continuation:
Perhaps their attendance in Singapore is really unnecessary, as they could have easily lobbied for their respective causes long before the IMF/WB meetings.
If this were so, then why make a big deal about staging protests and demonstrations when they know fully that these actions, here and now, do not and will not make one iota of impact on the discussions over these few days?
The boycott also points to the non-representative character of CSOs that makes governments and observers alike wary of their activities and question their true motivation. Who decided their attendance? Who decided that they should now abandon the objectives for their coming? Who indeed are their 'constituents'? Whom do they represent and are therefore accountable to?
IF one can accept that attendance is really unnecessary, as 'their cause could be lobbied before the IMF/WB meetings', then we may as well apply the same principle on the entire IMF-WB meetings - which could be settled by the executive staff of the IMF-WB travelling to each member countries, and resolving issue on a bilateral basis, before having a shorter plenary session over a shorter number of days.
The very fact that general meetings are held is that important contributions and joint deliberations can be made, when all parties are given the same support, opportunities, facilities, and more importanly - the due respect and recognition to one's Rights as a Group or an an Individual.
This is something which our Singpore Government can hardly understand.
How was it concluded that the character of CSOs are non-representative - when each of these CSO groups - known as NON-Governmental Organisations - are specialists in specific areas of civil interests that affect the Globe ?
In Fiscal Year 2003, the World Bank provided a Development Grant Facility amounting to US$157 Million to Civil Society Organisations that looked into topics of rural poverty, third world debt, global environmental issues, health and disease management.
Such contemptuos remarks coming from a Singaporean is typical attitude culled from decades of hardened government cynicism and contempt towards the works of NGOs; and it is not surprising that in such an intolerant environment such as Singapore, no NGOs exist that are involved in controversial issues that the Government find sensitive.
On the other hand, the Singapore Government is accountable to us, the Singapore people, who elected it democratically into political office, repeatedly I must add, with overwhelming support.
Is the Singapore Government ever accountable to any Singaporeans - let alone even to the Elected Presidency, a post created by the Ruling Political Party, which then trimmed the President's authority when it was found to disruptive and inconvenient to the monopolistic grip to executive power.
The government decision to mount a heightened security umbrella so that IMF/WB delegates, CSAs, their friends and accompanying loved ones are free from fear for their own safety should be commended and applauded, not baulked at.
The stark truth is that no CSO and CSA is prevented from delivering their 'protests' in the area set aside for such purposes in a non-violent and tasteful manner.
This statement is skewed and misleading, and is typically an ingenious move that absolve the Authorities at the first glance.
Even when there are plans that result in 'no CSO and CSA is prevented from delivering their 'protests' in the areas set aside for such purposes in a non-violent and tasteful manner', what is the use of such preparations, when the 'accreditted CSO and CSA participants' are turned away at the airport immigration counters ?
Why allow someone to have a party in your home, and letting the organiser send all the invitation cards out, only to have a final say as to who is allowed into your home ?
It becomes even more devious by claiming that a separate room is prepared to accomodate the undesirables, but if they decide not to come, we cannot be blamed - when their absence is due to one's preventive actions.
I have no argument with the noble objectives of many CSOs, especially on the issues of poverty, working conditions, labour rights, fair trade, child labour, women exploitation, basic education for all, and the environment. And I also strongly believe that these have not been given adequate attention by incorporating them into the outcomes and impact measures of the IMF and WB. These issues are very real, and this oversight has cost many, many lives.
The boycott by the CSOs is therefore a 'bad' decision, and wrong.
Michael Heng Swee Hai
Reference: ST Forum
Very cleverly said, almost eloquently intelligent, and innocently made to conceal the hypocrisy in the contradicting criticism made for one who claim to understand the CSOs' role.
An ingenious statement, similar to the one made by Brutus, after burying Caesar.