How do we evaluate China's performance in the post-pandemic era? What are some of China's outbreak control practices that other countries can learn from? What are the lessons to reflect on?
These were some of the topics discussed during a special edition of the Asia Thinker Series supported by CapitaLand (China) on After the pandemic: an objective view on China's actions, policies and mitigation. Associate Professor Alfred Wu and Associate Professor He Jingwei Alex had an online in-depth discussion moderated by Yap Pheng Hui, Commentary Editor at Lianhe Zaobao.
The evolution of the pandemic in China
In view of China's response to the pandemic, Associate Professor He Jingwei Alex from the Department of Asian and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong pointed out that the development of the crisis in China occurred in an inverted U shape and had essentially reached a halt by 23 March 2020. This was due to the success of the lockdown of Wuhan city in containing the spread of the virus.
Prof He added that there are many aspects to reflect on and take stock of with regards to China's handling of the pandemic. He singled out 23 January 2020 as a turning point to when China's pandemic response mechanisms began to show results and prove effective. According to Prof He, unlike with previous epidemics, the inadequate response by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States' weakening role in global epidemic governance also contributed to the worsening of the crisis.
Striking a balance between central-local relations
Associate Professor Alfred Wu from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, highlighted that central-local relations remain crucial to the public governance of China. However, two areas of concern were the over-centralisation of authority at the central government level and an over-decentralisation of power in local governments.
At the initial stages of the outbreak, this over-centralisation of authority resulted in the lengthy process of virus testing and case confirmation being conducted through the central government. However, these processes were later channelled to local governments to handle, thereby accelerating the confirmation of the diagnosis and increasing overall efficiency. Local governments on a provincial level supported each other laterally, with 19 local governments assisting Wuhan – in particular, due to the help of many experienced medical doctors who had dealt with SARS in Guangdong.
China's approach was therefore worth learning from, especially in countries with large populations such as Indonesia. It demonstrated the importance of having seasoned medical teams assisting those with less experience. However, China also faced criticisms regarding information transparency during the crisis. Over-regulation by the central government resulted in local governments having to conceal information. Prof Wu expressed his hope for more institutional improvements in China on the issue of information transparency in the future.
What can other countries learn from China's experience?
Concerning China's experiences in the fight against the pandemic, Prof He felt that the overwhelming number of people affected set this crisis apart from previous ones, and a country's handling of the situation also proved to be a test of government legitimacy, ability to govern and trust in its citizens.
Citing the example of the US, President Trump’s approval ratings have dipped in a sign of how Americans view his response to the crisis as not having met expectations.
Prof He noted two points in particular that other countries could learn from China. Firstly, it is crucial for governments to exercise their full efforts and pull out all stops necessary when dealing with crises of an unprecedented nature involving lives at stake. Secondly, governments should glean knowledge from practice and employ a combination of existing and new measures: for instance, focusing on new innovations such as big data, mobile applications, health QR codes, and tele-medicine; as well as using low-technology methods such as partner assistance between local governments and strict community surveillance.
From 23 January 2020 mark onwards, the Chinese government adopted a highly vigilant response to the pandemic, in a move that could be viewed as excessive. However, China's extensive measures contrasts sharply with that of responses by other countries. While China was initially ill-equipped to deal with the pandemic, experiencing shortages in medical resources and an overstretched healthcare sector, Western countries have also experienced similar challenges after being hit by the outbreak.
Commenting on the relationship between local autonomy and the response to the pandemic, Prof Wu felt that local governments had a greater advantage in terms of information. Unlike in China, public health departments in the United States were helmed by state governments, overseeing the allocation and support of medical resources. In the long run, crisis management still requires good local (regional) governments' governance capacity.
In addition, strong social capital was another factor keeping the spread under control. For example, the enforcement of public health and safety measures such as wearing of face masks cannot wholly be a government effort, and should also depend on public responsibility. Populations in Sweden and Hong Kong dealt with the pandemic more effectively, with travel figures in Sweden dropping dramatically during the pandemic, while in Hong Kong people remained conscientious about wearing masks in public, even if this measure was not government-mandated.
Questions & Answers
The two professors responded to a series of questions from the audience during the forum's Q&A session.
Yap Pheng Hui: How do you evaluate Singapore's response to the epidemic?
Prof Alex He: While [Singapore’s] response to SARS was good in the past, the response to the COVID-19 did not fare as well if we look into the number of confirmed cases in Singapore. But you cannot blame policymakers for [their response] – there was so much uncertainty about the situation.
