Singaporeans support for police ban of violent activists
-
I FULLY support the Singapore Police Force's decision to bar some known troublemakers from Singapore during the current International Monetary Fund/World Bank meetings, despite the outcry from World Bank executives.
Perhaps the high delegate turnout at the meetings is a result of the sense of security in Singapore, as much as the important issues to be discussed.
Rather than bemoaning the lack of street protests, violence and destruction that are synonymous with past International Monetary Fund/World Bank and World Trade Organisation meetings, future host nations could look at the Singapore experience as an example where civil-society organisations (CSOs) and other bona fide interest groups had a proper and non-violent platform to parade their causes.
What have previous free-for-all street protests realistically done for the groups' causes?
Inevitably, they have caused unrest, disruption and destruction to the property of the host nations.
Let Singapore 2006 be remembered not only for the important decisions that are made, but also as a milestone where CSOs' concerns are successfully accommodated, peacefully and effectively.
Lee Shing Kian
(Straits Times, Sep 16) -
Law and order come first. If we're obsessed with security, so be it
I applaud the letters by Dr Michael Loh Toon Seng and Mr Daniel Koh Kah Soon and I support their views fully.
We may be just a red dot on the world map but we do not have to cave in to unreasonable and dangerous demands from people like Mr Juan Jose Daboub and Mr Paul Wolfowitz, who should know better. It may have escaped their notice but the fact is that it is the innocent people, the bystanders, who will get hurt by the violence that takes place when there is a policy of freedom for such activists' demonstrations.
I am very happy with the law and order that exist in Singapore because it means that my family and I can walk on our streets without fear. If we are obsessed with security, so be it.
Tan Gek Keng (Mrs)
Straits Times, 16 Sep -
Protests are for show only. Singapore's tough stand on troublemakers is well-known
Before the IMF actually chose Singapore as a meeting venue, it already knew that Singapore is well-known for its tough stand on protests, troublemakers and all things bad.
Singaporeans are law-abiding, peace-loving people. We have great leaders who have gone to great lengths to keep Singapore a safe and harmonious place to live in, not just for Singaporeans but also for our foreign friends.
Our leaders are caring and responsible towards the safety of our IMF visitors and Singaporeans cannot understand how Juan Jose Daboub's desire to have protests in Singapore would do better.
Singapore would not be what it is now and the IMF will be afraid to pick Singapore as its meeting venue if our leaders had allowed protests, demonstrations and chaos in our country.
If these are allowed, I will be the first to stand in line to protest against Juan Jose Daboub for wanting to usher in trouble.
Let's be realistic. Protests are just for show only. Can the IMF really please everyone? What is important is our leaders are sincere in our fight against terrorism to make this world a better place to live in.
We want four million smiles, not tears so please don't change that.
Juliet Chua Bee Suan (Ms) -
Singapore relents over ban on activists
John Burton
Financial Times
16 Sep 06
Singapore bowed to international pressure on Friday and agreed to allow 22 of 27 banned activists to attend the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank, after Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank president, said the bar on their entry was “unacceptable”.
The move was meant to deflect mounting controversy that had threatened to become a public relations disaster for Singapore as it hosted its biggest-ever conference. But its refusal to admit five activists could keep the issue alive.
Mr Wolfowitz said Singapore had suffered “enormous damage” to its reputation – which was “self-inflicted” – by refusing to honour an agreement to allow the activists to attend the meeting.
“This could have been an opportunity to showcase to the world [Singapore’s] development process,” he said, though he added: “I would argue whether it has to be as authoritarian as it has been.”
Singapore’s concession represents a rare policy reversal for a government that takes pride in refusing to back down on its decisions. Singapore’s initial decision to bar the 27 activists was “a violation of the understanding that we had drawn up” with the government, said Mr Wolfowitz. “I’ve read the language and it seems very clear to me.”
The city-state had promised to faciliate the entry of invited participants to the meeting. But it said this week that its decision to prevent some activists from coming also fulfilled its obligation under the agreement to protect the personal security of delegates.
Singapore alleged that those blacklisted posed a security threat. “While we cannot disclose specific details about the individuals, we can affirm that the decision was carefully considered,” it said. However, Rodrigo Rato, the IMF managing director, said the activists invited were well known to the organisations, which had no doubts they would act responsibly. He warned that Singapore “would be making a mistake” if it did not reverse its decision.
SingaporeÂ’s actions have provoked anger among non-governmental organisations, which have questioned the IMF/World BankÂ’s commitment to encourage their participation. More than 160 non-governmental organisations, many of which had been invited, called for a boycott of the meeting.
More than 20 activists who attended a dialogue session with the IMF and World Bank heads walked out in protest, demanding that a harder line be taken with the Singaporean authorities.
