At the peak of the pandemic in 2020, NUS joined hands with the Multi-Ministry Taskforce to tackle an unprecedented challenge for Singapore: how do we create sufficient recovery facilities for the tens of thousands of migrant workers in order to curb the raging virus that was spreading across the dormitories?

We sprung into action and emptied our hostel rooms at Prince George’s Park Residences (PGPR) during the long vacation from May to July, and committed this timely asset to reinforce the national efforts. In fact, we did more than just availing the rooms. Students across our hostels stepped up spontaneously and put together an online programme called Guest Students@NUS for the migrant workers to do daily exercises, enjoy song and dance performances online, learn basic skills such as financial literacy and conversational English.

This experience culminated in a dignified send-off when the workers completed their stay with us, where each of them received a gift pack reminiscent of the extraordinary hospitality that took them by surprise. In retrospect, we offered more than a safe space for recovery; we offered a learning experience and a glimpse into the heart of the NUS community.

While this exercise is done and dusted, a few learning points illuminated more strongly on hindsight:

(1) We have a sizeable hostel capacity that can do a lot more than just providing accommodation;

(2) With thoughtful planning, a living space can be a good learning space; and

(3) If you can define a compelling cause, students will respond generously and out-give your expectations.

These are the very ideals that now undergird the hostel transformation that is coming to life this August 2022.

But wait – what is there to transform?

More than four walls

Today, NUS hostels hold approximately 11,000 students on campus. For our residents, a campus hostel is a home away from home. It sounds like a tired cliché, but absolutely true. At the most basic level, all homes must satisfy essential physiological and security needs. We pride ourselves in keeping all amenities adequate for the occupants so that our students may focus on other aspects of learning, but given the high proportion of  time spent at the hostels for any resident, we can do so much more within the same space.

Specifically, hostels offer the privilege of a close-knitted community, brought together by a common identity as NUS students. This neighbourhood then becomes a conduit to exchange ideas, to share common interests, or simply to provide proximal support in times of need. Through corridor conversations, lifelong friendships are nurtured, and good ideas can be incubated and refined to become tomorrow’s innovations.

In fact, the hostel identity can even supersede the NUS identity for alumni – I remember meeting some alumni who spent the entire dinner talking about their hostel memories instead of talking about what they remember from their classes! Clearly, providing accommodation is only the starting point. The deliberate shaping of this space with additional activities will then create a multiplier effect to bring both tangible and intangible benefits beyond the physical dimensions.

Hostels offer holistic development at its core

Hostel living is an extension of holistic learning. But must it be? This is an interesting question to consider, because one would think that at a University, we already have more than enough rooms for “learning”. Why do we need another one?

I will answer this by making reference to the NUS educational philosophy. The expressed statements in this philosophy articulate a few key attributes of a desired NUS graduate. Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that most of these attributes cannot be accomplished within the confines of a classroom. Rather, it advocates the holistic development of individuals by exploiting opportunities nestled within living space.

For example, one learns how to be a constructive and responsible member of a community, by simply organising a block supper, that helps foster camaraderie within the neighbourhood.  Perhaps another will learn to supercharge their communication skills through running for a hostel council election, and persuading others to vote for their new ideas. Intuitively, to thrive in such an environment would require a complete embracing of diversity and inclusiveness as one grows the cultural intelligence quotient amidst their day-to-day experience. Such is the celebrated life skills for the future where global citizenship will become common place.

Building a strong connection to give

Next, effective learning in the hostels can evoke generous giving. As residents begin to feel comfortable and connected to the community, they may also subscribe to the cause of the hostel as their own cause.  A good illustration would be the few blood donation drives initiated by residents across NUS in 2021. Even while we still maintained relatively strict safe management measures within campus, our residents put forth compelling proposals to run such campaigns on campus. Their efforts garnered strong backing from the rest of the residents and they outpaced the donation from the rest of NUS for any given year.

This brings to mind how the hostel environment can widen the worldview of individuals and to nurture interest beyond self. By leveraging the zeal and talents of residents within the same space, we can harness and proliferate individual empathy through communal accountability, gearing the entire hostel to become an unstoppable force for greater works.

Learning to give, starts at home.

So really – what are we transforming?

The ongoing hostel transformation is a deliberate attempt to advance the philosophies that we described. There are two key strokes that characterise this change.

For one, we are formalising a new housing concept titled ‘House’. This is defined by existing hostel Pioneer House (previously PGP House) and an upcoming LightHouse. Houses are positioned with reduced requirements for CCA participation, and in so doing, help channel the resources and time towards strengthening peer mentoring and support. Devoid of a meal plan that binds the students within a community hall, the House concept advocates smaller group engagement, which in turn catalyses greater peer accountability. We also envisage more Houses to be launched in the coming years to create and grow a new vibrancy around this concept.

On the other hand, our existing Student Residences model, consisting of PGPR and UTown Residence (UTR), continues to offer no frills accommodation for students who desire such arrangements. Yet, even this model would benefit from enhanced onsite pastoral care and a greater sense of home. Therefore, we are installing full-fledged Masters and Residential Fellows to provide an increased level of local governance and wellness support. Through this provision, our residents can be assured of a safe and warm environment that liberates them to excel.

