The IMF and World Bank are having their meetings here in Singapore this week, and the Singapore government has rightly seized the opportunity to promote and put the island-nation on the world map. The Four Million-Smile campaign and the flowers and greenery that have suddenly sprung up all over Orchard Road and the Suntec City area are all meant to welcome IMF and World Bank delegates and create a favourable impression of Singapore. Yet despite all these efforts, it seems that Singapore has found itself in an embarrassing situation, attracting international attention for all the wrong reasons.
I am referring to the restrictions by the Singapore government on civic protests during this period. Whereas the IMF and World Bank welcome international NGOs and various protest groups to stage their protests during the meetings, Singapore, as the host country, has decreed that there will be no outdoor protests during the meetings. Security concerns - such as the threat of terrorist activities - and local laws were cited as reasons for the restrictions. Notwithstanding the validity of these reasons, Singapore's decision has inevitably placed the spotlight (once again) on the government's authoritarian streak and its non-conformity towards democratic norms. (Outdoor protests, which can be peaceful in nature, is a form of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.) So while the government's intention is to elevate the profile of Singapore vis-a-vis the high visibility of the event internationally, the irony is that it has been given a head-start through the wrong focus. With the ban on outdoor protests, i wonder if it is ironic that would-be protestors should now find themselves protesting against Singapore instead of against the two financial institutions and/or their agenda. Not just for Singapore, the ban on outdoor protests has equally become a source of embarrassment for the IMF and World Bank, who have registered their unhappiness with the Singapore government. As of now, i believe the latter is adamant not to make any kind of accomodation.
Did the IMF and World Bank and Singapore not see all this coming when it was decided that Singapore would hold the 2006 meetings? And are the reasons furnished by Singapore valid? I do not doubt the government's genuine regard for the security of the meetings. Although it is quite unlikely that some bombs would go off or some clandestine terrorist activities would take place during such a high-level security function, the security measures put in place are surely typical of the government's meticulous planning and predisposition to adopting extreme measures. Put simply, the government and police would rather be safe than sorry, even if it means taking inconvenient and unpopular measures. It doesn't help also that this government has an almost clinical dislike and intolerance of the least bit of chaos and untidiness; everything needs to be under control in order that an event or a process can proceed smoothly without a hitch.
The second reason the government stated is that it cannot apply the law selectively, allowing foreign groups to conduct outdoor protests but denying the same rights to its citizens. This, i believe is the deeper reason why the government would not budge, and this was said clearly with the local audience in mind. Had the government made any sort of leeway for foreign groups wishing to stage outdoor protests during the meetings this week, the potential fall-outs of its decision are undoubtedly domestic, not international. It would literally have presented local activists, bloggers, opposition parties (not least Dr Chee's SDP) and like-minded civic groups with a golden opportunity to decry the government's blatant double-standards. In such a situation, while the nation would have gained from favourable press coverage world-wide, the loser would be the PAP government which have a lot of explaining to do to Singaporeans. Thus it is that Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong mentioned that local laws have to be applied fairly to foreigners and Singaporeans alike.
What about Singaporeans' attitudes? Are they even concerned with the IMF and World Bank meetings, the government's ban on outdoor protests and the potential benefits to Singapore of hosting the international event? Frankly speaking, i doubt most even give two hoots about the whole thing. The Uncle selling chicken rice or minced pork noodles in Jurong and Bedok aren't going to be directly affected in any way by the influx of V.I.Ps. They still go about their business as per any normal days, and the people who patronise their business are still going to be students from nearby schools, housewives and local working folks. Not some English-speaking delegates in armani suits or ladies with LV bags. As for other Singaporeans, life would be slightly different - a lot less exciting and troublesome. The question in their minds would be, Which roads are affected or closed for the meetings? And maybe they would also give more deliberation to their choice of dining venue as they think about which places in the city area would be less crowded. Outdoor protests? I would hazard a guess that a good majority are fully supportive of the government's decision, for like the latter, they have become accustomed to orderliness and would prefer not to have to fuss over some groups protesting abstract issues which they aren't interested in at all. (Not that civic protests would necessarily be disorderly, but it is highly probable that they are regarded as a distraction that can be done away with.)
It remains to be seen if the negative attention given to Singapore's decision to ban outdoor protests would persist or even build up into something more sticky and problematic for the government. I can only forsee the Straits Times giving coverage to all the positive comments by the foreign delegates in due time - nuggets of comments/feedback on local food, the abundant greenery, impressive efficiency etc. That would surely make me cringe.