“This has serious implications for future meetings of international organisations. If the Singapore decision is allowed to stand, it means other governments can ban invited delegates,” said Roberto Bissio, co-ordinator of the NGO network Social Watch. Singapore said it would consider admitting the remaining five activists, but would make a decision only once they arrived in the country.
Chee Soon Juan, a Singapore opposition leader who is planning a protest march today, said the authorities wanted to crack down on the foreign activists because “they don’t want local groups to pick up bad habits that would encourage Singaporeans to protest”. -
Ban on troublemakers: No apology needed
WORLD Bank managing director Juan Jose Daboub said the fact that the Singapore Government is extremely concerned about terrorist acts is 'something we cannot corroborate'.
'They said they are concerned with terrorist acts,' said Mr Daboub, one of the bank's two managing directors.
'They are concerned about the security for the 4,000, 5,000 people that will come to the meetings and for the Singapore people.'
The car burning, window smashing and the violence that took place in Seattle and Hong Kong seemed completely lost on Mr Daboub.
World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz told the BBC that Singapore's decision to block accredited activists, who had been invited, was a 'bad' one.
One would have expected men of such stature to be more circumspect in what they say.
I wonder if Mr Daboub and Mr Wolfowitz would still say the same thing if they had been injured in skirmishes caused by demonstrators.
The press, too, had a field day mocking Singapore. You could almost feel The Financial Times gloating when it wrote that 'the IMF and the World Bank issued an unprecedented rebuke to Singapore over a ban on accredited activists invited to attend the annual meetings of the two financial institutions.'
It added: 'Although the authorities are hoping to use the meetings as a showcase to promote Singapore as a tourist-friendly destination and business centre, visitors may come away with the impression of a well-functioning police state.'
Singapore owes no apology to anyone for blocking known troublemakers or for our obsession with security.
Dr Michael Loh Toon Seng
(Straits Times, Sep 14) -
Saturday September 16, 10:53 AM
Singapore's climbdown on activists too late: NGOs
Singapore acted too late in finally agreeing to admit 22 activists whose accreditation for World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings it had opposed, non-governmental organizations say.
The city-state's partial climbdown late Friday followed stinging criticism from the World Bank in a controversy which activists say reinforces the city-state's image as a restrictive society, despite its economic success.
Singapore had said there were security concerns about 27 of the hundreds of activists accredited by the Bank and Fund as part of a long-standing dialogue between the financial institutions and their critics.
But it partially reversed its stand after Bank president Paul Wolfowitz said the issue had damaged the reputation of the city-state, which prides itself on its image as an efficiently-run regional commercial hub.
Singapore said 22 of the 27 activists would now be allowed entry.
The Bank welcomed Singapore's move but said it wants all 27 admitted "without delay" in line with a memorandum of understanding with the Singapore government.
"This gesture is, quite simply, too little too late. Expensive travel plans have already been undone, and many civil society organizations are unable to fly to Singapore on a moment's notice," said Romilly Greenhill, of the relief agency ActionAid International.
Lidy Nacpil, of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Jubilee South, agreed.
"Also, why only 22 of the 27?" she said on the Indonesian island of Batam, near Singapore, where more than 160 NGOs on Friday declared a boycott of the meetings in Singapore to protest the clampdown on free speech and banning of activists.
Wolfowitz said at a meeting with NGOs in Singapore on Friday that "enormous damage has been done ... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted."
A few hours later, Singapore announced its climbdown.
"Singapore apparently has realised that their image has been tarnished, to say the least," Nacpil said.
It was a rare reversal by the city-state which generally stands firm in the face of criticisms. Last year Singapore hanged an Australian drug trafficker despite a high-level diplomatic campaign to save the man's life.
The city-state's hard line against the NGOs "has underlined how cut off Singapore is from a world where free speech, free association and democratic choice are established norms of political association,"; said Walden Bello, executive director of Focus on the Global South, another NGO.
Singapore is "out of step with the times," Bello said.
Political stability has been the bedrock of the economic success of the city-state, which grew from a Third World country to become one of Asia's wealthiest nations.
Critics say this came at a price, in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and political activity.
Sinapan Samydorai, president of local human rights group Think Centre, said the controversy over the activists "just strengthened that view that it's a very closed society when it comes to political rights."
He said Singapore should have been "more mature" and allowed the foreign protesters to make their point against the financial institutions.
Despite appeals from the Bank that accredited protesters be allowed to hold outdoor demonstrations, Singapore has refused to waive a long-standing ban on public protests.
Police have said tough security measures were necessary because the country is a high-profile "terrorist" target.