In totality, all these changes embrace student diversity by providing more options to meet individualised needs. Effectively, we now present four distinct housing concepts where students can choose according to their preferred level of engagement:

(1) Halls of Residence with a plethora of CCAs and rich heritage;

(2) Residential Colleges with thematic academic programmes;

(3) New Houses with emphasis on peer mentoring and collaborative leadership; and

(4) Student Residences with reinforced pastoral care.

It is our hope that this transformation will firmly integrate campus life into the tapestry of holistic learning, and grow our students into tomorrow’s leaders of change.  It takes a village, and this is ours.

About the author

Associate Professor Ho Han Kiat is the NUS Dean of Students, and an academic staff of the NUS Department of Pharmacy. In 2009, he started his own research programme in NUS, exploring various aspects of liver diseases including the management of drug-induced liver toxicity, liver fibrosis and liver cancer. Over the years as a faculty member, he has published more than 90 papers in internationally recognised journals and has won multiple university-level teaching excellence awards, including the Outstanding Educator Award in 2020. He is the Vice President of the Toxicology Society of Singapore, and a diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology.

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the final instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Tommy Koh's commentary on three upcoming anniversaries that will be key to international geopolitics.

Click here to read Professor Danny Quah's article on how societies can build back stronger from the pandemic.

Click here to read Professor Freddy Boey's views on opportunities for start-ups in the New Normal.

Click here to read Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser's commentary on enhancing retirement financial adequacy for our seniors.

Click here to read Professor Paul Tambyah and Assistant Professor Lionel Lum's views on the direction of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Click here to read Associate Professor Simon Poh’s take on Singapore’s upcoming tax landscape.

Singapore’s tax regime continues to evolve while striving to be simple, fair, progressive and yet sustainable, taking into account both international and local developments, particularly structural changes in society in the case of the latter that will see public spending surge over the next decade.

It will be an understatement to say that there is a lot of uncertainty in the tax landscape in the current year and beyond. However, some uncertainty has been removed given the latest Budget Statement unveiled by Finance Minister, Mr. Lawrence Wong, on 18 February 2022.

International Developments

There are active ongoing discussions under the OECD Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) project to address tax challenges arising from the digitisation of the economy, by now commonly referred to as BEPS 2.0. There were concerns that Singapore’s corporate tax revenue may be adversely impacted. 

Under Pillar 1, some profitable multinational enterprises (MNEs) will need to re-allocate profit from where activities are conducted to where consumers are located. Pillar 1 is expected to reduce the tax revenue for Singapore given its small domestic market and the extent of activities conducted in Singapore by MNEs.

Pillar 2 introduces a global minimum effective tax rate of 15 per cent for MNEs with a global turnover in excess of €750 million (S$1.15 billion) that operate in jurisdictions that are subject to an effective corporate tax rate of less than 15 per cent will have to top up the taxes paid in those jurisdictions in their “home” jurisdiction. The top up will be based on the difference between the corporate minimum tax of 15 per cent and the effective tax rate suffered in that other jurisdiction

The government had previous indicated that when international tax rules are changed, it will consider making changes to our corporate tax system. In response to Pillar 2 recommendations, the Finance Minister announced in his Budget Speech that the government may explore the feasibility of introducing a Minimum Effective Tax Rate (METR) to top-up the effective tax rate of MNEs to 15 per cent. The rationale is that given the certainty of affected MNEs having to pay this minimum effective tax of 15 per cent somewhere, the government should just change the corporate system to collect this METR instead of relinquishing its right to tax to another jurisdiction. If this happens, then the CIT revenue collected, at least from the MNEs affected by Pillar 2, may actually go up. 

Local Developments

With rising government expenditure mainly on people and social infrastructure, particularly in healthcare, there is a need to ensure that the government has sufficient recurring tax revenue to cope with these challenges.

We knew that a 2 per cent GST hike is imminent. The question was when rather whether it will happen and if so, whether it is at one go. The Budget Statement revealed that the GST rate will be increased first to 8 per cent in January 2023 and then to 9 per cent in January 2024.

Many expected the hike to take place as early as July this year, and also for the rate increase to happen in one go, taking a leaf from what happened 15 years ago in Feb 2007. This is especially so after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s signal in his New Year Message and the better than expected economic growth of 7.6 per cent in 2021. So it was indeed welcome relief to learn that the hike will not take place this year. 

There is another bonus as the increase will be staggered through two phases, thus alleviating the pain that consumers will otherwise suffer in addition to having to cope with high costs and inflation. For businesses, the impact of the delayed and phased increase should also be positive overall, particularly for the smaller businesses and certain specialised industries where they are unable to claim back the GST on their purchases and expenses. However, with the phased increase, they do need to go through two increases and that means higher compliance costs for them.    

The current hike is also accompanied by a substantial Assurance Package to help delay the impact of the GST hike by up to 5 or 10 years for the middle and lower income group respectively. It is heartening to learn that the originally planned $6 billion GST Assurance Package will now be topped up by $640 million to ensure that sufficient assistance is channelled to those in most need.

Faced with increasing calls for the government to consider more types of wealth taxes, the Finance Minister had indicated four months ago that the nation will continue to study how it can expand its wealth tax system to address both income and wealth inequality.

