AsiaGlobal Voices

The three requirements to deal with the Covid-19 crisis successfully are a well-prepared health system, good governance and social capital. Working together, they will flatten the curve of the rise of the disease, preventing our healthcare system from being overwhelmed and minimizing the economic and social impact, especially for the poor.

The government needs to have targeted policy responses instead of a general “divide-by n: approach” in which everybody gets an equal share. It has announced a 27.1-billion-peso (US$527.5 million) financial package, of which 24 billion pesos (US$467 million) are for economic and social costs. This is about 0.13 percent of GDP. Australia’s stimulus package is 0.93 percent of GDP, while in the US, their proposed package is 4.7 percent of GDP.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) worst-case scenario for the impact of Covid-19 on the Philippines is a drop of 1.7 percent of GDP and a loss of 730,000 jobs. The government’s rescue package allocates 2.8 billion pesos (US$54.5 million) to farmers and fisherfolk, with a maximum 25,000 pesos per borrower. That means the fund will accommodate 112,000 borrowers. According to the agriculture census, the Philippines has about 5 million farmers and fisherfolk.

If the Philippines is to get through the crisis without hurting the poor badly, the government has to go back to the drawing board and find a better way. It has thanked the tycoons and oligarchs for cooperating with the government. They should be acknowledged, but remember that they are giving from their excess, not from their substance. They will make less profits, but they will not be losing.

Are you the kind of Filipino who thinks not of “me” but of “we”, gives of your substance even though it hurts, and does not seek glory? 

The coronavirus is the world’s first neoliberal virus. This is because of how governments around the world – even in the better social welfare capitalist states in Europe such as Denmark – have confronted it. While countries have shut down, other necessary measures have not been implemented. 

One of the most crucial is testing. This is a neoliberal response even in places with good healthcare systems. The burden of stopping the virus is being passed on to ordinary citizens who must isolate themselves while the government issues directives but spends as little as possible. This is not a surprise. Whenever corporations or banks have stumbled, governments have pumped money into them, while cutting public services including healthcare and research. This is happening again.

Rumors have it that the virus scare in China, combined with the racism in the West when anything bad happens in non-white nations, sent American and European investors into a panic. They sold shares in Chinese companies, which were then snapped up by the Chinese government and Chinese investors. Now, with China apparently in control of the virus, it would seem that they have gained more control of their economy too. Meanwhile, after briefings on the coronavirus, American legislators unloaded shares before the US market fell. Once again, this points to a neoliberal virus.

The UK openly conceded that many old people would need to die before the virus is brought under control. Politicians backtracked, saying they were doing their duty but not lying to the people. But were they? Or were they influenced by neoliberal logic that financial value is the only value that matters?

Steps to eradicate bats as a result of their alleged role in spreading the coronavirus are unreasonable, representing a form of panic without foundation whether from the perspective of science or animal welfare. The regent of Subang in West Java has issued a memorandum calling on the public to eradicate bats in their surroundings. 

Plenty of scientific articles discuss the role of bats in spreading viruses including emerging infectious diseases. While it is true that bats often carry viruses related to those that affect the respiratory system in humans, the connection is not a direct one. For humans to be affected requires a complex process involving a third-party animal. There is, therefore, no reason to declare war on bats. 

What we need to do is work in a more systematic way rather than descend into panic. The closure of markets selling wild animals for food needs to be accompanied with a ban on hunting. The chain of the marketing of wild commodities needs to be broken. 

The tragic way in which Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been vilified on social media must stop. A video posted on Facebook of him with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong should be taken down. As the country struggles to get through the Covid-19 pandemic, we should behave as adults. “We have a solemn obligation to help the nation, our countrymen and the president.” 

Some corporations in the private sector have responded in an exemplary way, announcing such initiatives as aid for government hospitals, donations to poor communities, the creation of funds to battle the pandemic, the waiver of rental charges to tenants, and efforts to support employees, including the continuation of salary and bonus payments. More and more companies will be taking such steps in the coming weeks.

Education is the key to empowerment of girls and the fulfilment of their dreams. A good education is a powerful force that contributes to making our society more just, equitable, humane and sustainable. 

