced in March and implemented in April 2020. It is a QR code set up outside high-contact areas, like supermarkets and food courts. People had to scan the QR code to enter these places. TraceTogether is an app implemented in March 2020. It uses Bluetooth technology to exchange anonymised proximity information. Originally existing as 2 separate apps, SafeEntry and TraceTogether were combined and implemented on 17 May 2021, and became an essential requirement to enter many indoor public spaces. The first VDM started on 10 August 2021.
The reason I’ve included the dates was to show the timeframe of how quick decisions were made, rightly so due to the nature and unpredictability of the pandemic. The size of Singapore was a reasonable consideration as well. However, some citizens felt betrayed, while political experts acknowledged a reduced trust in the TraceTogether programme after the government backpedalled on statements made by ministers that app data is solely used for contact tracing. The data collected can be used in circumstances where citizen safety and security is or has been affected.
The issue of privacy in technology is a huge talking point. It becomes a greater debate when the technology is applied to cities and countries. Below I have quoted 2 paragraphs from Peter Guest’s article titled ‘Singapore’s tech-utopia dream is turning into a surveillance state nightmare’ published on Rest of World, a non-profit journalism organisation. In his article, he discussed the role of technology in Singapore’s context and gave examples to substantiate his opinion.
‘Singapore has built a global brand out of its schoolmasterly for-your-own-good discipline, with disproportionately severe punishments — including the death penalty for drug smuggling — acting as a deterrent against disruptions to good social order. For those who stay inside the lines, it offers comfort, prosperity, and a textureless sort of freedom; the average citizen is expected to trust the government to deliver safety, in exchange for a certain loss of control over their individual liberties. Technology is becoming an increasingly visible part of that bargain.’
. . .
‘The pandemic has given a good cover for this expansion; an all-encompassing emergency that allows any individual to be redefined as a threat to the public order…’
We can ignore his point on the death penalty for drug smuggling since it’s not germane to this article in particular, his other points however would ring a familiar tune in the minds of some Singaporeans.
Future of smart cities: Technocratic and Human-centred cities
There are 2 types of cities in which a smart city can evolve into. The Technocratic city and the Human-centric city. In both evolutions, technology will still remain a central core in the city workings. The difference (I’m condensing here) is that in a Technocratic city, surveillance and safety would be emphasised, and efficiency would be an overarching principle in its day-to-day runnings. A Human-centred city is what its name sounds like. A city that has a human-centred approach in its planning, ground-up initiatives, and communities and collaboration between the citizens, state, and stakeholders. Both Technocratic and Human-centred cities aren’t so much of a dystopian/utopian city per se, but as a way of thinking about how future smart cities can grow into. The way I see it, cities ought to pursue a mix of both worlds, but a more human-centred approach is needed when it comes to interactions with the citizens in both policymaking and city planning.
What can we expect for the future of public spaces? Does VDM become justified tools of segregation and public spaces justified places of exclusivity? These are conversations that need to be carried out– for everyone’s participation in public spaces is necessary in order to achieve a more human-centric city of the future. I leave the final interpretation to you dear reader, but I shall end the article with a quote by Blaise Pascal’s ‘Pensées’ on justice and might, taken out of, or with no context, intended purely as food for thought.
‘It is right that what is just should be obeyed; it is necessary that what is strongest should be obeyed. Justice without might is helpless; might without justice is tyrannical. Justice without might is gainsaid because there are always offenders; might without justice is condemned. We must then combine justice and might, and for this end make what is just strong, or what is strong just.
Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognised and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gainsaid justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.’
Leave a Reply