Ideally, it will be most equitable to levy a pure wealth tax that is computed based on a prescribed percentage of an individual’s net wealth, i.e. after netting off their liabilities such as loans against all their assets such as cash and both movable and immovable properties. This can be a one-off exercise or done on an annual basis. But this will be hard to administer given how difficult and subjective it can be when attempting to value assets at different times. But the overarching concern is the mobility of both talent and certain assets. I am glad that the Minister did not go this route given the experience by other nations that implemented such a tax.

Practical considerations will override any over-emphasis on achieving fairness in designing an overall wealth tax system that effectively works. These include ensuring that the tax cannot be easily avoided especially by those with more means, balancing between progressivity and staying competitive to continuously grow our economy and striving to add to our revenue adequacy and resilience.

Measured against these criteria, the Minister had opted for the low hanging fruits by introducing a suite of wealth taxes that include personal income tax, property tax and vehicle tax. Complementing the GST increase with additional income and wealth taxes help to reduce the burden of over-reliance on GST to bring in revenue. The additional tax burden will only affect those who can afford to pay these additional taxes, whether it is income tax for individuals with more than $500,000 taxable income, property tax for higher-valued residential properties or additional registration fees for luxury cars with open market value exceeding $80,000.

About the author

Associate Professor (Practice) Simon Poh is from the Department of Accounting at NUS Business School. He specialises in all areas of tax and conducts taxation courses for both undergraduates and external adult learners. Besides teaching, Assoc Prof Poh continues to be active in the tax profession. Among other appointments, he serves as a Member of the Income Tax Board of Review, an administrative tribunal established for the purpose of hearing appeals against income tax assessments made by the Comptroller of Income Tax. 

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the sixth instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Tommy Koh's commentary on three upcoming anniversaries that will be key to international geopolitics.

Click here to read Professor Danny Quah's article on how societies can build back stronger from the pandemic.

Click here to read Professor Freddy Boey's views on opportunities for start-ups in the New Normal.

Click here to read Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser's commentary on enhancing retirement financial adequacy for our seniors.

Click here to read Professor Paul Tambyah and Assistant Professor Lionel Lum's views on the direction of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19, the third coronavirus outbreak in the past 2 decades after SARS and MERS, has severely tested the global healthcare infrastructure over the past two years and Singapore has not been an exception. We have had waves of infection beginning with imported cases leading to community transmissions and occasionally clusters in health institutions and long-term care facilities and a huge outbreak in our migrant worker dormitories in 2020.

Intensive research by many global institutions including NUS have led to constantly changing paradigms in clinical management and public health policies, as we dealt with a new way of life with social restrictions, digital interactions and unending cycles of evolving safe management measures.

Tight contact tracing, isolation and quarantine were widely used in the “zero covid era” as Singapore and other countries tried to eliminate the virus. Once that proved impossible, the focus was on mitigating the effects of the pandemic by ensuring the smooth functioning of the healthcare system. As with any infectious disease, infection control, vaccines and therapeutics took centerstage.

While oral antiviral therapies such as Paxlovid and Molnupiravir have been licensed for early outpatient use, their real world efficacy has not been proven yet. For outpatient drugs like these, the challenge, is also to ensure that diagnosis is made early in the outpatient setting so they can be used appropriately. Several NUS groups from the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (NUS Medicine), NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and our partners have made great strides in the development and evaluation of COVID-19 test kits.

We have also conducted a large scale prophylaxis study using repurposed agents which waits for reproduction in other settings. This study led by Associate Professor Raymond Seet led to nationwide distribution of a topical povidone iodine product. In the coming year, we can see a more thorough evaluation of these and other antiviral agents for both early treatment and possibly prophylaxis.

One piece of good news is that thanks to the release of patents to low and middle income countries, both Paxlovid and Molnupiravir are more likely to benefit more people globally especially where logistical limitations prevent the early use of intravenous monoclonal antibodies. While these antibodies have the potential for prophylactic and therapeutic use their cost and complexity effectively currently limit their widespread use to higher income countries.

The next steps in vaccine development and distribution

The prevention of COVID-19 has largely been centered around the use of COVID-19 vaccines in addition to infection control. Singapore is one of the most highly vaccinated nations with 89 per cent of the total population fully vaccinated predominantly with the mRNA vaccines or the inactivated viral vaccines. There is currently a further drive to extend vaccinations to children and to roll out boosters for possibly enhanced protection.

However, vaccine inequality in resource poor countries remains a gap which needs to be closed. Next generation vaccine candidates such as protein-based vaccines which do not need a cold chain may make a breakthrough in resource-limited settings. The newer vaccines in addition may be more effective in preventing transmission or disease instead of just reducing the severity of disease. Needle-free vaccines, in the form of nasal spray, oral tablets or patches are in development and again, many NUS multidisciplinary programs are exploring these alternative vaccine approaches.

With emerging variants exhibiting immune escape and rapidly waning immunity from current mRNA and other licensed vaccines, developing multivalent vaccines which protect against multiple variants or ideally using vaccines that prevent transmission of the virus like most other licensed vaccines may contribute significantly to the management of COVID-19 in the future.

The end of the pandemic?

New and more effective vaccines will remain important even if the virus becomes simply the fifth seasonal coronavirus. Older institutionalized individuals are still vulnerable to seasonal coronaviruses and more targeted routine vaccination programs may be rolled out once the World Health Organisation declares this current pandemic over. That declaration that we are all waiting for would depend a great deal on a better understanding of how the virus interacts with humans.

