Economic might has allowed Singapore to slip under the world's human rights radar

Spotlight on Singapore: Money talks, silences human rights
by Bernadette Radford with inputs from Shipra Dingare
Human Rights Features, 2-6 Oct’06
Weekly series for the UN Human Rights Council
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

The annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in Suntec City, Singapore, revealed the jarring contrasts of the wealthy city-state. On the one hand, Singapore's affluence and modernity was on parade, with lush new landscaping and newly renovated bridges and flyovers, traversed by the world's most powerful financiers and businessmen in over 800 limousines and BMW sedans. Simultaneously, Singapore banned outdoor demonstrations so as not to detract from the pageantry, and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng asserted in January 2006 that protestors breaking the law would face full penalties including caning for those who engage in violence.

Indeed, Singapore managed to assert its authoritative muscle, denying anti-poverty activists entry to the main venue, leading even the IMF and the World Bank to record their disapproval of such strong arm measures. This state of affairs reflects the attitude of Singaporean authorities: economic progress has first priority, with human rights a distant second.

Democracy is also not a high priority in Singapore; the recent celebrations marking Singapore's 41st year of independence simultaneously marked the 41st year of rule by the authoritarian People's Action Party (PAP). Citizens are not permitted to circulate newspapers, make broadcasts, hold demonstrations or even speak to a public audience without prior government authorisation. The treatment of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, arrested in March 2006 for questioning the independence of the Singaporean judiciary and summoned to court in May for speaking publicly without a permit, attests to these realities. Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable in Singapore and are frequently subject to physical abuse and exploitation.

So why is the international community so reluctant to speak out in the face of so much oppression? The answer is simple. The economies of the world's most powerful voices are tightly intertwined with commercial interests in Singapore. The European Union (EU) and the United States have substantial business interests in Singapore, which would be compromised if they were to condemn the oppression perpetrated by the Singaporean government.

A vital trade and business link

The IMF-World Bank meeting was a premier opportunity for Singapore to present itself as a world convention and exhibition centre, as well as an international hub for business and banking. As a small city-state with few primary resources, Singapore's development strategy has of necessity focused outward, relying on external investment and trade. In this it has been notably successful. After borrowing from the World Bank in the 1960s and 70s, loans ceased by 1980 and Singapore remained resilient during the East Asian Crisis of the 1990s. Since then it has hosted IMF and World Bank seminars on crisis prevention and management. Currently, over 7,000 multinational corporations from the US, Japan, and Europe are invested in Singapore. Businesses take advantage of low tax rates and tariff barriers as well as liberal investment laws.

Singapore is also a crucial actor in world trade. The port of Singapore is one of the busiest in the world, facilitating total trade of 716 billion Singapore dollars (about US$438 billion) and trade growth of 14 percent in 2005, with future growth expected at seven to nine percent. Singapore is also a member of the ASEAN Free Trade Area and has concluded bilateral free trade agreements with countries including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Jordan, India, and Panama, among others. The US, the EU, Japan, China and Malaysia all have important trade links with Singapore. The US and the EU each receive 10 to 13 per cent of Singapore's exports annually and each provide between 12 to 14 percent of its imports.

Singapore is Europe's largest trading partner among the ASEAN countries and the 11th largest importer from the US. Malaysia is Singapore's primary trade partner and has offered no criticism of human rights abuses in Singapore. This is not unexpected, given Malaysia's own human rights record.

However, the silence of countries that profess great concern for human rights issues is somewhat more conspicuous.

Why the US and the EU need Singapore

In 2004, the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) came into force, marking the first free trade agreement between the US and an Asian nation. Two years later, US and Singaporean government officials applauded the 13 percent growth in trade between the two countries since the agreement came into force. The USSFTA particularly aims to increase the trade in services, of increasing importance to both countries. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the "strong economic ties" are broadening into new sectors, such as information technology, health, and education. But the US has more to gain from Singapore than bilateral trade benefits. Economically, it is hoped that the USSFTA will provide a springboard for further trade agreements which will lead to "a network of FTA's in the region" and better trading relationships with countries like Indonesia. Strategically, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs views US-Singapore relations as increasingly "multi-faceted," encompassing not only economic but also defence interests. It should also be noted that increased cooperation between the US and Singapore has arisen out of the global campaign against terrorism.

In its determination to cement relations with Singapore, the US has essentially ignored Singapore's human rights record. While the US State Department's human rights country reports annually acknowledge violations there, including infringements on freedom of the press and abuse of foreign workers, the deliberations of the US Congress subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection on the USSFTA featured little anxiety regarding Singapore's human rights record.

The statement of Thea M Lee, chief international economist of the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), urged Congress to reject the USSFTA, highlighting its effective failure to commit the parties to international labour standards. However, the legislation passed easily in both the House and the Senate.

The EU appears similarly determined to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Singapore. In an overview of relations with Singapore, the EU describes the country as "an important trading partner" and emphasises its strategic position for facilitating trade between Europe and Asia. The 2003 launch of "A New Partnership with South East Asia" described Singapore as crucial for the sound implementation of the programme. Growing recognition of mutual economic interests led to the establishment of Singapore-EC Consultations (SECC) in 2000, which led to joint development projects in the region. Recently, Singapore has been urging the EU to forge a bilateral free trade agreement. There are hopes on both sides that relations will embrace common endeavours in transport, intellectual property, and research and development.

Clearly, the governments of the EU and the US have given priority to strong economic relations with Singapore rather than human rights issues. In this, the influence of the business community is readily apparent.

Singapore's response

Singapore's reaction to peaceful protests fits the pattern of past responses to criticisms on human rights issues. The Singaporean government has masked abuses with the flawed ‘Asian values’ discourse. Censorship measures, authoritarian governance and laws governing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been excused as the "Asian way." Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew claimed that Asians have "little doubt that a society with communitarian values, where the interests of society take precedence over that of the individual, suits them better than the individualism of America." When Reporters Sans Frontières' Annual Press Freedom Index ranked Singapore 147th, Information Minister Lee Boon Yang insisted that Singapore did not operate according to "Western" values. He said that journalists in Singapore do not have an "adversarial role" and instead contribute to "nation building." After a recent visit to Australia and New Zealand, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong expressed the view that rule by a single party was more efficient and better for Singapore.