But NGOs said the measures -- enforced by 10,000 security personnel -- were directed toward local activists, not outsiders.
Bello said Singapore "fears the effect that civil society organisations criticising and debating the IMF and World Bank might have on the citizens of Singapore."
A local opposition politician, Chee Soon Juan, was set to break the ban on outdoor protests Saturday.
He said the international community has begun to see the nature of Singapore's system.
"How do you expect to become a financial centre, a global hub... and yet be so repressive?" he said. -
Singapore is known the world over for our strict laws and religious devotion to order and public safety. The sort of violent and unruly protests in past WTO/IMF/World Bank meetings in Seattle, Cancun and Hong Kong cost the organizers millions of dollars in damages. They may be dismissed as 'a little messiness' by some, but most Singaporeans will not accept that in our society.
To protesters and activists who intend to introduce such western-style anarchy to the streets of Singapore, the message must be, "Don't mess around with us!" -
I see a big clash of opinions here
-
I see a Quotation War.
-
No human, has ever swam in water, and remained DRY.
-
I see a thread with many pages in the making.
-
now 22 ppl can come liao.
-
Protests does not equate to violence. Demonstrations doesn't necessarily need to have rocks, molotov cocktails and bloodshed.
-
The ones at IMF/World Bank/WTO meetings have always been violent....same protesters, same results. If we have to let some of them in, you've got to follow them everywhere with a rifle..Originally posted by Shotgun:Protests does not equate to violence. Demonstrations doesn't necessarily need to have rocks, molotov cocktails and bloodshed. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The ones at IMF/World Bank/WTO meetings have always been violent....same protesters, same results. If we have to let some of them in, you've got to follow them everywhere with a rifle..
Singapore will be the very last place they will visit if they choose to do silly things. -
Mayb david baine can?Originally posted by ShutterBug:No human, has ever swam in water, and remained DRY.
-
Had we let the CSOs in from the start, we would have been able to avoid the accusations of heavy-handedness. In the event that they did riot, Singapore's position would have been vindicated and we would have our excuse to crack down hard on them.
At this stage, lifting the ban shows our weakness rather than openess to the world. Those CSO fags won't come knowing that their outdoor demonstration crap won't be tolerated here. So they'll stay in Batam, wayang about big bad Singapore, making us look bad from the safety of their resort hostels.
Worst of all is the IMF and World Bank. They have made us their scapegoat. By fingering Singapore as the one responsible for barring those activists they have deflected the blame away from themselves. Most infuriating of all is, they are secretly enjoying the security and peace afforded by our ban, while criticising Singapore in public. Such gratitude.
I hope we learn a lesson from this. -
He's not human, not counted.Originally posted by Wind6:Mayb david baine can? -
i wld love2 c some fightin...
-
Those expected protests, if they had taken place, could have a far greater consequance - inflicting a dent on our young fragile minds, as those letters to the forum page of The Straits Times have shown.
-
Has Singaporean been misled by the hardline talks from the PAP Elites ?
Despite all the hardline talk, is it not an embarrassment now to rescind the ban, and climb down from the condescendingly false moral high ground ?
The Singapore Government a.k.a the PAP Elites - managed by MM - has never shy away from controversies, and this non-issue of 27 Civil Society Activists was made use of to reinforce a Political Message that the PAP will be tough in a no-nonsense insistence of its rules in governing Singapore.
MM LKY had to continue with this line of action in his speech at a seminar that was featured in the front page on Saturday's Straits Times.
MM LKY's message is an open threat to Singaporeans - that if the PAP dare to challenge the position taken by the World Bank, and will ignore its agreed obligation to honor a Memorandum of Understanding agreed in 2003 - no one in Singapore will be able to challenge the PAP.
This is the Confucian Value that is being projected by the Singapore Government with regards to its attitude towards 'the concept of honor and responsiblity to honor what has been agreed'.
Unfortunately, the PAP cave in to the World Bank, as 'Money Talks Louder' - and who else understand this better than our Million Dollar salaried Ministers, whose pay probably exceed that of the World Bank President.
Can this 'Little Red Dot' called Singapore afford to step on the wrong toes - especially that of the World Bank President Mr Wolfowitz - (a close personal friend of the US President George W. Bush ) ?
Big stakes are involved, and it is not merely a matter of personal pride in insisting on the Singapore Values or about Security - the stakes are the Billion Dollars of Singapore Reserves in US Treasury Bills and in US Currency, Investments in US Real Estates and US Commercial and Industrial Assets taken over; the continued access to the superior Military Technologies and our continued involvement and participation in joint development of Military Technologies; our investments in joint-Strategic Military and Intelligence co-operation; and access to the countless corridors of powers in the US Senate and Congress.