Coronaviruses in general and SARS CoV2 in particular do not appear to mutate as fast as influenza viruses probably due to a viral checking mechanism which prevents mutation causing errors in viral replication. However there are still many factors that need to be taken into consideration about our immunity to the virus from vaccination, disease and possibly other viruses.

All of these have implications as to whether we will need annual COVID-19 vaccinations similar to what is done with influenza or whether a single vaccination series would be adequate as with measles or the bacterial pneumococcal vaccine.

The next pandemic on the horizon

While this pandemic will most certainly end either this year or the next, there is every likelihood that another will soon arise, most likely influenza which has lain dormant for a while.

The question arises about how we will respond – will there be more “circuit breaker” style lockdowns with the first few cases of the next pandemic virus in some country nearby in a bid to flatten the epidemiology curve and to safeguard our healthcare resources and capacity? We have learnt from experience this drastic measure may be detrimental to the economy and morale of people and may also lead to unintended effects on mental health and other medical care.

Rather we will most likely shift to more sustainable and balanced public health approach. This will include a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions including mask wearing, isolation and quarantine especially in selected higher risk settings such as near the ports and airport, healthcare or learning institutions or mass gatherings, as well as the rapid deployment of rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics.

These interventions will all take time and the temptation will remain to lockdown hard and fast. Governments will not want to be seen to be taking the next pandemic virus lightly and it will be difficult to come up with a calibrated approach in the face of another novel threat.

Transparency and international data sharing will be critical. Social science thought leaders from NUS have contributed to this discussion but there are few answers readily available.

The open questions

Despite the explosion of knowledge in COVID-19, many questions remain unanswered. It is still not clear why children do not get severe disease; are there other measures of immune protection besides antibody titres that may determine acquisition and the clinical course of COVID-19?

The sequelae of COVID-19 such as long COVID and organizing pneumonia – are also not well characterized. Are these merely the tip of an iceberg of a post-infective inflammatory process triggered by COVID-19?

The mode of transmission of COVID-19 has been described to range from close contact to aerosol routes but the circumstances surrounding the different transmission modes needs redefinition – this has important infection control implications.

Further studies on immunological responses and biology of the virus will be paramount in delineating our understanding in these aspects. The NUS Medicine Infectious Diseases Translational Research Programme brings together clinicians and scientists from across the school of medicine to try to answer these and other pressing questions.

While there are many uncertainties about this virus and the next pandemic, we know for certain, that science has advanced with positive changes such as better vaccine options, better clinical trial networks including one focusing on Asia and based in NUS to evaluate the different treatment options, and more critical evaluation of public health measures.

These will remain crucial in controlling this pandemic and in responding to the next one. Despite the significant human cost and all the negative discourse surrounding this pandemic, hopefully the world is armed with a new level of preparedness and resilience to face the virus when (not if) it comes.

About the authors

Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah is Professor of Medicine and Clinical Programme Lead for the Infectious Diseases Translational Research Programme at the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine. He is also a Senior Consultant at the Division of Infectious Diseases at the National University Hospital. He is President of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, and also President of the International Society of Infectious Diseases.

 Dr Lionel Lum is Assistant Professor and Clinical Tutor at the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine. He is also a Consultant at the Division of Infectious Diseases at the National University Hospital.

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the fifth instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Tommy Koh's commentary on three upcoming anniversaries that will be key to international geopolitics.

Click here to read Professor Danny Quah's article on how societies can build back stronger from the pandemic.

Click here to read Professor Freddy Boey's views on opportunities for start-ups in the New Normal.

Click here to read Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser's commentary on enhancing retirement financial adequacy for our seniors.

During my younger days, I used to hear seniors saying that once their children had “started working”, they would be able to ease up on their responsibilities as they could then depend on their children’s financial support and enjoy their post-retirement years in relative comfort and security.

However, in adulthood and being a part of the sandwiched generation, I realised that, unless seniors have sufficient savings and bought health insurance, they would be putting a heavy financial pressure on their adult children, even middle-class ones, without necessarily having their basic needs fully met.

Such dependency may also lead to elderly abuse, family tensions and conflict between siblings.

It therefore matters to seniors - and their adult children, if any - that they have financial adequacy in their silver years. As a nation and developed economy, the Singapore government would similarly desire that elderly Singaporeans can maintain a decent quality of life and experience a strong sense of security.

The government is cognizant of investing more resources to supporting the elderly as Singapore continues in the direction of a rapidly ageing society. This commitment to the welfare of seniors is reflected in the various measures introduced in successive annual budgets.

Recent government measures

Budget 2020, for instance, provided a support package to help seniors stay employed. It also offered lower- to middle-income Singaporeans, which includes seniors, a matched Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Savings Scheme up to an annual cap of S$600, or S$3,000 over five years.

There was, moreover, an enhanced Silver Support Scheme for the bottom 20 per cent of seniors aged 65 or older amounting to S$900 per quarter for each eligible senior. These two measures, together with the Lease Buyback Scheme, could raise the amount of CPF Life pay-outs to more than a $1,000 for seniors who have not met the Basic Retirement Sum.

To address healthcare needs, the government increased healthcare subsidies by up to 80 per cent, in addition to financial support for healthcare insurance and long-term care; as well as the universal, as opposed to means-tested, provision associated with the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Pioneer Generation Package, and Merdeka Generation Package.

