Singapore inflicts enormous damage to its own reputation
-
i was reading this chapter from dat lky autobio today.. dat i find similar.
in it, it says when the commonwealth conference was held in singapore, there were pro-communists protestors outside. the police quickly clear em out, the british folks were not very happy. he blamed the decision on the police officers.
will pap do the same years down the road?
-
That is in short what Wolfolwitz called breach of contract ...Sg Government has entered into the deal with the eye wide open knowing that there would be CSOs activists holding protest parties to highlight their causes.Originally posted by gentlerock:I think its like going street car racing.....
If you race, you must accept the whole package:
- You must know the consequences.
- You must accept that you might crash and die.
- If you race and drive casually (do things halfway), you might look like a joke.
- If you think its not for you, you can look for other safer sources of satisfaction.
Similar, regarding this IMF thing, you must accept the package:
- You must know the consequences.
- You must accept that there may be trouble.
- If you do it and do things halfway, you might look like a joke.
- If you think you can't handle it, you should look for other sources of satisfaction.
The presence of such CSOs in any society will make that society at the end more vibrant and its government more accountable and transparent.
If Sg has all the talented leaders who are rated so highly by themselves, they should be able to take all the CSOs and protests into their stride.
The future Sg population will want its government who are paid the world's highest salaries by way of self-approved rewards to equal the tasks of handling dissent with rationale. -
First our first lady screwed up investing in Shin Corporation, now hubby dragged the name of Singapore through the mud. I hold the PM responsible here being the leader of the country and its policy's not our blind scholar Police officer nut cases!
-
IMF and the World Bank entered into the agreement with eyes wide open knowing that public protests are illegal in Singapore. They also acknowledge that protesters and foreign delegates must respect the laws of the host nation.Originally posted by robertteh:That is in short what Wolfolwitz called breach of contract ...Sg Government has entered into the deal with the eye wide open knowing that there would be CSOs activists holding protest parties to highlight their causes.
The presence of such CSOs in any society will make that society at the end more vibrant and its government more accountable and transparent.
If Sg has all the talented leaders who are rated so highly by themselves, they should be able to take all the CSOs and protests into their stride.
The future Sg population will want its government who are paid the world's highest salaries by way of self-approved rewards to equal the tasks of handling dissent with rationale.
Singapore's decision to blacklist certain protesters is justified. Not all of them are accredited and in any case, the IMF/World Bank's accreditation system is deeply flawed. Their INCOMPETENCE is clear from the violence that attends all their meetings to date. Obviously, their accreditation system is NOT working.
Singapore is a sovereign nation and we are fully justified to bar known troublemakers from entering the country. -
IMF/WB has been conducting its annual conferences in its own traditions with its entourages of supportive CSOs to highlight its own effectiveness.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:IMF and the World Bank entered into the agreement with eyes wide open knowing that public protests are illegal in Singapore. They also acknowledge that protesters and foreign delegates must respect the laws of the host nation.
Singapore's decision to blacklist certain protesters is justified. Not all of them are accredited and in any case, the IMF/World Bank's accreditation system is deeply flawed. Their INCOMPETENCE is clear from the violence that attends all their meetings to date. Obviously, their accreditation system is NOT working.
Singapore is a sovereign nation and we are fully justified to bar known troublemakers from entering the country.
Who are our control freaks to judge their standard of screening or accreditation of CSO activists as flawed.
Who is wooing who anyway to hold the event at Suntec in the first instance? If we were the party wooing IMF/WB to hold their conference here then of course we will be more likely be the party who has to accept their conditions beside knowing full well its traditional liberal entourages of CSO activists. That was perhaps the reason for Wolfolwitz's calling of our control freaks' bans on the 27 CSO activists as breach of agreement.
IMF/WB needs not learn how to suck egg from our own narrow-minded control freaks who over time might have become paranoid about street protests and CSO activitism because of their own overstepping on civil freedoms of its own citizens. Hence, it is clearly a case of our control freaks' own paranoid and over-sensitivity towards protest activities of these CSO activists which are purely normal and peaceful unless otherwise provoked. In any event who are the best judge of normal civilised behaviour and what is considered the objective normal standard.
There is a great deal our control freaks need to be fearing. To call IMF/WB system of allowing their CSO activists to attend annual conferences as flawed comes across as rather high-handed and presumptuous and one-sided.