Break the silence

The parade of power and wealth in September 2006 demonstrated that human rights abuses in Singapore continue to be tolerated by the international community. It shows that economic might has allowed Singapore to slip under the world’s human rights radar. The new beginning epitomised by the Human Rights Council must be used to ensure that such States receive the attention and censure they deserve.

Textbox

Good for corporations, bad for human rights

WHILE the World Bank has taken to professing concern for human rights issues, its concern was clearly not an obstacle to the choice of Singapore as a meeting venue. The World Bank and IMF could not have been unaware that Singapore would place restrictions on the right to protest.

In a case decided late last year, the Singapore High Court refused to uphold this constitutionally
guaranteed right and stated that the police could legitimately disband peaceful protesters, even if they numbered only four.

That human rights are not a prerequisite to being a top business destination appears to be the consensus in the business community. According to the World Bank ranking of 155 countries, Singapore is among the easiest places to do business, second only to New Zealand.

Singapore is also renowned for labour laws that are favourable to employers. The negative impact these laws have on workers is less well known. There are few restrictions on a corporation's ability to hire and fire and no minimum wage. Furthermore, there is a large pool of domestic foreign labourers who are virtually unprotected by Singaporean law and are frequently subject to exploitative work conditions.

Although Singaporean courts are known to support the government’s agenda of silencing critics of the regime through defamation actions, the Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy recently named Singaporean courts the best in Asia. Such assessments highlight efficiency but leave other important issues ignored, such as judicial independence or the role of the courts in perpetuating unfair governmental restrictions.

S'pore PM slams foreign media for exposing PAP govt's dirty tricks

First here's a Oct 16 press release from FORUM-ASIA........

Singapore denies fundamental freedoms: Detained civil society activists suffer 'soft torture' before deportation

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) strongly condemns the Singapore government’s detention and deportations of civil society activists during the recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank annual meetings in the country. This denial of the fundamental freedom of expression is a cause for serious concern.

FORUM-ASIA raises concerns about the harsh and intimidating treatment of activists and speakers from civil society organisations.

First-hand testimonies from some of the deportees have indicated blatant practices of 'soft torture' disproportionate to the situation and station of these activists and speakers. Most of them had travelled to or transited through Singapore to attend the International People’s Forum meetings in Batam, Indonesia, an event parallel to the IMF-World Bank meetings. A number were also going to attend smaller-scale civil society meetings in Singapore.

These detentions came after an official blacklist of 27 activists or speakers already accredited by the IMF-World Bank were made known to these two institutions. When the detentions and deportations occurred from a period lasting from 13-18 September, it was then made known that the Singaporean authorities also had unofficial blacklists of dozens, if not hundreds, of other civil society activists and speakers.

The blacklists resulted in these actions: about two dozen activists and speakers were detained and deported; a number of them were detained for up to 38 hours before being deported. Some had their personal equipment such as cellphones confiscated; most were not allowed to contact anyone such as their family, friends, colleagues or employers. All were questioned, put in holding cells with harsh white fluorescent lights turned on continually, and closely monitored including trips to the restrooms; all have had their luggage ransacked; and only those with longer hours of detention were provided with the bare minimum of food and water. Those holding valid visas had them cancelled by the Singaporean authorities. Most or all of the detainees did not have access to the consuls or embassies of their home countries.

We draw attention to the Singaporean government's practice and culture of denying fundamental freedoms to those in their custody. By detaining and deporting these individuals, the Singaporean government has shown that they do not respect international human rights laws.

As a member of the United Nations (UN), Singapore has contravened Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. By its actions, the government has also contravened Articles 1, 5, 8 and 12 of the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Furthermore, by blacklisting and preventing civil society activists to participate in events related to development, the Singapore government has also violated Articles 2 and 8 of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development.

Fundamental human rights are indivisible and non-derogatory; individuals; groups and governments are not allowed to degrade anyone's fundamental human rights. With the above violations and ‘soft torture’ practiced, internationally-recognised rights, freedom of expression, assembly, association and access to information, were undermined in one broad sweep. The Singaporean government's restriction on and treatment of these activists is not acceptable and the authoritarian mindset giving rise to this behaviour must not be encouraged.

The Singapore government should allow and encourage its citizens and all civil society activists to exercise their fundamental rights, not trample and violate them. Civil society activists and dissenters who express different opinions and views are human beings with rights. When there are doubts one should resolve the issue in favour of expression rather then suppression.

The Singapore government should set priorities to remove outdated policies, laws and restrictions on public speech, gatherings and assembly. These outdated policies and practices only exist to darken Singapore's image as a developed nation with opportunities for all.

FORUM-ASIA deplores deeply the actions of the Singaporean government during the period 13-18 September 2006. We hope that the Singaporean authorities will not repeat this sort of behaviour during future international or regional meetings that it hosts. It should also reform its practices for future events that may involve foreign civil society actors, such as during the forthcoming ASEAN Summit in 2007.

And PM Lee has got the cheek to say with a straight face that the foreign media had an "agenda".........

Singapore PM criticizes foreign press "agenda"
AFP
Oct 19, 2006

Foreign journalists had an "agenda" to make Singapore open up during recent World Bank-IMF meetings in the city-state, local newspapers quoted Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as saying.

He was commenting on extensive reporting by foreign press of Singapore's reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited by the World bank and International Monetary Fund for a formal dialogue during the institutions' September meetings.

Singapore initially said it had security concerns about the 27, but then agreed to admit 22 of them after World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said his hosts had caused "enormous damage" to their own reputation.

"The foreign media had another agenda -- they wanted Singapore to open up, to conform to their standards, their norms," the Today newspaper quoted Lee as saying.

"Whatever line we drew, they wanted to push us, to go a little bit further. But we had to decide where the line was, and stick to it."

Lee was speaking at an event to thank volunteers who helped out at the IMF-World Bank gathering.

Singapore's approach to free speech also came under attack during the international meetings from local pro-democracy activist Chee Soon Juan.

Chee -- who was protesting against poverty and restrictions on free speech -- engaged in a three-day standoff with police who stopped him from marching to the conference venue.

Despite appeals from the World Bank, Singapore refused to waive its long-standing restrictions on outdoor protests during the meetings.

Police defended their strict security measures, saying Singapore was a high-profile terrorist target.