Related sites:
Singapore tightens cordon on protest
Peaceful Streets by Yawning Bread
Smile Singapore
I am referring to the restrictions by the Singapore government on civic protests during this period. Whereas the IMF and World Bank welcome international NGOs and various protest groups to stage their protests during the meetings, Singapore, as the host country, has decreed that there will be no outdoor protests during the meetings. Security concerns - such as the threat of terrorist activities - and local laws were cited as reasons for the restrictions. Notwithstanding the validity of these reasons, Singapore's decision has inevitably placed the spotlight (once again) on the government's authoritarian streak and its non-conformity towards democratic norms. (Outdoor protests, which can be peaceful in nature, is a form of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.) So while the government's intention is to elevate the profile of Singapore vis-a-vis the high visibility of the event internationally, the irony is that it has been given a head-start through the wrong focus. With the ban on outdoor protests, i wonder if it is ironic that would-be protestors should now find themselves protesting against Singapore instead of against the two financial institutions and/or their agenda. Not just for Singapore, the ban on outdoor protests has equally become a source of embarrassment for the IMF and World Bank, who have registered their unhappiness with the Singapore government. As of now, i believe the latter is adamant not to make any kind of accomodation.
Did the IMF and World Bank and Singapore not see all this coming when it was decided that Singapore would hold the 2006 meetings? And are the reasons furnished by Singapore valid? I do not doubt the government's genuine regard for the security of the meetings. Although it is quite unlikely that some bombs would go off or some clandestine terrorist activities would take place during such a high-level security function, the security measures put in place are surely typical of the government's meticulous planning and predisposition to adopting extreme measures. Put simply, the government and police would rather be safe than sorry, even if it means taking inconvenient and unpopular measures. It doesn't help also that this government has an almost clinical dislike and intolerance of the least bit of chaos and untidiness; everything needs to be under control in order that an event or a process can proceed smoothly without a hitch.
The second reason the government stated is that it cannot apply the law selectively, allowing foreign groups to conduct outdoor protests but denying the same rights to its citizens. This, i believe is the deeper reason why the government would not budge, and this was said clearly with the local audience in mind. Had the government made any sort of leeway for foreign groups wishing to stage outdoor protests during the meetings this week, the potential fall-outs of its decision are undoubtedly domestic, not international. It would literally have presented local activists, bloggers, opposition parties (not least Dr Chee's SDP) and like-minded civic groups with a golden opportunity to decry the government's blatant double-standards. In such a situation, while the nation would have gained from favourable press coverage world-wide, the loser would be the PAP government which have a lot of explaining to do to Singaporeans. Thus it is that Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong mentioned that local laws have to be applied fairly to foreigners and Singaporeans alike.
What about Singaporeans' attitudes? Are they even concerned with the IMF and World Bank meetings, the government's ban on outdoor protests and the potential benefits to Singapore of hosting the international event? Frankly speaking, i doubt most even give two hoots about the whole thing. The Uncle selling chicken rice or minced pork noodles in Jurong and Bedok aren't going to be directly affected in any way by the influx of V.I.Ps. They still go about their business as per any normal days, and the people who patronise their business are still going to be students from nearby schools, housewives and local working folks. Not some English-speaking delegates in armani suits or ladies with LV bags. As for other Singaporeans, life would be slightly different - a lot less exciting and troublesome. The question in their minds would be, Which roads are affected or closed for the meetings? And maybe they would also give more deliberation to their choice of dining venue as they think about which places in the city area would be less crowded. Outdoor protests? I would hazard a guess that a good majority are fully supportive of the government's decision, for like the latter, they have become accustomed to orderliness and would prefer not to have to fuss over some groups protesting abstract issues which they aren't interested in at all. (Not that civic protests would necessarily be disorderly, but it is highly probable that they are regarded as a distraction that can be done away with.)
It remains to be seen if the negative attention given to Singapore's decision to ban outdoor protests would persist or even build up into something more sticky and problematic for the government. I can only forsee the Straits Times giving coverage to all the positive comments by the foreign delegates in due time - nuggets of comments/feedback on local food, the abundant greenery, impressive efficiency etc. That would surely make me cringe.
Related sites:
Singapore tightens cordon on protest
Peaceful Streets by Yawning Bread
Smile Singapore
0 comments:
Post a Comment