Over the past 20 years, India has made real progress in education. Government schools are accessible to almost all villages, with primary schools usually within walking distance. Primary enrolment is nearly universal, with gender parity of access.to early classes. The thinking on education has become more progressive.

We urgently need to develop and adopt a new comprehensive policy framework for education. An excellent move in this direction is the draft National Education Policy (NEP) unveiled in May 2019. This laid out a comprehensive, nuanced and integrated road map for the transformation Indian education.

It recommends access to high-quality public education as the way forward and calls for substantial increase in investment to enable this expansion and improve public education at all levels. Vibrant, high-quality and equitable public education will be the foundation of Indian society.

As the NEP outlines, India should strive to attain high-quality early childhood care and education and ensure that every student achieves age-appropriate levels of development in their first five years of school. Curricula and teaching frameworks should be redesigned. There should be significant investment to ensure equitable inclusion of disadvantaged groups. Well trained teachers must be at the center of the education system. 

A new institutional architecture for higher education is needed, with some consolidation of universities and colleges. The NEP requires regulatory reform of higher education to ensure that institutions have greater autonomy that enables them to improve quality.

The final NEP should not be diluted from the carefully formulated draft that includes bold, progressive measures. These must not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency or extraneous compulsion.

There is nothing unusual when every year on March 8 we celebrate International Women’s Day. It is an opportunity to reflect on how far women have been able to achieve equality, welfare and a democratic lifestyle free from violence. The most important task facing us at the moment is to free women from a variety of forms of sexual abuse.

Recently, there has been an escalation of sexual violence toward women. It does not only occur in the real world but also online and in the privacy of our homes – for instance, in the form of incest. Sexual abuse is committed in public spaces such as public transport. Rather than providing a place for relaxation and rest, what happens is that unreasonable behavior occurs, with victims experiencing trauma and a reduction in their quality of life.

Based on data from the National Women’s Commission, in 2019 there were 5,509 cases of sexual violence against women. We may not want to admit it, but from year to year, many issues confronting women fail to get the required attention and indeed are often ignored.

The Covid-19 outbreak has drawn public attention to the source of the virus: wild animals. Many wild animals carry viruses, bacteria, parasites and other organisms, which could endanger human health. Consumption of wild animals is not only a dangerous habit but can destroy the balance of the ecological environment. Unsurprisingly, the recent complete ban on consumption of wild animals by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has received widespread public support.

The ban, however, has also generated some controversy over exactly which animals can still be farmed and eaten, especially regarding amphibians such as turtles, soft-shelled turtles and frogs, which remain common delicacies across China. The question affects many citizens who are employed in the food sector, as well as millions of farmers. 

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has provided an official answer to whether bullfrogs and soft-shelled turtles can still be eaten following the banning wild animal consumption. These animals have been included in a list of Protected Economic Aquatic Animals and Plants Resources under State Protection and can therefore be cultured and eaten in accordance with the management of aquatic species. 

This example shows why a framework is urgently needed to identify exactly which wildlife are banned and to ensure that those that are indeed safe to eat will not be mistakenly included in this category. As such, all localities and relevant departments should further clarify the relevant standards and scientific factors needed to determine the scope of the ban. This will help ensure strict compliance to the new regulations as well as preventing any unnecessary loss to economic livelihoods. In addition, it will be necessary to continue strengthening the inspection of the farming bullfrogs, soft-shelled turtles and so on to improve health and safety supervision.

China's handling of the Covid-19 outbreak has already achieved steady results. The situation overseas, however, is indicating a clear and rapid upward trend. Meanwhile, several overseas imported cases are beginning to appear across China. Considering such a severe situation, three key measures should be implemented to win the global fight against the virus.

First, implement a pre-entry health notification system. This would involve visitors providing certificates of good health from the health agency of their country of origin. In addition, all visitors should strengthen their sense of responsibility and self-control by truthfully reporting their health condition honestly to authorities.

Second, screening measures during entry should be enhanced through the implementation of a health review system. Border authorities must perform a complete inspection of health declarations for all people entering and exiting the country, while strictly carrying out temperature monitoring and conducting medical inspections utilizing face-recognition technology. 