Prof Alfred Wu: In responding to the pandemic, Singapore's foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan highlighted three factors which played an important role in its policy decisions: medical resources (Singapore has a relatively low fatality rate), the quality of public governance (government decision-making), and social capital (trust and mutual aid among people, which also involves trust in the government).
The role of social capital should be emphasised. In a regional poll (conducted in May 2020) which I participated in, Singaporeans were relatively less worried about the epidemic. This has to do with trust in the government and the government’s relative transparency in its disclosure of information. Other governments should also find ways to reduce public fears.
Yap Pheng Hui: Many countries showed a lack of an agile response to the pandemic. Initially, in Singapore, healthy members of the public were discouraged from wearing masks because of the need to reserve these resources for frontline medical personnel. After the phenomenon of asymptomatic infections emerged, the government introduced free cloth masks for all citizens, which offer some protection. Early testing capabilities were also inadequate and no one could have predicted such a large number of confirmed cases.
Prof Alex He: The ability to test is important. Only when all infected and potentially infected people are tested and screened can the outbreak be completely resolved. Wuhan did not have the kind of testing capacity at the beginning of the outbreak to meet the surge in demand for testing that many countries are now facing.
China currently has the world's largest testing capacity, thanks to its strong industrial capacity and a rapid resumption of production. Singapore still faces significant challenges, as many medical products cannot be supplied by local industries and have to be imported.
Yap Pheng Hui: After the outbreak in Daegu, South Korea was able to test tens of thousands of people a day, and the ability to reach such a testing capacity may have been due to prior preparations. The Singapore government now requires testing for acute respiratory patients aged 13 years and above, which is one of the better measures it has put in place.
If a vaccine is not available post-pandemic, has a very short lifespan, or if the virus mutates quickly, are we going to live with the virus for a prolonged period and how will this impact the global industrial chain?
Prof Alfred Wu: The deglobalisation and anti-immigrant trend in developed countries will gain momentum and in terms of the global industry chain, this will have far-reaching implications.
If medical resources were to be located entirely in one country, for example China, other countries would be concerned and many would rethink the scope of “strategic goods” and the appropriateness of producing them in other countries. This could have big implications for Singapore.
Yap Pheng Hui: In terms of the mobility, countries are now tightening their border controls, with the aviation industry the first to be affected. [For businesses continuity] While online tools like video conferencing can address communication needs, face-to-face contact is still necessary. What are the medium and long-term impacts in these areas?
Prof Alex He: In the long run, there may be a trend towards deglobalisation. When the epidemic first started, many Westerners were resentful of China. There were reports of Asians facing racist attacks in Western countries, and these xenophobic sentiments may continue for a long time. Once Trump's decoupling of the US and China is achieved, the global industrial chain will be hit hard.
Many businesses in the airline industry will go out of business if they are not subsidised. Many western universities, lacking foreign students and government support, will also soon face problems of survival.
Yap Pheng Hui: With the transformation of the digital economy, most of how we work, learn and play now happens online. Will this continue going forward and how will it impact the economy?
Prof Alex He: In the short term, it's good for certain industries such as healthcare. But there is a major impact on the manufacturing sector, and how to restructure and save itself is a major issue.
Prof Alfred Wu: I think it depends on how long the epidemic will continue. In higher education, students want to be able to interact with their teachers face-to-face, so fully online-based teaching is currently not optimal. It is also hoped that better arrangements and initiatives will follow.
Yap Pheng Hui: If the COVID-19 pandemic lasts for five years, just like the Spanish Flu (which cannot be ruled out now), what do you think the new normal would look like?
Prof Alex He: I'm not that pessimistic. Unlike in the past, our medical research capabilities and technological innovations are so advanced that many people expect one-size fits all solution to appear. The economy will be hit in the short term, but will be able to adjust in the long term.
Prof Alfred Wu: I hope it doesn't last two years. At first many experts predicted that it would last at least a year. Looking at the situation now, that seems right. The new normal is for everyone to be prepared in a variety of ways, including adopting certain personal hygiene and social habits.
In the long term, coordinating the movement of people and goods between countries will also be a major issue. Particularly in an age of deglobalisation, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated some of the negative effects of globalisation. Countries that had benefited from international trade and the movement of people, such as China and Singapore, are facing many challenges, which I believe serves new opportunities to review existing public policies.
Watch the full recording of
After the pandemic: an objective view on China’s actions, policies and mitigations below