Home affairs and law minister K. Shanmugam has weighed in on the issue of a Singaporean woman who refused to wear a face mask in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and claimed that she is a "sovereign".

In his Facebook post on May 4, a day after the woman was filmed in videos not adhering to protocol, Shanmugam wrote that the woman is being investigated for two incidents.

These two incidents refer to the woman at Shunfu Mart not putting on her mask and having the police called on her twice.

Society vs Sovereign

Shanmugam, in his post, acknowledged the existence of the concept of "Sovereign".

He wrote: "There is a movement in the US, and adherents to that movement, (broadly speaking) reject Government, reject the police and any kind of authority."

However, he also added that such people should not live within society as they ought not to expect benefits that come from "this system of governance".

The system, he wrote, provided "security, medical care, other benefits".

He also wrote that converse holds true, that society in general can reject the woman.

Shanmugam wrote: "If she doesn’t follow the rules and (say) ends up infecting someone - why should society accept that? Or if she falls ill herself, she will be imposing a medical burden on the rest of the society - whose rules she rejects, presumably."

You can read his full post here:

In the past few days, several have shared a video of a lady, refusing to obey instructions from officers, not wearing a mask, and saying she is "Sovereign".

The same lady had some days ago, also refused to wear a mask in a market.

She is being investigated for both incidents.

I checked up what she might have meant by referring to "Sovereign".

There is a movement in the US, and adherents to that movement, (broadly speaking) reject Government, reject the police and any kind of authority.

Well and good. But then such people should not live within society - she should not expect any of the benefits that come from this system of governance, including her security, medical care, other benefits.

If she doesn’t follow the rules and (say) ends up infecting someone - why should society accept that? Or if she falls ill herself, she will be imposing a medical burden on the rest of the society - whose rules she rejects, presumably.

Very odd.

Usually, in such cases, there will be more to it than meets the eye.

Background