Similarly, Budget 2021, while continuing to address the negative consequences of the pandemic on the economy and job security, had allocated more funds for supporting the employment or re-employment of older workers. 

Are these measures enough?

I have often been asked to comment whether, taken as a whole, the various forms of support rendered to seniors offer enough help to elderly Singaporeans. My quick answer would be that since the financial outlays of the various schemes and measures introduced over the years are clearly substantial, running into the billions, one can only respond that they have been most helpful and beneficial, especially to low-income and economically inactive seniors. Most evidently, the government is serious about improving the retirement financial adequacy of seniors.

However, I often wonder if the support provided, while significant, is equal to the task of addressing the issue of retirement financial adequacy. To answer this question, we need to know what adequacy means in the first place.

Is it to meet some defined “basic needs”? And beyond this, is it to help seniors eventually become self-reliant, since this is an important quality in our national ethos? What if despite the social safety nets provided by the state, actual healthcare and caregiving expenditures and opportunity costs continue to impose a heavy burden on the sandwiched generation? What then does this say about the adequacy of government support for seniors?

Has the government ever attempted to define explicitly what seniors would need to have access to a decent quality of life with some minimum level of financial security?

A 2019 report by academic Dr Ng Kok Hoe and team members inferred that the CPF Basic Retirement Sum, which pays a monthly annuity of about S$800, is “supposed to provide a basic level of income for retirees”. The authors also suggested that, by their estimate, a single-elderly household needs S$1379 monthly, which means the government’s “kuih lapis” approach, as opposed to defining a poverty line, involving several layers of assistance to seniors, would fall “significantly short of what is needed for a basic standard of living”.

Outcomes, not just inputs

Whether or not we agree with the above report and its definition of basic needs, it flags to us the importance of being clear about the kind of outcomes we hope to achieve with government support for seniors. Unless we have clear, specific adequacy goals in mind, we would not be able to determine the extent to which we, as a nation, have done enough to lighten the load for seniors and their family members or improved their lives, or how far we have progressed to this end.

The issue of retirement financial adequacy would then be an endlessly contested one, with the government pointing to the multiple layers of assistance for seniors and the magnitude of its support in dollar terms, while political and social activists harp on the presence of seniors selling packs of tissue paper at hawker centres or collecting discarded cardboard boxes in exchange for cash.

Perhaps, the debate can be resolved by recognising that there are really two definitions of adequacy: one pertaining to the very poor, which long-term COMCARE assistance is capable of addressing; and the other for the seniors identified by Dr Ng and others’ 2019 report who need more help to achieve retirement financial adequacy.   

Where do we go from here?

The government has been proactive in trying to meet the retirement needs of seniors. Its policy towards seniors is comprehensive, covering housing, employment, health insurance, workfare income supplement, and retirement fund.

However, comprehensiveness does not equate to adequacy. It is therefore important that the government define what constitutes a decent quality of life and minimum level of retirement adequacy for seniors. Setting probably long-term, specific adequacy goals does not necessarily entail a fundamental shift in the government’s approach towards providing seniors a reliable social safety net, but it does allow for tracking the progress made over time and perhaps even motivate the government to take bolder, more left-of-centre measures in good years to fast-track the advancement towards those goals.

Parting shots

I remain convinced that the government is doing much for seniors. I also recognise that whether it could do enough for seniors would depend on the resources we have.

Still, it makes sense to know what our specific adequacy goals for meeting seniors’ needs are, and what more could be done, whenever possible, to move nearer to our desired outcomes for our seniors, and its ramifications for dignity in later life, family harmony, or even fertility rates in Singapore.

About the author

NUS Sociology Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser is the Academic Convenor for Singapore Studies at NUS Arts and Social Sciences as well as the Deputy Chair of the NUS General Education Committee. He is also Academic Adviser of the Social Lab at the Institute of Policy Studies at NUS. Assoc Prof Tan’s research interests include class and stratification; citizenship and national identity; and ethnic relations. A Justice of the Peace, Assoc Prof Tan also serves as a research consultant to the Housing & Development Board, and chairs its Research Advisory Panel.

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the fourth instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Tommy Koh's commentary on three upcoming anniversaries that will be key to international geopolitics.

Click here to read Professor Danny Quah's article on how societies can build back stronger from the pandemic.

Click here to read Professor Freddy Boey's views on opportunities for start-ups in the New Normal.

If 2021 was the year we came to the realisation that COVID-19 was likely to be endemic, we can look forward to 2022 as the year we will continue to make strides towards COVID resilience and better adjust to this “New Normal.”   

The prolonged pandemic has taught governments, organisations and individuals to function more like a start-up: to be adaptable, flexible and resilient in the face of uncertainty and constant change. For start-ups and entrepreneurs, themselves, the “New Normal” offers new opportunities. Here are just a few trends to be aware of:

1. Expect more unicorns

Despite fears for the economy, the growth of many start-ups has actually been fueled by the pandemic and the attendant increase in digitalisation across numerous industries. 2021 was particularly significant for NUS Enterprise: two decades after our founding, five start-ups from our BLOCK71 community, including NUS Overseas Colleges (NOC) alum companies PatSnap and Carousell, became unicorns when their valuations topped US$1 billion, a reflection not only of Southeast Asia’s growth as a start-up hub, but NUS’ centrality in this ecosystem. We also observed several of our successful entrepreneurs hire our students, form new start-ups, and/or invest in others, helping contribute to a virtuous cycle of talent and capital growth.   