All these are at stake over a small non-issue of the participation of 27 Civil Society Activists.
All of these have been painstakingly built over the years - through personal contacts and relationships - and now all of these are thrown to the wind over a small matter of 27 activists.
Despite having the entire Singapore Gurkha Contingent, the entire Red Beret Police Riot Squad, Police Swat Team at the Suntec City Convention Hall, the Singapore Government is afraid of 27 activists.
What does this say of the Singapore Government and its Law Enforcement abilities ?
It is about time that the Elite Leadership of the PAP decide if Singapore is truly a member of the First World Community, and start beginning to behave as a First World Government should; or if we are a 'Third World' Country with a government system that is no better than that of Myanmar in handling those whom they cannot agree with, and holding strongly to opposing views
This is not a matter of liberalism, nor a call for adverserial politics, nor a call for extremities in political processes.
This is a simple call for the return of the Constitutional Rights to Singaporeans; the return to Political Accountablility; the return of the Political Rights of Participation for all Singaporeans; the cessation of all political process that perpetuate the political monopoly of the PAP; the return to honest politics in which the Elected President is given back his authority to perform his tasks as originally set out for him - (before the changes were made to stop the Presidential interference as happened with the late President Ong Teng Cheong); the return of an honorable and independent Judiciary that is truly independent from the controls of the Singapore Government or the Elites from the PAP; the removal of all political appointees in the Civil Service, the Police Force, and the SAF. -
I think once and for all, our gov should make clear the following:
>> Do we or do we NOT, have our Constitutional Rights? Just YES or NO will do. No beating around the friggin bush.
>> If they carry on their Repressive and Oppressive ways towards Freedom of Speech, Assembly & Expression, please proceed to redesign our flag with one Star less. - omit Democracy if you will/must...
This way, everyone will shut up, and instantly KNOWS what to do. -
Every sovereign nation has the right to refuse entry to any individuals deemed to be undesirable. The authorities has bowed to pressure to allow 22 of the 27 in but I am sure they will have a whole continent of police shadowing them if they should come.
Along with many Singaporeans, I understand and support the government's reluctance to allow in activists who have been involved in violent protests. Many of these NGOs adopt a dual policy of having accredited activists voicing their protests in the convention halls whilst other members put up violent protests in the streets outside. That is one reason why Singapore will not allow public protests outdoors. Their leaders put on a suit as an accredited CSO participant indoors whilst coordinating the hooligans smashing windows outside.
The authorities have intelligence as to known troublemakers (the blacklisted activitsts form a very small proportion of the whole) and are fully justified in attempting to block them from entering the nation. If they are allowed in, the police should take all measures necessary, including lethal force, to prevent a recurrence of the riots in Hong Kong and Seattle. -
Yesterday while out visiting relations, I asked a young girl of 18 who's studying in Ngee Ann, what she thinks of this whole IMF fiasco. Her reply to me shows how astoundingly bright and atuned the educated youngs are these days!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Every sovereign nation has the right to refuse entry to any individuals deemed to be undesirable. The authorities has bowed to pressure to allow 22 of the 27 in but I am sure they will have a whole continent of police shadowing them if they should come.
Along with many Singaporeans, I understand and support the government's reluctance to allow in activists who have been involved in violent protests. Many of these NGOs adopt a dual policy of having accredited activists voicing their protests in the convention halls whilst other members put up violent protests in the streets outside. That is one reason why Singapore will not allow public protests outdoors. Their leaders put on a suit as an accredited CSO participant indoors whilst coordinating the hooligans smashing windows outside.
The authorities have intelligence as to known troublemakers (the blacklisted activitsts form a very small proportion of the whole) and are fully justified in attempting to block them from entering the nation. If they are allowed in, the police should take all measures necessary, including lethal force, to prevent a recurrence of the riots in Hong Kong and Seattle.
Her reply;"They are reluctant to let in those activist for fear that if peaceful demonstrations and protests is indeed possible (which there is no doubt it is possible since it will be held in an 8x8m indoor area), Singaporeans may also want to voice their displeasures! Furthermore, our government has always been afraid of being asked questions about their policies, and they are so used to us swallowing what they dish out they now made a mistake by expecting same of WB IMF. Hope they learn a lesson!"
Clearly, our gov is losing the favor of the new generations. -
We paid them millions (yes we, their bosses the tax payers; COE, ERP, glorified transport fares, indecent health costs, GST) and this is the kind of results we get? A bashing from the IMF and the World Bank. A disgraceful smear on the reputation of Singapore. Their duty is to create jobs in Singapore? It looks more like they are chasing away investors who are conscientious and will pay decent wages.
Dictators will only attract scumbag exploitative bosses in cahoots with them.