As Singapore exited the ‘Circuit Breaker‘ earlier this month, some Covid-19 measures were eased, such as those governing hair salons and barbers.
While Singaporeans are still not allowed to visit our friends or significant others who stay in a different household, the Government has since spelt out the definition of “living in the same household”.
On 2 Jun, an amendment was made to the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020, just as Singapore entered Phase 1 of reopening.
The amendment is pretty lengthy, spanning 22 sections, so it might not come as a surprise if some points had been quickly glanced over.
Under Section 2(2) of the revised regulations, the term “members of the same household” are defined as a few types of people who “ordinarily” live together.
The first few types are pretty straightforward and expected, comprising spouses, parents, children, or siblings of an individual.
But the last type might come as more of a surprise.
According to the amended regulations, individuals can also be considered to be staying in the same household if they have an “agreement or arrangement” that states or implies that they are living together.
This agreement or arrangement may come in either oral or written form.
So essentially, even if 2 individuals do not have a formal agreement stating that they are staying together, their actions alone might be enough to serve as proof.
Clearly stating the definitions of a vague term like “members of the same household” will certainly help Singaporeans understand the regulations better, and leave less room for misinterpretation.
That said, we’re glad that the Government is not limiting the definition to just individuals with blood relations or formal agreements, and are also taking into consideration the various configurations of people who live together.
Featured image adapted from Unsplash.
The coroner said this was the first case of its kind he had encountered in…
The brand-new jet suffered a series of technical issues since its first-ever flight on 19…
The Paradise Tree Snake may have misjudged its landing and ended up on the car.
The 69-year-old was reportedly upset over his neighbour's refusal to apologise.
False claims include that GCB transactions occur without government checks on beneficial owners' identities.
The suspect casually watched as the woman became consumed by flames.