As we move into 2022, we can expect more unicorns to emerge from the region, aided by the rising middle class, a young population open to new technology adoption, and increased investor activity. And as these companies mature, we also expect to see more acquisitions and public listings.   

Companies to keep an eye on? NOC alum start-ups PatSnap, Carousell, Circles.Life and SWAT Mobility have all been reported to be considering an IPO in the future.

2. Differentiation through Deep Tech

The fact that multiple COVID-19 vaccines have been developed to date is nothing short of astounding. Other innovations, including NUS-developed saliva tests, nasal swabs, and protective devices, have an important part to play in meeting testing needs and minimising virus exposure. They also speak to the importance of investment in basic and applied research, as well as the transformative nature and outsized impact deep tech can have in addressing complex problems facing the world.

From climate tech and cybersecurity, to biotech and blockchain, deep tech start-ups will continue to gain traction in 2022, in line with increased investor interest and government support. Typically based on years of scientific research and backed by patented technologies, these start-ups will also have a competitive edge due to their focus on high-impact issues and ability to create new markets.

For its part, NUS is playing a key role in generating Singapore’s deep tech deal flow. Our Graduate Research Innovation Programme (GRIP) has furthered more than 100 deep tech projects since 2018. Graduates of the programme have gone on to raise more than $17 million in external grants and funding. Continuing this momentum, this year we will be launching the Technology Access Programme (TAP), specifically designed to help entrepreneurs and corporate innovators discover cutting-edge innovations and opportunities for their application. Backed by our experience in venture creation and technology commercialisation, the executive programme will guide participants on taking intellectual property from lab to market, while providing them with access to NUS technologies, resources and networks. 

3. A re-balancing act at work

Headlines surrounding the Great Resignation ring true in countries around the world.  For employees caught between balancing remote work, home-based learning and childcare, the pandemic has forced a reassessment of priorities and a redrawing of lines between work and home life. As a result, many jobholders are opting to switch employers, become professional freelancers or entrepreneurs, or even defect from the work world entirely.

Faced with increased competition to attract and retain talent, companies are called upon to provide greater flexibility, be more empathetic, and invest in a sustainable work culture. As a result, employers may increase retraining of existing staff, while broadening their search for new tech talents internationally as they embrace remote or hybrid work models. This shift in how work is viewed and conducted also translates into new openings for start-up solutions –from no-code/low-code technologies that replace the need for specialised hires, collaboration platforms for decentralised workforces, to corporate wellness solutions that offer better support to employees.

As one example, NOC alum start-up MindFi pivoted during the pandemic from a consumer-facing mindfulness app to a mental wellbeing platform for the modern workplace, operating with the vision to promote positive minds and productive workplaces. 

4. The need to think globally

One of the harder lessons of the past two years is how a lack of global cooperation has prolonged the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the area of vaccine distribution and observed “vaccine nationalism.”

Last September, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres noted, “The pandemic is a clear test of international cooperation — a test we have essentially failed.”  

And while cooperation at the level of international institutions and between governments is vital, the importance of collaboration and global ties holds true at a smaller level as well. For researchers and businesses tackling other global challenges, such as climate change or food security, a willingness to work with others- even competitors- can be key in paving the way for fundamental change. This is particularly true in an interconnected world where complex issues transcend borders. 

NUS’ orientation has always been global in nature, and one of the rationales for our NOC and BLOCK71 programmes is the opportunity they provide for our students and start-ups to gain exposure to and forge connections in overseas markets. In addition to considering new locations for these programmes, the NUS Guangzhou Research Translation and Innovation Institute (NUSGRTII) will open this year to promote technological innovation and talent development between Singapore and China. It is our aspiration that these initiatives deepen NUS and Singapore’s connectivity to the world, while helping to produce start-ups and entrepreneurs that think globally. 

About the author

Professor Freddy Boey is the Deputy President for Innovation & Enterprise at NUS. He oversees the University’s initiatives and activities for innovation, as well as entrepreneurship and research translation. An academic and inventor, Prof Boey has pioneered the use of functional biomaterials for medical devices in Singapore, developed 127 patents, founded several companies, and been published in 347 top journals with 23,555 citations. An alumnus of NUS, Prof Boey previously served as the Deputy President and Provost of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) from 2011-2017.

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the third instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Tommy Koh's commentary on three upcoming anniversaries that will be key to international geopolitics.

Click here to read Professor Danny Quah's article on how societies can build back stronger from the pandemic.

Before the pandemic ends is when we need to debate how the world should look afterwards. Many “build back better” proposals are in circulation. In studying them, we need to focus on two ideas: first, resilience; second, social cohesion.

As The Resilient Society, a wonderful book launched at November’s Singapore Fintech Festival, argues, resilience is the ability to bounce back. It is a feature of systems that show elasticity. Resilience is, therefore, distinct from being strong and robust, and different again from being aware of or capable of dealing with risk.

When a society is only robust, it confronts any external force with its internal strength. The COVID-19 pandemic is such an external force, but one that quickly showed it could overwhelm even the strongest of nations: robustness here did not help.