"The IMF-World Bank wanted us to be a bit more open, and we tried our best to accommodate. But in the end, we were responsible for the safety of the delegates and we could not shirk the responsibility of whom to let in," Lee was quoted as saying.

Singapore prides itself on its image as an efficiently-run, regional commercial hub that is one of Asia's wealthiest nations.

But Wolfowitz, in his remarks during the IMF-World Bank meetings, suggested the way Singapore handled the activist issue was worthy of a less-developed authoritarian state.

Lee, in a speech to editors earlier this month, said that in Asia, "the countries which have been most successful at improving the lives of their people do not always have the most aggressive media ... Each country will have to evolve its own model of the media that works for it."

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in May placed Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its World Press Freedom Index for 2005, due to the "complete absence" of independent media in the city-state.

Singapore ranked below Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Russia, Sudan and Yemen.

To Nanyang Chronicle: Don't do a disservice to your fellow students

I first saw this over at SDP's website.

In its current issue, the Nanyang Chronicle published a piece titled Protest or performance art? by Daniel Ong. (You can access the PDF version of the Chronicle here. The article is on pg.26)

The writer practically regurgitated whatever has been published & broadcasted through our pro-PAP govt media. It was like reading bias propaganda bullshit from the Straits Times. In fact, I might not be too far off the mark 'cos one of the Chronicle's "teacher advisors" is Ben Nadarajan, a Straits Times journalist.

According to its website, the Chronicle is "a student-run campus newspaper published by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, on a bi-monthly basis. The Chronicle started publication in July 1994 with the aim of providing timely campus news and information as well as being the voice of the campus population. The paper also provides practical training for undergraduates who are keen to work in the field of journalism after graduation."

I wouldn't have blogged about that inane piece if not for the fact that its published in an educational institution and targeted at students. Nationally, they're already exposed to such bullshit & propaganda from the bias local media, day in & day out, year after year.

The SDP asked ".....would an alternative view be allowed to be published?". Unfortunately, I don't think any would be published.

Nevertheless, here's a request to the editors of the Chronicle: Surprise me by answering SDP's question in the affirmative and publish an alternative view. You'll be doing a disservice to your fellow students by not doing so.

Singapore’s Founding Myths vs. Freedom by Garry Rodan

And the final article.......

Singapore’s Founding Myths vs. Freedom

FEER, October 2006

By Garry Rodan

The Singapore government hoped for significant returns when it invested approximately $85 million to host the September 2006 meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. And this seemed like a reasonable expectation. After all, the 16,000 delegates represented a captive audience to promote the Singapore’s finance and tourism industries.

What transpired, however, was a public-relations disaster for the ruling People’s Action Party. Singapore’s extensive curbs on political expression were to consume much of the international media attention before and during the meetings.

Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng warned that public protests may “attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment.” Under Singapore’s Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, a security permit from police is required for more than four people to gather in a public place. Authorities claimed that outdoor protests would disrupt local residents and could be exploited by terrorists.

Far from winning new admirers by hosting the meetings, Singapore’s authorities managed to alienate existing ones. Leading American neocon Paul Wolfowitz, now president of the World Bank, slammed immigration restrictions on activists as “authoritarian.” Mr. Wolfowitz accused Singapore authorities of reneging on a 2003 agreement to allow attendance of accredited activists, adding: “Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage has been done to Singapore, and it’s self-inflicted.” Belated approvals for 22 of the 27 banned activists to enter Singapore limited—but didn’t undo—the damage.

Many international NGOs conducted their activities from the nearby Indonesian island of Batam. Meanwhile, international media attention turned to the attempted illegal march and rally by Singapore Democratic Party leader, Chee Soon Juan, and six others to highlight curbs on freedom of speech, association and assembly. Encircled by 30 police, the protesters were physically prevented from even beginning their march from a city park. Without taking a single step they had proven their point and the government’s contempt for voices of protest was vividly projected to the world.

Additional limits to political expression in Singapore are imposed through stringent media regulation and frequent litigation by government leaders. None of this is abating. Indeed, this publication was recently banned in Singapore, as editor Hugo Restall explains in this edition. But why does the ruling PAP persist with such tight controls over expression given that it enjoys widespread political support inside and outside Singapore? How can we understand the sorts of pr disasters described above?

Any attempt to answer these questions needs to grasp that suppression of dissent in Singapore is discriminating. The PAP has over the last four decades displayed special anxiety toward certain criticisms and scrutiny, while it is less severe in its reactions to others. In particular, it reacts robustly to questioning of the PAP’s governance virtues and the integrity of the political, legal and bureaucratic institutions it has crafted. It is especially protective of two foundational myths of the PAP, which provide the rationale for the ruling party’s monopoly of power.

The first myth is that public institutions are autonomous, efficient and administered by a meritocracy. In this construction, the integrity of any institution is directly linked to the character of its officials and vice versa. The second posits that unless all politics is channeled through clearly defined and regulated formal political institutions then Singapore’s social and political stability will be at risk. This concept of politics is a compartmentalized and highly regulated one.

However, the veracity of such defining stories about the essence of the regime’s character and purpose are impossible to fully ascertain given the constraints on inquiry and debate into them. This is not by accident, since if these myths could not hold up to scrutiny then the rationale of the de facto one-party state would be undermined. Insulating these myths from scrutiny may reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of Singaporeans to assess competing claims about key institutions. It might also reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of the institutions to withstand critical scrutiny. Whatever the case, reinforcing foundational myths involves continual vigilance in monitoring and restricting public debate on PAP governance and institutions.

Paradoxically, dissent itself can actually be functional for the promotion and reinforcement of these myths. For instance, the high-profile defamation suits against critics not only impair or punish government opponents. These trials also avail the ruling party of opportunities to articulate the proclaimed attributes and qualities of the governance system. This explains what otherwise appears to be an inordinate scale of resources and political investment devoted by the PAP to such trials.

Similarly, the extensive system of licenses and regulations pertaining to any form of political expression enables authorities to do more than just limit such activities. It provides opportunities for authorities to echo political leaders’ notions about threats to social and political order posed by civil society activism, public rallies, Internet Web blogs and other independent political expressions.

