How NOT to succeed in the conventions business

Next month, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will be holding their summit meeting and related conferences here. Singapore is seizing the opportunity to raise its profile globally while hosting the meetings. 

We are doing a very good job giving the media reason to write about us, for what better story is there than one about a police state banning demonstrations by idealistic groups trying to raise awareness about the environment, fair trade, child labour and human trafficking? 

World Bank/IMF meetings are traditionally accompanied by activities organised by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) intent on making their concerns heard by policy-makers. How they do that is largely up to them. With so many things on the agenda, NGOs have to resort to creative ways of getting attention. A few of them might do outrageous things, such as taking off their clothes and walking around on a leash, while others will stick to more conventional methods, like holding placards, conducting sit-ins or marching. 

Whether or not these tactics do their NGO's mission any good is not for outsiders to judge. It's their organisation and their mission. In any case, even though some tactics may look like attention-grabbing public entertainment, much can be said for keeping an issue in the public eye over many years (e.g. whaling) because public opinion has an indirect effect on policy-makers. 

But no. Singapore has announced ahead its policy of banning all street activities in conjunction with the summit. There will be no protests, no demonstrations, no sit-ins, no marches. No placards, no poles.  

Instead, the police said, an indoor area will be cordoned off and "accreditted" persons will be allowed to enter the area in order to express their concerns. Presumably, to the four walls. 

The public will not be admitted into the indoor area. Not even the streets around, for they will be closed. 

Quarantine by another name. Haven't you heard? Non-government action is an infectious disease. 

 * * * * *   

INQ7.net, from the Philippines, has a report that "a total of 350 organizations from 74 countries will be mounting global protests against the International Monetary Fund-World Bank during the latter's annual meetings in Singapore next month." (Longer post in Singabloodypore)

The World Bank itself expected a good turnout from civil society organisations (CSOs). 

The World Bank said this year's meetings are expected to attract 'the largest number ever of CSOs'.  

So far, about 200 have been accredited to participate and another 200 are seeking approval. They include non-governmental organisations, faith-based groups, labour unions, and research centres, from over 45 countries. 

-- Straits Times, 23 August 2006, Police
say 'no' again to outdoor protests

Interestingly, that news article also noted that the World Bank itself was unhappy with Singapore's ban. 

Earlier, the World Bank's Singapore representative Peter Stephens had urged the authorities to allow outdoor protests by accredited groups during the gatherings next month, expected to be attended by 16,000 international delegates from more than 180 countries, including heads of governments, central bankers, finance and corporate chiefs.  

He told Bloomberg News: 'The bank's preference is that civil society groups should be able to peacefully express their views outside of the conference facility in a way that doesn't cause disruption.'  

-- Straits Times, 23 August 2006, Police
say 'no' again to outdoor protests 

But the police stood firm, reiterating their position first spelt out in a press release on 28 July 2006: 

Outdoor demonstrations and processions will not be allowed, in keeping with current rules. There is a need to prevent activities which can undermine the robust security arrangements in place for the IMF/WB Meetings, or disrupt our compact, multi-ethnic and multi-religious community. The Police will respond to public order and security situations fairly and firmly. 

-- Press Release from the Singapore Police Force, 
28 July 2006 

Explaining further, a Senior Assistant Commissioner of the Police told the Straits Times, 

Issuing their public order guidelines for the meetings yesterday, the police said demonstrations are already banned by Singapore law, which cannot be changed to accommodate the meeting.....[snip]  

Said SAC Soh: 'We work with agencies all over the world and we will be ready to handle any troublemakers who come to Singapore.' 

-- Straits Times, 29 July 2006, No outdoor demos
for World Bank, IMF meets, say police 

There is a bit of disinformation in the above when the police said the law "cannot be changed". The point is, the law does NOT have to be changed; it does not forbid public demonstrations and marches in the first place.

* * * * *

 
From what I can see, there are 2 pieces of legislation that are pertinent to this matter. 

Firstly, there is the Public Order (Preservation) Act. The purpose of this Act is to provide the police with additional powers in situations and areas where riotous behaviour is occurring or very likely. These powers come into effect when  

If, in the opinion of the Minister, public order in any area in Singapore is seriously disturbed or is seriously threatened the Minister may, if he considers it to be necessary for the purpose of maintaining or restoring public order in that area to do so, proclaim the existence in that area of a state of danger to public order. 

-- Public Order (Preservation) Act

Within this proclaimed area, the police can impose a curfew, erect barriers to entry, conduct searches of homes and people within, confiscate items and even discontinue telephone services. 

All this is quite understandable if a riot is in progress or about to erupt. 

Interestingly, the Public Order (Preservation) Act says that within the proclaimed area, the officer in charge of a division may prohibit absolutely or subject to conditions, any procession, meeting or assembly of 5 or more persons. 

What you should note is that even in a riot situation, the law says the police may prohibit, though of course, few would complain if they did prohibit. 

I seemed to me, by the fact that the police are closing the streets around the World Bank/IMF conference venue, that the Minister for Home affairs has indeed proclaimed the convention centre and its environs a riot area, thereby giving the police the powers to do what they intend to do. However, I can't find on the ministry's website any such proclamation. A secret one perhaps?

Some may agree that based on other cities' experiences with World Bank/IMF conferences, that such events are riot-prone, and so a proclamation can be justified. But even so, should we preemptively ban every and all demonstrations? 

Outside of a riot situation, and also outside of any proclaimed area, the applicable law is not the Public Order (Preservation) Act, but the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. The thrust of the latter Act is that of licensing, not banning. It simply says that if anyone wants to hold events, ranging from circus entertainment to sporting events to talks, to which the public has access, then the organisers should obtain a licence from the police.

The intent of this Act is thus for the police to be informed and to have powers to regulate, through attaching some conditions, the public event. The purpose, presumably, is to serve the public in a balanced way, between allowing expression of opinion and the need for public safety. 

Lots of other countries have similar laws, and they apply the laws in a way consistent with the intent, that is, they give out licences liberally. That is why we see marches and demonstrations in London, Sydney, Hong Kong and lots of other places. 

A recent guest article by Charles Tan referred to the way the police themselves performed the role of route marshals for a march in Sydney, protesting the Australian governments stance against same-sex marriage. 

So the question Singapore's police needs to answer is: Why do they disinform us that the law is meant to ban when it is meant to permit? 

Why the hoary justification of "compact, multi-ethnic and multi-religious community" (see Police statement above) when London, Sydney, Los Angeles, etc are also multi-ethnic and multi-religious cities? How is it that they can manage things when we cannot? 

* * * * * 

 
We shouldn't forget that one of the winning reasons why we awarded the first casino licence to Las Vegas Sands was because they had the best proposal for bringing large conventions to Singapore. Their architectural plans included huge convention halls and their business plans highlighted their ability to attract super-sized meetings. 

Once again, Singapore is demonstrating our world-class ability to be totally schizophrenic. We want people's money, but we don't want to give people the freedom to do what they wish to do. We want Sands to go all out to attract conventioneers at the same time that we give ourselves all the bad press about how North Korean we are.  

Having the World Bank issuing statements objecting to the way we run the show after they had agreed to locate their conference in Singapore is a fine way to secure our share of the conventions business. Here we're talking about upgrading our customer service standards so that the thousands of World Bank/IMF delegates will see a smiling side of Singapore, and there our chief customer -- the World Bank -- is feeling dissed. Brilliant!

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None