Even combining robustness and risk aversion and seeking to guard against rare black-swan events wouldn’t have helped. Through mutation the coronavirus showed how it could overcome even the most closely-constructed and far-ranging of avoidance measures. Everyone no matter how risk averse in minimizing their own exposure was quickly drawn into the pandemic’s circle of effect.

By most expert accounts, COVID-19 is just one of a sequence of large threats to humanity. This coronavirus got through. Others are already on the way. The message from this experience should be, “You can run, but you cannot hide. Resistance is futile.”

The importance of resilience

Resilience, however, can help. Let known and unknown shocks hit: We will bounce back.

In economics we think of a pandemic shock as an exogenous disturbance: it emerges from outside the normal operation of the system. In today’s world, however, other large recent shocks have emerged from within; that is, they are endogenous. The global climate crisis today powerfully affects business operations, livelihoods, and relations across nations. But the climate crisis is not an exogenous disturbance. Instead, it emerged from everyday human activity normalized since the Industrial Revolution.

Geopolitical rivalry now profoundly affects technological advance, trade relations and the global supply chain, cultural and people-to-people ties, and education and scholarship. Geopolitical rivalry is a large disturbance but an endogenous one: Today’s US-China tensions come from a potent combination of China’s economic success in the era of hyper-globalization together with a growing musculature in its dealings with the rest of the world, and America’s perception of the challenge to its hegemonic position from a fast-rising challenger great power.

Social cohesion

Breakdown of social cohesion is real all around the world. By the 2010s global unrest — whether measured in strikes and demonstrations or in media accounts of social discord — had exploded to four times what it had been just thirty years earlier. In historical arc this increase is concentrated in sporadic short bursts, but when it occurs, there is rarely fall back to earlier levels.

Social cohesion is when people in society do not undermine or cheat but instead work with and help one another. One possible way to achieve social cohesion might be through providing a sense of trust and community to the group. But trust can also lead to moral hazard and free-riding: “If you really trusted me, you would not be looking over my shoulder all the time.”

Thus, a sense of belonging in the group is neither necessary nor sufficient for individual members to cooperate and help each other. In research by the Social Mobility Foundation at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS, we are exploring how what matters, instead, is that everyone sees they are engaged in a positive-sum game, where raising others lifts oneself.

When social cohesion deteriorates and populists agitate on nationalistic, racist, or xenophobic agendas, this impacts domestic politics and distracts policymakers from taking on important global challenges. Such domestic unrest is almost never due to an exogenous disturbance, but emerges endogenously from shortcomings within that society itself. Deterioration of social cohesion too, therefore, is an endogenous disturbance.

The consequentiality of social cohesion cannot be over-estimated. The US is the world’s largest economy; has the world’s strongest military; and runs excellent hospitals. Yet, in early 2020 as its divisive leader degraded America’s ability to have its people come together, the country’s responses to the pandemic resulted, by later that year, in death rates exceeding 1,500 per million, even as Singapore, China, New Zealand, and others kept COVID fatalities to under five per million.

Today, despite its far greater access to vaccines than many poorer nations’, America remains the polity with the world’s highest cumulative number of infections and deaths from COVID, ahead even of India or Indonesia, both with far lower per capita incomes, and the first with many times America’s population.

Elasticity and bouncing back

Looking ahead for possible post-pandemic social models, resilience and cohesion need to be central. Systems need to show elasticity. To that end, I suggest a metaphor for how we can build back better: the trampoline.

The Resilient Society mentions “trampoline” once in passing; the word does not appear in the index. Singaporeans will remember that moment at the 2015 St Gallen Symposium when then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam was asked if Singapore believed in a social safety net, and he replied, “I believe in the notion of a trampoline.” The metaphor has been used since to evaluate specific policy proposals in Singapore.

More than just specifics, however, the trampoline provides the best conceptual model for both resilience and social cohesion, while simultaneously capturing both exogenous and endogenous disturbances.

Resilience is the elasticity and springiness in society that allows bouncing back from a shock. The trampoline is all about bounce-back. Social cohesion is when different sections of the community cooperate and collaborate.

So too the trampoline’s different components - the taut fabric, the steel frame, and the edge rings and coiled springs holding together support and bounce mat - all have to work together, or the entire structure fails. If a micro-tear appears in the fabric and is not quickly repaired, the entire bounce mat can rend apart as shocks continue to test the system. So too with social cohesion: small misunderstandings must not be allowed to fester or they will grow.

Next, you can’t draw a trampoline too tight or it’ll break; and you can’t draw it too loose or the user will break. Society cannot operate when it’s stretched to hyper-efficiency or pounded into robustness, or it won’t withstand an external shock. But at the same time society cannot be flabby or it won’t hold together and advance.

Third, as with global supply chains or ordinary physical chains, for trampolines the part that is least strong needs the greatest support. The entire national or global system is only as strong as the weakest link.

Fourth, a trampoline needs to be kept in regular use. Having societies be unchallenged for too long ossifies the O-rings around the edges of the trampoline. A string of small crises is to be welcomed, and provides valuable stress-testing. Successfully dealing with small shocks prepares society for the big disturbances.