PAP sensitivity to scrutiny of key state institutions goes a long way toward explaining why J.B. Jeyaretnam and Mr. Chee have encountered more difficulties than most opposition politicians. They are depicted as engaging in “gutter politics,” periodically contrasted for the worse with Singapore’s two opposition members of parliament—Mr. Jeyaretnam’s successor at the helm of the Workers’ Party, Low Thia Khiang, and the leader of the Singapore People’s Party, Chiam See Tong.

In recent decades, Messrs. Jeyaretnam and Chee have consistently probed, questioned and criticized various aspects of the governance system, honing in on the processes accompanying bureaucratic, administrative and political decisions. They have each endured a raft of problems with authorities in trying to conduct political organization and communication—including a string of defamation cases awarding massive damages to PAP leaders. These ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy of the opposition politicians and hence their ineligibility to contest elections.

The most recent demonstration of the difficulties in scrutinizing the PAP’s governance claims without being open to defamation allegations by PAP leaders was provided in the run up to the May 2006 general elections. Mr. Chee led an SDP campaign questioning the response time of the government to problems over disclosures and uses of public funds by the multimillion dollar charitable organization, the National Kidney Foundation. Any chance of a robust debate about the performance of the government and state regulatory institutions was blunted following legal suits by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Questioning the associated meritocracy myth has proved especially hazardous for the international media. Examples of this include responses to articles by the International Herald Tribune in August 1994 and Bloomberg in August 2002, respectively seen to imply nepotism in the political rise of Lee Hsien Loong and in the appointment of Lee Hsien Loong’s wife, Ho Ching, to the executive directorship of the government-linked holding company, Temasek Holdings. The IHT was ordered to pay over $604,000 in total damages, while Bloomberg settled out of court for around $380,000.

Observations about how the governance system treats PAP leaders was at issue in a $555,000 defamation suit against the Hong Kong-based Yazhou Zhoukan for publishing comments in September 1996 by Singapore lawyer Tang Liang Hong. These related to a controversy over a prelaunch discount sale offer of condominium units by Housing Properties Limited taken up by Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and various other members of the Lee family. One of the directors of HPL was Lee Suan Yew, the elder brother of Lee Kuan Yew.

Then Prime Minister Goh’s instigation of an investigation into the propriety of the offer and the timing of disclosures by HPL to the Stock Exchange of Singapore, conducted by the finance minister and the head of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, cleared the Lees of any impropriety. However, Mr. Tang maintained that an inquiry conducted by either the Commercial Affairs Department or the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau would be more convincing since they were more detached from government. Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong sued Yazhou Zhoukan for approximately $555,000 for defamation and extracted an apology from the magazine.

Given the frequency with which Singapore’s courts have been deployed to quell criticism of key institutions, it’s not surprising that questioning the judiciary’s independence is treated most seriously. There is no better illustration of this than in the case against the IHT for a 1994 op-ed article in which Christopher Lingle didn’t even mention Singapore or its courts by name. He referred to the use in the region by some authoritarian regimes of “a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.” Lee Kuan Yew insisted this was an oblique reference to Singapore and sued the IHT and Mr. Lingle. In the prosecution’s determination to prove this point, it documented 76 separate articles from the Straits Times between 1972-94 to establish that government critics had in fact been regularly prosecuted in Singapore’s courts. Likewise, in Annex A of the Aug. 22 court filing against the review, the plaintiffs’ lawyers enumerated 22 of the defamation actions previously taken by Mr. Lee since 1965.

Mr. Lee’s eagerness to draw the world’s attention to such a history and to volunteer that Singapore’s legal system was the premier candidate for Mr. Lingle’s description might appear puzzling. However, the trial provided a stage for Mr. Lee to assert the independence of the judiciary, to sound a stern warning to others who might want to question this, and to reinforce claims important to Singapore’s economic brand, namely that the integrity of the city-state’s governance regimes distinguish it within the region.

Yet this strategy is not without contradictions and it faces challenges from political and economic forces. Ironically, one challenge emanates from the increasing use of the courts by Singapore’s political opponents to question, counter and challenge the PAP’s foundational myths. Mr. Chee used his February Bankruptcy Petition Hearing, for example, to circulate his court documents to the international media, and he outlined how and why he didn’t believe Singapore’s judicial system was independent when dealing with opposition politicians. He was also able to remind the international media of the criticisms leveled at the Singapore judicial system by Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and the New York Bar Association. Mr. Chee was not intimidated by the prospect, and subsequent reality, of a suit for contempt of court.

Lee Kuan Yew has since secured a summary judgment for his defamation case against Mr. Chee and his sister and SDP colleague, Chee Siok Chin, arising out of the last election campaign. However, while the Chees were thus denied their request for a public hearing, their detailed defense of what they regard as fair comment on a matter of public interest was posted on various Web sites. Moreover, they are challenging the decision to award a summary trial as unconstitutional. In effect, the Chees are taking a foundational PAP myth seriously to see where it leads.

Meanwhile, economic globalization is contributing to a growing scrutiny of, and challenge to, Singapore’s governance system. Currently a request for review by the Toronto-based oil and natural gas company, EnerNorth Industries, is pending before the Canadian Supreme Court. It is seeking to overturn a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to abide by a Singapore High Court ruling. This went against EnerNorth in its dispute with Singaporean company Oakwell Engineering and it faces the prospect of having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay for that judgment. However, EnerNorth’s appeal centers round the contention that: “Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized.”

There is also increasing international scrutiny of the governance rules and regulations pertaining to Singapore’s domestic market. Already this includes critical attention by the International Monetary Fund and U.S. negotiators involved in the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Concerns have been raised about levels of transparency, possible conflicts of interest pertaining to appointments within the state and the advantages open to government-linked companies by virtue of political networks to which they belong.

The second foundational PAP myth about the threat to political and social order posed by political pluralism has also manifested itself in a range of measures curbing political expression. The most explicit symbol of this myth is to be found in the Societies Act, which bars political activity by groups not specifically registered for this purpose. In effect, this outlaws civil society—both as an alternative to formal politics or as a complement to it.

Whereas in a liberal democracy widespread political engagement by social groups is viewed as functional for the political system, the PAP worries that this opens the door to “hidden agendas” and special interest politics. As Lee Hsien Loong stated in 2001: “It will be very tragic if Singaporeans are divided into many special interest groups and each one asserts its demands, and you’re unable to form a consensus.”

