As Hazel Tan Li Shan wrote in her letter to 'Today' newspaper, published 15 September 2006, "What should have been a fantastic opportunity for Singapore to showcase her ability and efficiency in hosting mega-conventions, now threatens to be overshadowed by the negative backlash."

The Singapore government has attempted to explain their actions with reasons, but every one of them is so thin, one cannot but wonder what true impulses lay behind their actions.

First, the government said that outdoor protests would not be permitted. Its reasons were that terrorism and violence would have serious consequences. But as I have pointed out in previous essays, the conflation of "protests" with terrorism and violence does not stand up to scrutiny. Protests can be peaceful. Many are. The public interest is in stopping them from turning violent, not in gagging people. As for terrorism, I have argued elsewhere that terrorists do not need protests to do their work. If someone wants to plant a bomb in a shopping mall or metro station, he will do so regardless whether there is a protest march in some other part of town or not. Stopping terrorism requires good intelligence and judicious control of explosive devices in a country. It does not mean banning free expression.

Then in a remarkable gaffe, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted that the real reason why the ban was required was that otherwise it would set a precedent for Singaporeans to protest on other issues, at other times, too.

On Tuesday, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong explained the decision to ban outdoor protests on Bloomberg Television, saying the Government would be practising double standards if it relaxed restrictions.

'We have very strict rules for our own locals and we can't have two standards, because otherwise we'll be in deep political trouble with our citizens.'

-- Straits Times, 10 Sept 2006, Singapore
takes flak for ban on protests

No need to guess why the government does not want Singaporeans to protest. But that's just it. Why shouldn't Singaporeans be allowed to protest? Why is that some non-negotiable edict from God upon which can be built the rationale for banning World Bank protests? Goh's reasoning is unsound; even an eight-year-old would be able to tear it apart.

Even before that, the police showed their true colours. The Straits Times quoted the police on 23 August as saying that they would shoot to kill. We all know that in extremis, the police may fire their weapons, justifiable if someone's life is seen to be in jeopardy. But baring one's fangs like that was a deliberately aggressive act that was completely uncalled for.

The Thai government should rush to confiscate these placards. They will lead to riots and terrorism.

To accommodate its promise to the World Bank to allow civil society activists to engage with Bank delegates, the government said on 28 July that an indoor area would be set aside for "protests". However, all wooden placards and poles (for holding aloft the disallowed placards) would be confiscated.

It wasn't until delegates and activists began to arrive, that the actual indoor area set aside for civil society activists was marked out. According to news reports, it was little more than 8 metres by 8 metres. That's for a total of more than 500 activists accreditted by the World Bank to attend their summit. A simple calculation will tell you that's 8 persons per square metre. You step out of the marked area and you risk being beaten by a truncheon, maybe shot.

What sort of nutcase country is this?

* * * * *

A few days ago, the Straits Times had a headline about Lee pere et fils suing the Far Eastern Economic Review for defamation, on account of an article published a few months ago. Very few people have read that article (I haven't) but now, hey presto!, lots more want to read it. Brilliant.

If the journalists surfed the web, they would also see reports of the farce called the Falungong trial (see yellow box at right) and the hamfisted attempt to seize flyers being distributed by Chee Soon Juan, an opposition politician (see salmon box below)

They would also see the story about social activist Seelan Pillai being detained by the police on or around 13 September. Together with 2 others, he was detained in connection with distributing flyers too. The police statement also added that,

Some pamphlets concerning IMF-related issues, and some computer hardware have been seized for investigations. Police are investigating the offence under Sec 151A of the Penal Code Cap 224 - printing & possessing material which may incite violence or counsel disobedience to the law.

--  Police statement

I don't know what the flyers said, but it probably had something to do with a gathering at Hong Lim Park on 16 September. Hong Lim Park is supposed to be Singapore's free speech zone.

Seelan was the man behind the 400 frowns campaign, a parody on the "4 million smiles" staged-managed display that the Singapore government wanted to impress World Bank delegates with.

* * * * *

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have accused Singapore of reneging on a deal to allow activists into their annual meeting.

The World Bank said it was "very displeased" with Singapore's decision to bar 28 activists from the country.

The Bank and IMF argue the presence of pressure groups is key to improving the work of financial institutions.

Singapore says it has banned the activists as they have taken part in "disruptive protests" in other nations.

"The most unfortunate thing is what appears to be a going-back on an explicit agreement," World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz told about 50 activists in Singapore ahead of the annual meetings.

"So far we've had no satisfactory explanation why," he added.

-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5344456.stm

Singapore, as usual, issued a denial promptly. In its statement, it said

Singapore is aware of its obligations under the [Memorandum of Understanding] and will continue to honour them. However, the MOU also obliges Singapore to take all necessary measures for the safe passage of all persons in and out of Singapore and for their personal security and the safety of their property and the property of the Organizations and delegations. We take this duty seriously, especially in view of the prevailing international security environment.

-- http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20060914980.htm

But "safe passage" and "personal security" does not mean draconian measures that breach the spirit of the MOU. The response is nothing more than sophistry.

Finally, on 15 September, World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz rachetted up his complaint. Calling Singapore "authoritarian" and short-sighted, he said, "I would argue whether it has to be as authoritarian as it has been and I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they have reached, they would do much better for themselves with a more visionary approach to the process."

"Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage is done to Singapore and self-inflicted," he added. Source: Reuters.

That Wolfowitz used what can be considered strong words, in diplomat-speak, can be corroborated by this report from AFP:

Singapore has inflicted enormous damage to its reputation because of its reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings, bank president Paul Wolfowitz has said.

"Enormous damage has been done... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted," Wolfowitz said at a meeting with non-governmental organizations.

Singapore said it had security concerns about 27 of the hundreds of activists whom the World Bank and International Monetary Fund had already accredited to attend the institutions' meetings in Singapore as part of a formal dialogue.

"I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they've reached they'd be much better for themselves if they (took) a more visionary approach to the process," Wolfowitz said, adding that he raised the issue in a Thursday night meeting with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong .

-- AFP, 15 September 2006

In other words, we were wrong and deserve all the calumny that's coming to us.

* * * * *

 
The irony is that we're a city that craves the respect of the world. Hosting the World Bank/IMF meetings was precisely driven by that desire. Moreover, for our own well-being, we know we need to be engaged with the global economy, as well as attract talent and capital from abroad, particularly the developed democracies. Being engaged means we have to be open to the expectations and customary freedoms of other countries.

However, since we're internally structured as little more than a tinpot dictatorship that is paranoid about every little possibility of criticism, we can't help but screw up this opportunity. Our government's psychopathic reflexes make us lash out at everything and everybody.

But perhaps the most pathetic part of it all is to see some of us get all nationalistic and take offence when others throw stones at us. Just look at the letters the Straits Times found fit to print on 14 September.

Singapore deserves to suffer for this. Our attractiveness as a convention centre should nosedive, our ambitions to attract creative talent should be exposed for what it is: a joke. It's time Singaporeans see how ill-served we are by our government's authoritarian instincts.

© Yawning Bread