Who is the party which finally has capitulated and has to back down by retracting the bans of 22 out of the 27 CSO activists who are finally found not be of such threats after all. Isn't there something lacking in the way we are conducting our security if finally we have to retract 22 bans out of the over-hasty and presumptuous original bans of 27. -
Simply judge them on their record. They have persistently accredited activists who have created a trial of chaos and damage at past meetings, from Seattle through to Washington, Genoa, Quebec, Cancun, Hong Kong...They have negligently accredited all and sundry, leaving the host cities to pick up the pieces and suffer the damages. Not Singapore....Originally posted by robertteh:IMF/WB has been conducting its annual conferences in its own traditions with its entourages of supportive CSOs to highlight its own effectiveness.
Who are our control freaks to judge their standard of screening or accreditation of CSO activists as flawed.
I would be happy if we never see another IMF and World Bank meeting in Singapore again. However, the strict regulations and religious adherence to law and order will be deeply imprinted in the minds of MNCs and CEOs of large companies and this episode may be good for business.
If they do not want protesters harrassing their customers outside their restaurants, if they do not want activists spraying graffitti on their factory walls, if they want to conclude important business agreements and mergers without a mob disrupting them, Singapore is the place to go. -
knowing the enemy is having half the battle wonOriginally posted by robertteh:It is because of failure to see the bigger picture that many policies were rather one-sided.
According to Sun Tzu Art of War, if one knows the enemy as well as himself he will score a hundred victories in a hundred battles.
Does the gahman really know its own people well enough ? If it does, it would by now have come up with win-win solutions which would sell the right ideas to the people which benefit them while gaining their support - not all the unpopular and harsh policies which have to be forced down their throats. -
If the IMF and the World Bank entered into the agreement with eyes wide open, did the Singapore Government signed the agreement with its eyes closed - forgetting the terms of the agreement to allow all Civil Society Activists to participate ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:IMF and the World Bank entered into the agreement with eyes wide open knowing that public protests are illegal in Singapore. They also acknowledge that protesters and foreign delegates must respect the laws of the host nation.
Singapore's decision to blacklist certain protesters is justified. Not all of them are accredited and in any case, the IMF/World Bank's accreditation system is deeply flawed. Their INCOMPETENCE is clear from the violence that attends all their meetings to date. Obviously, their accreditation system is NOT working.
Singapore is a sovereign nation and we are fully justified to bar known troublemakers from entering the country.
If Singapore is a sovereign nation and is fully justified to bar known trouble makers - why did the Singapore Government decide to back down and allow 22 of the 27 original blacklisted activists to return to Singapore ?
Did the Singapore Government subjugate our sovereignty by responding and appeasing to Mr Wolfowitz - the President of the World Bank ?
This is a non-issue but was pushed to the limit of everyone's patience by the Singapore Government, as it had painted itself into a corner with its harsh policy towards unsanctioned local public demonstrations of any kind; and it will be a severe political embarrassment to have a Double Standard to treat foreign Social Activists favorably, while imposing a tougher environment to prevent local demonstrations.
How many were actually acredited by the World Bank for the Singapore Conference ?
Is the number 2,700, or 270, or 27 persons ?
Amidst all the loud cries, and dogmatic stands taken, has anyone realised that it is those who accompanied the accredited Activists were the ones who conducted violent protests that led to riots at the WTO meet in Hong Kong - as well as in the other places in which played hosts to the World Bank, IMF and WTO meetings.
It is NOT the accredited Activists that rioted.
Now that the Singapore Government has relented, and allowed the re-entry of 22 of the 27 activists who were banned - are we suppose to appreciate that these 22 activists are suddenly deemed to be non-threatening ? -
Amidst all the loud cries, and dogmatic stands taken, has anyone realised that it is those who accompanied the accredited Activists were the ones who conducted violent protests that led to riots at the WTO meet in Hong Kong - as well as in the other places in which played hosts to the World Bank, IMF and WTO meetings.
That is just a strategy of these groups. They have accredited activists inside the convention hall trying to persuade ministers to their cause whilst the rest of their members are breaking windows outside.
It is NOT the accredited Activists that rioted.
"Protests have been linked to WTO ever since the 1999 meeting in Seattle morphed from marches by environmentalists in turtle suits to riots sparked by black-clad anarchists. The WTO, the body that sets the rules of global trade, has come to represent everything that worries people about globalization and free markets, from low-priced foreign competitors to environmental damage and cultural change.
But these days, protesting is only half of an "inside-outside" resistance strategy. Many of the activist groups protesting the WTO's push for uniform global trade rules are also accredited to walk the halls where the talks are held, allowing them to mingle with trade ministers and closely follow the nuances of their proposals." (Seattle Times, Dec 16, 2005)
That is why the government allows most accredited delegates but banned all public protests. As for the the blacklisted activists, if intelligence revealed that an accredited activist has been known to be also involved in violent riots in the past, it would be negligent of the police to simply allow such anarchists to walk through immigration.