Attempts by political parties to engage with the general public, particularly by the SDP, have been frustrated by administrative and other impediments. Such were the difficulties experienced by the SDP in obtaining permits for public meetings that they have on occasions deliberately violated the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act. This resulted in prosecutions of SDP members and two prison terms in 1999 for Mr. Chee. The SDP has generally been deploying nonviolent civil disobedience to highlight administrative impediments to free speech and collective action.

One of the contemporary challenges for the PAP in the control of political expression has been the Internet. The essence of the government’s response has been to superimpose the spirit of the Societies Act on cyberspace. This includes the requirement for registration with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority of political Web sites and the barring of nonparty political associations from political promotion, advertising or campaigning during elections. As Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan explained: “In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debate could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse, flush with rumors and distortions to mislead and confuse the public.”

These controls have proved remarkably effective. However, during the May election, individuals defied the government edict barring political blogging and podcasting. There were around 50 Web sites and blogs producing political or semipolitical content during the election, according to the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore. Among other things, this provided venues for critical analysis and views to be aired by individuals and it enabled videos of sizeable opposition rallies, blanketed in the state-controlled media, to be made available. This is an important development, since it challenges the PAP preference for all forms of political expression to be channeled through state-controlled institutions and the idea that the alternative is dangerous. A more serious challenge, though, would involve the technology’s facilitation of collective political action or mobilization. The PAP’s priority will be to prevent this.

Clearly the PAP’s determination to insulate its foundational myths remains resolute and attempts to challenge these continue to attract a harsh response from Singapore’s authorities. However, because of economic globalization and the use of new technologies, that exercise is likely to require continued refinement and creative energy.

Mr. Rodan is director of the Asia Research Centre and professor of politics at Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

Straits Times subtle, yet glaring, front page cover-up; Sept 16 photos of parliament house

There's a front page story in today's Straits Times titled Thaksin gives up fight as military tightens grip. Towards the end of the report, there's a paragraph that says "A probe into whether deposed Mr Thaksin's family legitimately paid no tax on the US$1.9 billion (S$3 billion) sale of the firm he founded should be finalised this month, the (Thailand) auditor-general said yesterday."

Apart from those who are interested in such matters, I doubt many Singaporeans will notice a cover-up by the Straits Times. Even though they quote Thailand's auditor-general, the Straits Times conveniently leaves out the fact that it was Temasek Holdings which bought a 49% stake in Thaksin's Shin Corp for US$1.9 billion. Temasek Holdings' name does not appear anywhere in the report. And they call this journalism. I call it prostitution.

Here's a report from the Financial Times and what the prostitutes at the state-controlled Straits Times don't want to report.............

Singapore may see worst fallout from Thai coup
by John Burton in Singapore
Financial Times, 20 Sept 2006

Singapore could suffer the most among countries in the region from the military coup against Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai prime minister, who forged close ties with the city-state and sold his telecommunications group to Singapore's state investment company.

It was the $1.9bn sale of a 49 per cent in Shin Corp by Mr Thaksin's family to Temasek Holdings in January that triggered the political crisis that led to the coup after it was revealed the family paid no taxes on profits from the deal.

Mr Thaksin was seen by Singapore as its strongest supporter for closer economic integration of the Association of South-east Nations, which provoked talk of a Singapore-Bangkok axis within the group.

The ousted Thai leader also expressed admiration for Singapore's political system, telling Singapore officials that he wanted to model his Thai Rak Thai party on the long-ruling People's Action party.

Mr Thaksin decided to sell Shin Corp to Temasek to dispel allegations of conflicts of interest between his family's corporate holdings and his government duties as he prepared to stand for a third term as prime minister.

The deal turned out to be the most controversial conducted by Temasek since Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore's prime minister, became the group's chief executive in 2002 and launched an ambitious global acquisition strategy.

Public protests in Thailand over the deal have led to a nearly 40 per cent fall in Shin Corp's share price since then. In April, Lee Hsien Loong, Ms Ho's husband, told parliament that "Temasek invested in Shin Corp because it saw value in the investment" but added it was not government policy "to second guess Temasek's risk assessments".

A former senior Singapore official, however, criticised Temasek's handling of the deal in light of Mr Thaksin's growing unpopularity at the time. "Temasek did financial due diligence, but not political due diligence," he told the Financial Times. Temasek said it had considered all aspects in concluding the deal.

A Temasek-led consortium increased its stake to 96 per cent in Shin Corp under a mandatory offer, but the takeover has been investigated by Thai regulators over whether Temasek used proxy companies to avoid a 49 per cent ceiling on foreign ownership in strategic industries. Temasek said it fully complied with Thai law.

Michael Montesano, a Thai specialist at the National University of Singapore, believed it was unlikely a new government would nullify the Shin Corp deal, but Temasek might have to reduce its stake if it was found in breach of foreign shareholding limits. Temasek said it was premature to comment on the coup's impact.

Most regional governments expressed concerns about the coup and called for a restoration of democracy in Thailand.

Indonesia's defence minister, Juwono Sudarsono, said the Thai coup illustrated one of the pressures facing south-east Asia's civilian democratic governments. "If there's a lesson it is this: politicians and parliamentarians must get their act together and consolidate party building and deliver on performance," he said. "Otherwise people turn to the military for decisiveness and stability."

In the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the president who declared a brief state of emergency to crush an alleged coup attempt early this year, was keen to quell speculation the Thai coup might encourage the military to attempt a similar takeover.

Additional reporting by Shawn Donnan in Jakarta and Roel Landingin in Manila

And here are a few more of my own photos from Sept 16. John Burton of the Financial Times is in two of the photos as he was covering the peaceful protest......

Police gather in front of Parliament House...........

The paranoid state of affairs gives one the impression that the police are expecting an imminent attack on Parliament House.........

....do these guys look like suicide bombers or any criminal elements to you!! Out of the 6 protesters, 4 of them made their way to Parliament House. The photo shows 3 of them while the 4th individual can be seen in the 5th photo. The police told them not to gather & stand around there but to disperse.

John Burton (left) speaking to Gandhi Ambalam, one of the protesters .

John Burton speaking to the policeman-in-charge at the spot while the protesters observe.

At the same time, Chee Soon Juan was stopped and detained here by the police from walking to Parliament House by himself.....

....a close-up shows Chee Soon Juan (right, face blocked by plainclothes police officer) speaking to another plainclothes officer (left, facing Chee) of a higher rank.