Fifth, modelling ourselves on a trampoline changes how societies perceive inequality. Rigid egalitarianism demands high maintenance, and is not resilient. Instead, what is resilient is the dynamic fluidity when every part of society is able to bounce back after being hit by bad shocks such as disease or employment dislocation.

To go higher, one needs to take chances, not be risk averse and sit quietly. Social mobility is what gives people hope so that on that upward trajectory they see their children and their children’s children continuing to experience improvement in well-being, and even those currently deprived feel society continues to have space for them and they are not permanently excluded. Hope powers the positive-sum game.

Finally, a trampoline is not an F1-formula race car. The resilient structure is not built for speed. Don’t expect societies to operate at frenetic breakneck pace if what you want is something that’s going to bounce back better when it hits a bump in the road.

As the world seeks its post-pandemic equilibrium and tries to build back better, the model of a trampoline can help provide both resilience and social cohesion.

About the author

Professor Danny Quah is Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS, where he is also the Li Ka Shing Professor in Economics. He ranks in the top 1 per cent of scientists worldwide, in both 2020 and lifetime citation impact. Beyond recognition for his academic contributions, Prof Quah was also named in the list of the world's top 100 academics influential in government in 2021. His research interests include income inequality and international relations. On the latter, he takes an economic approach to world order — with focus on global power shifts and the rise of the East. Prof Quah was previously Assistant Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and then Professor of Economics and International Development at the London School of Economics, where he was also Head of Department for Economics.

This article was first published in The Straits Times on 17 November 2021.

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the second instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Tommy Koh's commentary on three upcoming anniversaries that will be key to international geopolitics.

The last two years have brought untold pain, sorrow and destruction to the world. With vaccination and other preventive measures, I see light at the end of the tunnel. We need good news to restore our morale. I have therefore decided to write a positive essay about 2022. In 2022, we will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 30th anniversary of the Forum of Small States and the 25th anniversary of the Asia-Europe Foundation.

UNCLOS at 40

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS, in short, was adopted in 1982, after nine years of negotiation. It came into force in 1994. It has 168 parties, including the European Union. There is a Singapore Connection to UNCLOS. In the final year of the conference, I was elected as its president.

Why is UNCLOS an important treaty?

It is an important treaty for several reasons.

First, the oceans cover 70 percent of the earth’s surface. It is a source of food for the people of the world. It is the highway for shipping and maritime trade. It functions as the blue lung of the planet. UNCLOS seeks to regulate all aspects of the uses of the oceans and their resources.

Second, UNCLOS has given the world clear legal rules on the maximum breadth of the Territorial Sea, the fishing rights of costal stress, special regimes of passage for ships and aircraft through and over international straits and archipelagos, etc.

Third, UNCLOS is a victory for international cooperation, for multilaterism and for the rule of law. Because of UNCLOS there is peace of sea.

FOSS at 30

The United Nations has 193 members. The majority of the members are small countries. The world favours the big and strong. Small countries often feel that they are being treated as second class citizens. A glaring sample of this inequality can be seen in the composition of the UN Security Council. The five permanent members, USA, China, Russia, France and UK are big countries.

In 1992, Singapore took an important initiative at the UN. It established the Forum of Small States. Any country whose population is below 10 million is eligible to join.

FOSS has 108 members. This is more than half the membership of the UN. Since every country has one vote at the UN, the combined voting power of FOSS gives it salience. Before FOSS, it was difficult for small countries to get elected to various UN bodies. It is less difficult now.

By joining forces, FOSS has empowered small countries in other ways. The big countries can longer afford to ignore the small countries. The senior officials of the various international organisations welcome opportunities to meet with FOSS. FOSS has amplified the voices of the small countries. It has also strengthened the negotiating leverage of small countries. We still live in an unequal world. FOSS has made it a little less unequal.

ASEF at 25

The second Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Goh Chok Tong, is responsible for many important international initiatives. One of them is the Asia-Europe Meeting or ASEM. Mr Goh felt that it was strategically important to build a bridge linking Asia and Europe. He proposed a summit meeting between the leaders of Asia and Europe. This was held in Bangkok in 1996.

At the ASEM summit, in Bangkok, PM Goh proposed the establishment, in Singapore, of the Asia-Europe Foundation. The proposal was adopted by the summit. The objective of the foundation is to promote better mutual understanding between the people of Asia of Europe. We seek to achieve this objective by bringing together the students, youth, intellectuals, artists, parliamentarisms, think-tanks, universities, museums, etc. from the two regions.

I was appointed as the first executive director of ASEF. My deputy was from France. My other senior colleagues came from Germany, UK, and China. We were energized by our historic mission. I was in Europe almost every month, helping to organize inter-regional meetings or speaking to conferences. It was a very busy period of my life.

During my tenure, ASEF had 13 Asian members and 15 European members plus the European Commission. Today, ASEF has 21 Asian members and 30 European members. The substantial increase in its membership is one indication of the success of ASEF.

About the author

Professor Tommy Koh is Professor at NUS Law, and the Rector of NUS Tembusu College. He is also Ambassador-at-Large at Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Chairman of the Centre for International Law of NUS; and Special Advisor of the Institute of Policy Studies at NUS. A veteran diplomat and academic, Prof Koh’s former roles include being Dean of NUS Law (1971-1974), Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1968-1971 and 1974-1984), and Singapore’s Chief Negotiator for the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2000-2003).

Looking to 2022 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the first instalment of the series.