“We do not know what is stated in Mr Ho’s report and the AARs (after-action reviews) from the respective ministries. It would be important in my view for Singaporeans to consider the details and breadth of perspective secured from all who participated in the various AARs,” Mr Singh said again on Tuesday.
He also stressed that his request to publish the report in full “does not overshadow” WP’s support for the motion.
Mr Ho’s report focused on lessons for Singapore on crisis management, and includes details on the internal workings of the government and crisis management structures, said Mr Wong on Tuesday.
“And these internal workings and crisis management structures are not just to deal with a pandemic … The same structures are used for dealing with external security threats. And that’s why we are unable to publish that part of the report for national security reasons,” he continued.
The original report also addresses commercial sensitivities, such as how Singapore leveraged different partners for essential supplies and managed its supply chains, said Mr Wong.
“That had some commercial sensitivities and we can’t reveal that,” he added.
“If we redact all of these sensitive materials, we will essentially end up with the lessons for the government, which are already in the White Paper. In fact, it will be a subset of the White Paper.”
This is because the White Paper includes the lessons from agencies after their respective reviews and covers the lessons learnt after August 2021, which was when the government asked Mr Ho to undertake his review.