In the blazing hot sun, a supporter holds an umbrella over Chee Siok Chin somewhere along South Bridge Road. She's surrounded by a cordon of policewomen and even more police. She was also trying to walk to Parliament House by herself when she was stopped & detained here by the police.

To the arrogant idiots in power..........

Press Statement by the Organisers of the International Peoples Forum vs IMF-WB
Asrama Haji Batam Centre, Batam, Indonesia
18 September 2006
Source: Bank Information Centre

Today we conclude the International Peoples Forum vs. the IMF and World Bank (IPF), which was convened in Batam from September 15th to17th. Over 500 Indonesians participated in the Forum as did around 200 individuals from 25 countries representing at least 100 organisations.

The IPF, like other similar fora, has successfully demonstrated to the world that many diverse civil society organisations and social movements can meet in peace and unity, and have meaningful, in-depth and informed discussions on the policies and practices of International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Despite the many hindrances suffered by IPF convenors and participants in organising and traveling to the Forum, we met in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation to share information, insights and strategies on critical issues facing communities and peoples affected by World Bank and IMF operations.

We find the World Bank and IMF responsible for policies and actions that lead to the intensification of poverty and deprivation, the violation of basic human rights, the curtailment of basic political and civil liberties, the undermining of national sovereignty and democratic governance, and the subversion of the right to development.

We call attention to the numerous obstacles we faced in preparing the Forum which, among other things, forced us to cancel outdoor events and caused at least 100 international individuals to forfeit their participation. Our reports indicate that at least 54 individuals from 17 organisations were either banned from entering Singapore, detained at the Singapore airport without explanation, subjected to custodial interrogation and, regrettably, some were even deported. Furthermore, many continue to face problems entering Singapore as they travel home. We have yet to receive any explanation from either the Singapore government or the World Bank and IMF on why this has happened.

We take the World Bank and IMF to task on not meeting its promises to engage respectfully and openly with civil society organisations. The credibility of these promises has been seriously damaged ever since the World Bank and IMF were made aware of the restrictions Singapore would place on the freedom of assembly for civil society during the Annual Meetings. After it became clear to us that Singapore would not allow the Forum to take place within its borders, we moved the IPF to Batam , Indonesia. We pledge solidarity with those committed to building a vibrant civil society in states that restrict essential rights such as the freedom of speech and we appreciate the Indonesian Government for allowing us to host the Forum in Batam.

In response to the banning and mistreatment of our colleagues, we launched a boycott of official engagement between the World Bank and IMF and civil society at the Annual Meetings. After individuals were 'un-banned,' we re-affirmed the boycott and labeled the actions of the Singapore Government as 'too little too late'. Each and every participating organisation will now and in the future critically re-examine its relationship vis-à-vis the World Bank and IMF and our future engagements, while not losing our focus on holding these institutions accountable for negative impacts associated with their operations.

As a result of our analyses on the World Bank and IMF and drawing on our experiences in the last weeks, we make the following demands.

First, on the policies and practices of the World Bank and IMF, we re-invigorate The Global Call to Action Against the IFIs. In particular, we stress the urgent need for:

* 100 percent cancellation of multilateral debt;
* open, transparent and participatory external audits of IFI lending and policies;
* stopping the imposition of policy conditions that undermine economic sovereignty and exacerbate crises in health and education;
* discontinuing the privatization of public services; and
* ending IFI involvement in environmentally destructive projects.

Second, in response to the restrictions placed on the IPF initiative:

* We demand from the World Bank and IMF an explanation as to why they proceeded with Singapore as the venue of the Annual Meetings when restrictions on civil society engagement were evident months in advance.
* We demand the full disclosure of all information pertaining to civil society participation including the Memorandum of Understanding between the World Bank and Government of Singapore and official and un-official lists of so-called 'banned individuals' .

* Third, to ensure that there is full accountability and transparency of the IFIs to peoples and communities that are affected by IFI operations:

We call on the governments that are members of the World Bank and IMF Boards of Directors to keep these institutions fully accountable for their impacts on human rights, equity, and the sustainability of development.

Police State at Work

I was at Speakers' Corner on Sept 16 for a very, very long time. Observing the proceedings from the very beginning. An eye witness to history. History which is still being written. A stand-off between the police and the peaceful protesters developed sometime on the afternoon of Sept 16.

A stand-off between the unreasonableness and repressive measures by the PAP government is facing-off with the resolve and determination of a peaceful group of individuals, led by Dr Chee Soon Juan, in exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

At the time of writing, the stand-off and peaceful protest has not ended.

Blogs and websites like SDP, Singapore Election Watch, Intelligent Singaporean and Yawning Bread have been doing a wonderful job of posting photos, videos and reports of the happenings at Speakers' Corner. I am sure there are many more websites and blogs out there doing a commendable job of countering the bullshit our local media's been putting out.

I took quite alot of photos myself but since I'm extremely unwell at the moment, I would like to share some of these photos with you for now. Keep in mind when looking at these photos that these are not terrorist or criminal elements but Singapore citizens peacefully exercising their rights and the PAP's efforts to silence them.................

Police patrolling the grounds of Speakers Corner. Clark Quay MRT station is behind.

Police stopping to check visitors.....

......asking them for identification, like NRICs, and taking down their particulars

Police stationed outside Clark Quay MRT station to try to deter visitors to Speakers Corner

Dr Chee Soon Juan and his colleagues arriving at Speakers' Corner

The Six making their way......

.......wearing t-shirts and holding placards

Media and people gather as they reach their destination

Plainclothes and uniformed police ring the Six. All they were doing was just trying to walk.

Policewomen create a cordon around Chee Siok Chin

Stand-off..........

......continues into the night of Sept 16 and beyond

Police recording the proceedings

Chee Siok Chin being escorted to the toilet by the police. They do not allow her to walk anywhere without their presence...........

......even at the toilet located within Speakers Corner. The lady-in-white is a police Assistant Superintendant....

....to the point of waiting just outside the women's toilet!