Third, an isolation system must be enforced with a strict 14-day centralized quarantine for those from countries with severe epidemics. While guided by scientific principles of prevention and control, this must fully respect the reasonable demands of visitors, while taking account of their religion and customs. Technologies such as mobile applications should be deployed to track the movement of visitors to maximize the protection of vulnerable groups. 

China, alongside other countries, have already taken measures to reduce the frequency of flights between Japan and South Korea. It is necessary to observe closely the epidemic situation in the United States and Europe with timely adjustments made to the measures taken to monitor and control foreign visitors to China.

In keeping up with the chatter among experts and observers from both inside and outside Indonesia, we have to conclude that the retreat of democracy in Indonesia over the past few years is connected to the stagnation of civil society. If this stagnation continues, the fate of democracy in the country becomes increasingly unsure. 

In the past, institutions and international advocates of democracy praised Indonesia as a “full democracy” because of a public that was alive, dynamic and motivated. But some political developments over the past few years, especially relating to democracy and governance, have stripped civil society of its enthusiasm. 

Peter van Tuijl, a civil society expert and democracy activist who lived for a long time in Indonesia, writes that civil society is now on the defensive. Surveys in Indonesia confirm this picture. 

On February 22, the Student Union of Thailand organized a brief rally at Thammasat University to protest the Constitutional Court’s decision to dissolve the Future Forward Party (FFP), or Phak Anakhot Mai. FFP’s legislators had been stripped of their status and its executive committee members banned from politics for ten years. Thai social media has since been abuzz.

Thai-Swedish model Maria Poonlertlap said she was proud of Thai students for protesting but admitted to being concerned about tweeting this and thought carefully before doing so. “As we are among the influencers, we should ask what an influencer's role is if we do not share our opinions or values with our followers or those who look up to us. I feel that it's time to say something,” she said, emphasizing that expressing opinions is natural in a democratic society.

In the past, celebrities putting forward their views have attracted strong criticism from the public, negatively affecting the actors or singers concerned. Many such public figures have had to apologize or refrain from making comments.

In an interview, Sunny Suwanmethanon, a Thai actor of French-Singaporean extraction, questioned the organizers behind the protest. "If anyone is to blame, it must be those who incited it because nobody thinks anyone is wrong, yet they were encouraged by others to do this, which they didn't think was wrong. Where will it end?”

Thai-American TV host Winyu Wongsurawat, known as John Winyu, posted on Twitter afterwards: "I don’t want to offend anyone, but has any student been incited to come out?" Since then, Sunny has faced a backlash, with the hashtag “#Sunny is sweet?” trending and a public campaign calling on people to stop following the actor's Instagram account.

Hong Kong’s 2020 Budget included the surprise announcement that every permanent resident aged 18 or above would receive a cash handout of HK$10,000 (US$1,282). The aim: to assist businesses and citizens affected by the Covid-19 outbreak and to boost consumption. While Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po denied that the handouts were to promote the popularity of the government, this decision was politically motivated.  

First, the pro-Beijing camp suffered a huge defeat in district council elections in November 2019 and as a result they are in urgent need of financial support. The government knows that if they do not provide such support it would anger legislators and weaken the pro-Beijing camp. 

Second, the budget provides a substantial increase in resources to the police force. The pan-democrats would inevitably oppose this. But it creates a dilemma for them as they would have to choose between opposing the cash handouts or indirectly supporting police brutality. 

Third, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has already exhausted her political capital. The only effective instrument the government can use to restore the slightest amount of trust in its governance would be through freeing up some of its HK$1.1 trillion (US$141 billion) in reserves.

The government’s reasons for the handout are misleading. While the public has largely welcomed the giveaway, the government should not believe that money can please all citizens, heal the anger at the establishment, or compensate for its mistakes in handling the epidemic. Hong Kong citizens have only one good reason for asking the government to provide handouts – that is, because there is such a huge fiscal reserve. 

This policy is a political gamble. The government has invested an unprecedented HK$71 billion (US$9.1 billion) on a bet. Whether it achieves the desired results will depend on how sophisticated its gambling skills are.

