Ministers of Singapore,

We are writing on behalf of concerned living human beings with inalienable rights and freedoms
who view the government response to the current COVID-19 situation with growing trepidation.

New Governing Principle

This whole COVID19 pandemic response has been based on an implicit assumption which we have
silently agreed because we have not questioned it. We are saying that from now and into the future,
every time an infectious agent appear which can potentially kill people, hypothetically every time a
person goes out and potentially infect somebody, who will potentially infect another person, and
somewhere down that causal chain, it happens that a person who is immune-compromised can
potentially die because of the exposure, then anyone along that causal chain is a murderer.
Therefore, in order not to do that, everyone along that chain must follow whatever the government
dictate, including losing the freedom to assemble, the freedom to travel, the freedom in productive
activities like work, etc.

If we do agree with that assumption, then where do we draw the line? Can the government forcibly
remove us from our own home, herd us to a “quarantine camp” to prevent infection to others? How
about if they can remove OUR children from our home because either our children or us have gotten
an infection? Does government have the right to forcefully vaccinate and fill us with drugs without
our consent? Because if ever such a situation should happen to us, when we argue that we did
nothing wrong and do not deserve this treatment, the government will not see us as blameless
individuals, but as potential murderers in the causal chain, purely because we did not speak up
against this assumption.

Going back to that same assumption, because someone happens to accidentally breed mosquitoes
which lead to dengue deaths, is that person a murderer? How about because the government
choose to lock down, causing less workers to do the necessary spraying? Does that mean the
murders can be attributed to the ministers who approve the lockdown? Looking at this, you can see
how nonsensical this causal chain argument is. There is always risk in life, and nobody has all the
information, we can conceivably die any time from any number of things, and to specifically target
COVID19 as the ONE thing that we have to guard against at all costs run against what is true in life.
My argument would have been up for debate if there is a 20% death rate, or even a 5% death rate,
but as we will see later in this letter, nothing of this sort is happening.

You may argue to say, that is not fair to the government. They know that there is a virus, but they
do not know that the dengue cases will increase. They did what they did based on what they know at
that point in time. If you, the ministers, are saying this, great! I plan to outline all the arguments for
why it is NO longer valid to hold us in lockdown as well as keep to what is termed “The New
Normal”. With this new information, I hope you can all make a more enlightened decision based on
what you now know.

Taking Responsibility and Accepting Risks

There is another implicit belief that we must discuss. Is the role of the government to mandate
responsibility and deciding how much risks every individual is to take when both these choices can
be made by us, the people?
In other words, the current position is to make everything mandatory – wearing masks, deciding
whether we can visit friends, socialize, work, etc. If we do not do this, then we are charged with an
offence. If we are adults, can’t we make all these choices on our own?

For those people who are concerned, you can take all necessary precautions to protect yourself,
including not going out and stopping your own work activities, but to ask everyone in Singapore with
different risk tolerances to follow one set of risk tolerance, and for that matter, the lowest possible,
seems a bit draconian. Where do we set this bar anyway? Who gets to decide? The government? If
we allow the government to decide for us, then that opens up tremendous potential for misuse of
power. As individuals with the right to choose, each of us can and should make our own mind on
how much risk we are willing to take and take the responsibility that comes with that decision. To
say that is selfish and not considerate of the others is to ignore the power of personal choice and
responsibility.

You can wear a full suit of hospital gear to go everywhere you want, even sleep with it if you want to
because you are afraid (since presumably that is the safest), but do not expect everyone to follow. If
you are concerned that your actions will impact others in your family, then you can talk it over with
your family members on what is best for your family. We do not need the government to come in to
make decisions for us when each of us (as individual and family unit) can make our decision for
ourselves without creating any harm to others.