Police escorting Chee Siok Chin back to original spot

PS on Sept 21@12:58am: By now you would have learned from other sources about the end of the peaceful protest which lasted from Sept 16 - 19. Many local blogs and websites have carried numerous photos and reports about the historic protest. Mine is a small and humble contribution. In the next few days or weeks, depending on my health, I will post the rest of the many photos I took on that very first day. :-))

Too Little Too Late - International NGOs deliver a Slap to PAP govt, IMF & World Bank

Statement of the IPF Convenors' Committee, International Peoples' Forum vs the IMF-World Bank, in response to Singapore 2006 Organizing Committee's Sept. 15 statement (Source: Bank Information Center)

16 September 2006, Batam, Indonesia

Too Little Too Late

The organizers of the International People's Forum (IPF) in Batam, Indonesia will continue their boycott of all official events of the Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in Singapore. This boycott continues despite the Singapore government's September 15 press statement that it will now allow 22 of 27 officially blacklisted individuals to enter the country.

The Singapore government's decision, "based on input by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB)", is nothing but a desperate face-saving exercise for the Singapore government, World Bank, and IMF. We will not allow these three actors to cover up for actions which we consider to be egregious violations of democratic principles, and which have been met with universal condemnation. The statement fails to address the central concerns raised by the
163 civil society organizations around the world that signed a statement this week boycotting the IMF/World Bank meetings. Nor does the government's decision acknowledge the enormous hardships faced by the many civil society representatives who were denied entry to Singapore.

The Singapore government's decision is both too little and too late.

The government continues to ban five of the 27 individuals on their official blacklist from entry into Singapore. There has been no action regarding the numerous persons who are not on the official blacklist, but who were nonetheless detained, subjected to custodial interrogation and refused entry into Singapore. Over the past few days, reports have come in from over two dozen of these people about the high-handed and objectionable manner in which they were interrogated at Singapore's Changi airport - despite the fact that many of them had no intention of attending the Annual Meetings. It is clear to us that there are several blacklists - official and unofficial - and that the government's intention to curb the exercise of democracy and free speech within its territory extends beyond those on its official blacklist. In this regard we express our full solidarity with Singaporean civil society groups who experienced the same violations.

Neither the Singapore government nor the IMF/World Bank have publicly disclosed the names on the official blacklist. Nor have they provided an acceptable explanation for the violation of civil liberties resulting from their paranoia. The government's decision to permit entry to 22 barred individuals is no indication of its commitment to transparency or democracy.

The democratic process has not been upheld even in this most recent development. No apology has been made to affected individuals. No restitution has been made for the hours spent in detention, for deportation, or for the re-routed or cancelled flights. Furthermore, the broader group of individuals who have been detained or refused entry have not yet been informed that they may now enter Singapore. In fact, the Singapore government made no attempt to communicate with any of the banned 27 directly. They continue to use the World Bank/IMF as their mouthpiece.

We feel that the World Bank/IMF will use these recent developments to burnish their "democratic" credentials by claiming that they were responsible for the Singapore government's change of heart. However we all know that these developments would not have occurred had the World Bank/IMF not chosen Singapore as the venue for their Annual Meetings in order to shield themselves from protests and demonstrations. The two institutions cannot be absolved from their deep complicity in the violations of our civil and political rights.

For us, there is no other principled way to address these recent developments than to continue our boycott.

Signed,

The International People's Forum vs. the IMF and World Bank
Batam, Indonesia

NOTE: 2 of the 27 people banned by the Singapore government will deliver this statement today to the international community presently in Suntec City, Singapore where the IMF-WB Group Annual Meetings are being held.

Remember, remember, the 16th of September

Click HERE to listen to a podcast by Chee Soon Juan

FYI: This post will remain at the top till 16 Sept, 2006 (Sat)

Good to see that SDP's website is back again after that sudden disappearance. And with that came this news of the Empower Singaporeans Rally and March scheduled for Sept 16, 2006 (Sat)........

Rally and March set for 16 September
6 Sep 06

The Empower Singaporeans Rally and March planned by Singaporean activists is fixed for next Saturday, 16 September 2006.

The event will commence at 11 am at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park. Singaporeans are strongly encouraged to turn up to support the struggle for democracy in Singapore.

The peaceful rally will also highlight the economic hardship of many Singaporeans. Not only are the poorest of the poor suffering under the PAP, but many working- and middle-class Singaporeans are also reeling from the uncaring economic policies of this Government.

Singaporeans need a voice and there is no better opportunity than this rally and march to tell the PAP that we, the citizens of Singapore, demand – not request – our rights for free and fair elections, a free media, and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Participants are encouraged to wear white T-shirts or tops, and bring along signs calling for democracy in Singapore.

The event will begin with speakers addressing the relevant issues. The schedule for the rest of the day will take place as follows:

11:00 am - Assembly and rally at Speakers' Corner

1:00 pm - Walk to Parliament House

1:30 pm - Rally outside Parliament House

2:30 pm - Walk to Suntec City

3:00 pm - Rally outside Suntec City

4:00 pm - Walk to Istana

5:00 pm - Rally outside Istana

6:00 pm - End and dispersal

This rally will be an historic occasion and will mark the beginning of the campaign for political and civil rights in Singapore.

Citizens of other countries are so concerned that they have taken the trouble to come to Singapore to make their voices heard. Are we that apathetic and uncaring that we are even afraid of speaking out for our own country, in our own country?

If you are a Singaporean, you must care. Because if you don't, no one else will.

UPDATES:

You can help - Click on the image above, print and distribute the flyer. Thank you.

Keep coming back for regular updates. Other blogs such as Singapore Election Watch and Singabloodypore have regular updates and news reports as well. And don't forget SDP website.

PAP govt harassment begins: Police steal flyers from activists

Chee Soon Juan distributing pamphlets at Raffles City - Police statement

Singapore police investigating politician over rally plan

Chee Soon Juan to police: If you are sincere about security, let's talk

John Aglionby from the Guardian sees the IMF, World Bank and political activists become unlikely allies in the fight for freedom of speech in Singapore

Open letter from SDP to World Bank and IMF chiefs

A final note for this post (I said post not blog!!! :>): I can't recall the original date but I guess it was either on 6 Sept or 7 Sept when I originally posted this on my blog. Since then I've placed it at the top. Anyway, the day has arrived. Whatever happens, big or small, history will be made in less then 12 hours. I'll leave you now with two very good articles by Alex Au aka Yawning Bread: Peaceful streets and Noisy when people throw stones at tinpots.