In the world of politics, there is a saying “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it”. Today, many people are shocked, including supporters of President Joko Widodo, because it appears that he intends to realize his campaign promises at full speed. Two draft omnibus bills – one on tax and the other on job creation – are in front of the parliament and at the center of public attention. 

Indonesia needs a breakthrough, and these laws are it. In essence, the concept is harmonization, integration and simplification of various regulations that have created distortions in our economy. The draft omnibus laws represent an ideal middle way in creating an Indonesian welfare state. Our industrial relations can become more flexible, while continuing to respect the rights of workers.  

They will create a situation in which Indonesia can adapt more rapidly to change and become more transparent and competitive. That does not mean these draft omnibus laws are perfect, but the opportunity is there for discussion. 

Until the outbreak at Shincheonji Church, South Koreans had been watching the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus (known as COVID-19) in China with half anxiety and half sympathy. But now, the situation has changed. The coronavirus has become South Korea’s own conflagration.

How did it come to this? In short, it is the result of President Moon Jae-in’s complacency and pride. The fierce diffusion of the coronavirus is testing the leaders of affected countries – Xi Jinping of China, Shinzo Abe of Japan and Moon – and their failure to prevent it at an early stage and inadequate response during its spread have wounded them.

Until the spread of the coronavirus exploded at Shincheonji Church, Moon had enjoyed a 64 percent approval rating. Despite repeated advice from the doctors’ association to block the influx of people from China, Moon was optimistic, given the small number of infections, even saying flattering and humiliating statements such as “China’s difficulty is our difficulty”.

Why do our leaders, especially those on the left, become intimidated by China as if it held the key to the Korean peninsula? Do they have the DNA of historical subservience? Do they fear the economic impact? Or do they expect some sort of influence over North Korea?

What did the Moon administration hope to gain by ignoring the people’s plea and leaving the China door open? In addition to this China-propelled disease, South Korea is suffering from an internal illness called the loss of leadership.

The decision of President Joko Widodo not to repatriate Islamic State (IS) sympathizers due to their potential security threat to the public may be justified in the context of the fight against terrorism. Other officials have stated that this will render them stateless. In formulating a counterterrorism policy, the state must fulfill its obligations in upholding the liberty of the person in a permanent balance with the protection of his or her security. The revocation of the citizenship of Indonesians who have joined IS is neither reasonable nor justifiable.

The revocation of citizenship does not solve terrorism; it instead legitimizes IS as a state. The IS sympathizers are legally Indonesian citizens, and the government cannot evade its constitutional mandate in dealing with them. Further, the government’s authority to rescind citizens’ citizenship has no legal grounds.

Leaving them stateless may breed new problems for global security. As we do not have any measure to closely monitor them, they can still re-enter Indonesia through its porous borders.

After the end of the Cold War, the US and China pursued a "constructive strategic partnership", where Beijing was expected to become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international system. Following more than a decade of the US pivot to Asia, however, the pace of US-China decoupling has started to accelerate. Many are now wondering whether a "new Cold War" between Beijing and Washington has begun.

On February 8, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech on the strategic competition between US and China. He outlined the Trump administration’s hardline stance on China. Pompeo mentioned Taiwan six times, the most significant public recognition of Taipei by a high-level US official since 1971.

In addition to Taiwan, the US has made the military, geopolitics, trade, technology, currency, and supply chains all diplomatic battlegrounds with China. There are now restrictions on Chinese admissions to US universities, academic exchanges, visas and employment in scientific laboratories.

Combined with the rapid spread of the Covid-19 virus, which is weakening bilateral economic cooperation and restricting the free movement of people, these moves are accelerating the pace of US-China decoupling. With Taiwan caught in the middle, cross-strait relations are likely to become more treacherous.

Improvements in mainland-Taiwan ties during the previous Kuomintang government were a result of mutual understanding between the decision makers on both sides. Beijing's policy towards Taipei has shifted from "anti-Taiwan independence" to "promoting reunification”. Yet it would be a big strategic mistake to take a stern rather than benevolent approach to cross-strait relations. It is important to stress that what Taiwan despises is one-party Communist rule and not their mainland compatriots. While the Covid-19 virus is wreaking havoc across China, Taiwan should not decouple from their compassion and sympathy for Chinese citizens.