A Tale of Three Countries: COVID Responses of Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines

It’s been more than a year since the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared the outbreak of COVID-19 as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. The promise of a vaccine has sparked some hope for humanity, finally bringing the end of this tragic crisis in view. However, the future only looks brighter for countries that have carried out the appropriate responses against COVID. The pandemic continues to ravage other parts of the world.

One would think that after living within the context of a global pandemic for more than a year, the Philippine government would’ve already figured out a way to address this health crisis effectively to some degree. Unfortunately, this cannot be farther from the truth. The country ranks second in the reported number of cases as well as death toll within the region of Southeast Asia.

Despite enforcing quite possibly the longest and strictest lockdowns in the world, the Philippines continues to suffer from the debilitating effects of the pandemic. Meanwhile, its regional neighbors namely, Vietnam and Singapore, are able to boast the success stories of their efforts in combatting COVID-19.

What exactly went wrong for the Philippines? Comparing the responses of these three countries side-by-side will easily highlight the many blunders that the government has made (and continues to make) over the past year. Generally, how countries handled the pandemic can be dissected into 2 primary factors: decisive leadership and the nature of the response.

Decisive Leadership

A particular leader’s preliminary reactions to the outbreak of the global pandemic were essential in establishing its government’s efforts and programs towards addressing the crisis.

In the case of the Philippines, it was evident that President Rodrigo Duterte severely downplayed the spread of COVID-19 in the beginning. During certain media briefings, the President was caught saying that there is “nothing really to be extra scared of that coronavirus thing,” and that “it will die a natural death.”

Quite recently, President Duterte has also been attempting to address the nation on a weekly basis regarding the country’s COVID-19 efforts in hopes of securing more public trust. More often than not, however, these late-night reports would eventually stray away from their intended purpose of presenting facts and updates into tangential, incohesive matters.

While all three countries issued travel bans on China at the same time, Vietnam and Singapore were quick to treat the then-growing threats of the coronavirus with the urgency that was called for.  Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc were even regarded as models of effective communication and transparency.

Both countries were also quick to impose localized lockdowns whenever it was necessary. Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee even announced the government’s step-by-step plan to lift their “circuit breaker” measures in three phases in May 2020. Meanwhile, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Phuc pushed to make COVID-19 vaccines available in the country by the end of February 2021.

Nature of the Response

Aside from the leadership, allocating the necessary resources into the correct avenues also determined a country’s failure or success in combatting the global health crisis.

Singapore and Vietnam, despite having quasi-authoritarian and authoritarian regimes, respectively, rooted their responses in science and public health. The governments of these countries put their trust in medical experts and structured policies around their recommendations. Likewise, these governments invested in bolstering their health systems as well.

Both countries were able to implement strict yet effective testing and contact-tracing programs that significantly helped in flattening the curve. Singapore utilized an innovative contact tracing mobile app called TraceTogether to collect data more efficiently. Vietnam, on the other hand, carried out a massive test-and-trace regime early into the pandemic.

The Philippines’ response was the polar opposite of its two regional neighbors. The national government employed a highly militarized response to the pandemic, going as far as heeding the advice of senior military officials on how to manage the health crisis. Issues around testing were also rampant and contact-tracing efforts were virtually non-existent.

On April 1, 2020, President Duterte ordered the police and military to shoot quarantine violators. Just a few days later, the first police shooting was reported on April 4. Longer and stricter lockdowns have come and gone at the expense of the country’s public health system, which remains weak as hospitals continue to be overwhelmed by COVID and non-COVID patients.

A Tale of Three Countries

At the beginning of 2021, it was reported that Filipinos were the most disapproving of their government’s response within the region, according to a study done by the ASEAN Studies Centre.

The online survey, involving 1,032 respondents from all 10 ASEAN countries, found that 17.9% of Filipinos “strongly disapprove” of how the government has been handling the pandemic. An additional 35.8% indicated that they simply “disapprove”, accounting for 53.7% of Filipinos that participated in the survey.

In contrast, Vietnam received a 96.6% approval rating while Singapore garnered 92.4%. After outlining the immense differences in these countries’ responses, it’s easy to see how these figures were realized.

“No government should be blamed for a pandemic, but they should be scrutinized for how they respond.” While inoculations have been implemented throughout the country, the relevance of this particular line still speaks volumes.

Frankly, President Duterte’s government has had more than enough time to manifest or, at the very least, think up better policies and programs that are even just a sliver of what Vietnam, Singapore, and other successful countries in the region have done to effectively address the pandemic. Instead, we’ve been left in the dust.

References: CSIS, Time, Rappler