It was only a few weeks before the publication of this article that Singapore's response to the coronavirus pandemic was being held up by many as a model response around the world, with the city-state reporting low numbers of confirmed infections while imposing limited social and economic restrictions.
In the middle of March, when the number of confirmed cases was reaching the thousands in neighbouring countries of Southeast Asia, Singapore was able to report just a few hundred incidences of the virus.
However, things have changed quickly in recent weeks, after the number of cases began to spike in early April. A turning point came when more than 100 cases were confirmed in two dormitories that were home to migrant workers.
Since then, the numbers have kept rising, now surpassing 23,000, with migrant workers being the most heavily affected. As part of plans to try and prevent the virus from spreading further, the government introduced increasingly strict measures, collectively known as "a circuit breaker".
There's a simple lesson here: that no country can afford to become complacent in thinking they have been able to bring the virus under control.
The danger of overconfidence
When infection numbers were low, Singapore's status as a city-state played to its advantage, creating the perception that its containment strategy was more effective, says Assistant Professor Taha Hameduddin from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
"However, these very reasons may have an opposite effect and instil overconfidence in Singapore's ability to contain the virus," adds Professor Hameduddin. "One example of this was the lack of individual compliance towards social distancing directives early on, since cases of local transmission were perceived to be under control."
He explains that the perceptions of good governance can work as a "double edged" sword, since a narrative that the majority of new cases are limited to foreign workers' dormitories could also lead the rest of the population to taking the threat of the virus less seriously.
This demonstration of how quickly the situation can change presents an opportunity to consider personal behaviours in responding to the crisis. While one should always keep in mind official rules and advisories, it can be useful to have a view where official directives provide a guide in setting a threshold that one should not cross, but where in specific circumstances, one can afford to be marginally more cautious.
Different approaches towards the same problem
However, in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, this isn't necessarily an easy sell to the general public. In some countries the like the United Kingdom, an argument has been made that imposing social distancing measures early on could lead to "behavioural fatigue" whereby individuals start ignoring the rules, precisely at the moment when they are needed the most. However, it is important to note that the science behind this concept remains unclear.
Professor Hameduddin says that different countries have taken their own approaches to encouraging people to take the virus seriously, including ethical appeals aimed at demonstrating how a lack of social distancing could affect an elderly relative, or demonstrating what happens when individuals "break the chain" of virus transmission.
But for how long can such appeals work? "One way to counter [behavioural fatigue] is through crisis communication, where elected leaders and officials provide clear and consistent communication that encourages individuals to change their behaviour," explains Professor Hameduddin.
He added that measures viewed as being preventative instead of reactionary could increase confidence in the government's ability to mitigate the virus, as well as the individual responsibility that is required.
Taiwan has followed this track to good effect, according to Professor Ruby Huang, School of Medicine, National Taiwan University. She says the authorities made their policy measures known in a way that achieved, "high visibility and fast penetration," and reached the targeted population.
She points to the government's "transparent and down-to-earth approach" as key to their success. "The language chosen by the Taiwanese government has avoided terms which would require deep technical knowledge," she says.
She compared that to Singapore's use of the term "circuit breaker". "More straight forward language such as "lock down" which is easy for the public to understand would lessen the effort required from the task force to communicate its literal meaning. The choice of this wording further created barriers with the public, especially those [like the older generation] who do not use English as the main language of communication."
How organisations are adapting
Amid this new normal created by the pandemic, a major shift has occurred in terms of how organisations can structure the way that their staff operate. In fact, telecommuting has become the default way of working due to social distancing guidelines.
In March, Boston Consulting Group (BCG) estimated there were up to 300 million office workers operating remotely across the world. This number is likely to be much higher now as many more nations have gone into lockdown since.
However, due to the rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 situation, many businesses found themselves stuck initially as they were not sufficiently prepared to move all their operations online. There was the issue of securing proper equipment for every employee, and new practices had to be implemented to ensure cybersecurity.
Another concern was the quality of Internet connection. With everyone working and attending classes from home, the large volume of users might slow down the connectivity or even cause a service outage — like how Starhub users in Singapore faced a major service disruption on April 15 for a large part of the day.
However, there is so much more to going digital than merely utilising technology. It also involves rethinking the skills needed for every employee to be able to utilise these technological tools efficiently and safely.
In the midst of so much uncertainty, many organisations are also putting more emphasis on the wellbeing of their employees. A large concern regarding long-term remote work is the risk of social isolation. Being cooped up at home all day, toiling away in front of a screen can be detrimental to mental health, leading to issues like burnout, depression and anxiety.
Empathy makes a difference, so managers and team leaders should take some time out of their day to reach out to their colleagues during this period. Another strategy that companies can adopt is to set aside some time for their employees to interact and socialise with one another via video conferencing tools. All these can help mitigate the effects of long-term remote working.
Despite the numerous challenges that many corporations face during the initial switch towards remote working, it is fair to say that the transition has been largely successful. As companies are pivoting towards this remote working model during COVID-19, it remains to be seen if telecommuting becomes a permanent feature in the future of work.
However, Professor Hameduddin warns that talk of a complete shift in behaviours as a result of COVID-19 are not inevitable.
"In general, remote work may allow individuals more autonomy in their work, but it may also exacerbate existing psychological problems such as a low morale, increased job stress, and increased isolation," says Professor Hameduddin. "This is especially true when individuals need to rely on each other the most, i.e., while experiencing a pandemic and its isolating effects, in addition to the fatigue faced by increasing restrictions on the day to day activities of normalcy."
Photo credit: Wang Yu Ching