Police say NO to Street Party by Substation; PAP Government's authoritarianism on display for world to see

Press Release by the Substation

Police say “No” to The Substation’s request for road closure; Street Party cancelled.

After months of planning and negotiations with the authorities, the police have turned down our application to close down Armenian Street for a “Street Party” — a collaboration involving several individual artists, arts groups and civil society organisations (CSOs).

It would have featured musical performances on the street, and a range of activities by artists and civil society organisations indoors. It was scheduled for 30 September, several days after the conclusion of the World Bank and IMF meetings. In their response to our application, the police said that only if ALL activities were held indoors, would permission for the event be granted. If the entire event had no CSO involvement, we believe we might have had a better chance of getting permission for the road closure. However, we decided that the event wouldn’t have the same meaning if we couldn’t have at least some performances on the street, and we wouldn’t go ahead without CSO involvement.

Therefore we decided to cancel it. While we are of course deeply disappointed, we want to try again and organise a Street Party in the future. We think it is important for two reasons: (i) we strongly believe in the value of such a community-wide arts and civil society gathering, and (ii) we believe that if successful, it would set a positive precedent for engagement between the arts, civil society and the authorities. Indeed, government leaders have been consistently encouraging civic participation and constructive debate about society. And it’s not as if there haven’t been road closures for arts events before: in 2002, we got permission to close Armenian Street to stage a tribute to our late founder, Kuo Pao Kun.

In this press statement we would like to explain our motivations for organising the Street Party, assert the values we believe it represents, and summarise our negotiations with the authorities.

Since the beginning in 1990, The Substation arts centre has always recognised that art cannot be separated from its social contexts and the circumstances in which it is produced. The Substation’s vision and role — a vision that continues to be urgent and relevant today — is to be an open space that fosters cultural diversity: a place where a wide range of artists, audiences, activists and the public can meet to make art and exchange ideas not just about art, for art’s sake, but to reflect on art’s larger purposes. This approach has led to the emergence, with instrumental support from The Substation, of some of the most exciting artists working in Singapore today — a number of whom are represented in our first international biennale of contemporary visual arts.

It was in this spirit that we decided to organise an event involving the closure of Armenian Street, in front of our building. Our plan was to bring together the diverse arts and civil society groups, and to affirm ourselves as a community of active citizens. Precisely because we hardly ever come together as a community, we believed the Street Party would be especially significant, as it would encourage Singaporeans to appreciate the values of civic participation. Moreover, we wanted to create a strong sense of community ownership of public space, and that’s why closing the street — even if only for one day — matters so much.

It bears repeating: the arts and and civil society are inseparable. In supporting the biggest cultural event of the year, the inaugural Singapore Biennale, the government confirms this. Organised to coincide with the World Bank and IMF meetings, and funded mainly by the government, this biennale, like almost every other biennale in the world, showcases many artists whose work is deeply concerned with social and political issues.

In planning for our Street Party, we worked closely with the authorities, taking into consideration their sensitivities about security during the WB/IMF meetings, and we made compromises. At first we wanted to hold the Party just after the WB/IMF meetings. After discussions with the police, we rescheduled it to the 30th, well after the conclusion of the meetings. We had also initially wanted to organise booths on the street, creating something like a flea-market of arts and civil society organisations. Again, in response to police advice and as a compromise, we decided to move all CSO activities indoors. But what we did not want to compromise on is the involvement of CSOs — their participation is essential.

During this whole process our engagement with the police and other authorities have been very positive. We are encouraged by the open communication that we have had with them, and believe this is something to build upon. We plan to apply to them again in the future with another proposal for a Street Party.

We intend to convene a meeting on 5 October 2006 with the participants from the Street Party, which will be open to the press and the public. The purpose is to discuss everyone’s concerns in the wake of the cancellation of the event. The list of participants (arts groups and CSOs) is below. These organisations may be issuing press statements of their own.

A big thank you to all the participating organisations and individuals for their invaluable support.

The Substation

Participants of the Street Party: Migrant Voices, Vegetarian Society, Pelangi Pride Centre , PLU, Crashout, TWC2, Nature Society, Green Volunteers Network, Singapore Environment Council, Sea Shepherd, STITCH, Cat Welfare, Think Centre, SADPC, AWARE, Youth Employment Singapore, Village Xchange, Footprint Singapore, Magdalena (Singapore), Mercy Relief, The Society for Reading & Literacy, ONE (Singapore), ADLUS, p-10, Spell #7, WITA

**********

Singapore activist ban "authoritarian": Wolfowitz
By Geert De Clercq, Reuters, 15 Sept 2006

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on Friday called Singapore's restrictions on the entry of activists for the World Bank/IMF meetings "authoritarian."

But he said the World Bank and IMF did not plan to postpone their annual gathering, which is being hosted by the Southeast Asian city-state this month.

"Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage is done to Singapore and self-inflicted. This could have been an opportunity for them to showcase to the world their development process," Wolfowitz said in response to questions from civil society organizations at a town hall meeting in Singapore.

"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."

He added that the bar on entry into Singapore for some activists "is a violation of the understanding that we had drawn up" with Singapore.

Singapore objected to at least 27 activists who were accredited to the meetings on the grounds they posed a threat to security and public order and put them on a blacklist of people to be assessed by immigration and possibly refused entry.

Some would-be participants have already been deported or refused entry.

"NO VOICE"

Asked by a civil society activist whether the IMF and World Bank would consider postponing the meeting and hold it somewhere "where it can be held with proper conditions," Wolfowitz said: "I honestly don't think that is feasible or I would consider it."

Roberto Bissio, coordinator of NGO network Social Watch, asked how any international organization could have a meeting outside its home base when the host country is allowed to set the rules.

"We have urged the Singapore authorities to reconsider their position and I hope they will. If they don't, I think they would be making a mistake," IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato said.

"The people who have been accredited by us are people who work with us regularly and we don't have any doubt about their capacity to behave and to be respectful of the country's laws."

But he added the meeting would not be suspended. "The meeting is going to be held because there are many issues that need to be discussed and here we are discussing with you," he said.

At that point, about a quarter of the more than 100 civil society activists got up and left the room in protest.

While Wolfowitz and Rato were speaking, about two dozen activists staged a protest in the designated 8 x 8 meter area that the Singapore authorities have set aside for protest.

Wearing white gags inscribed "NO VOICE" -- and after duly registering with the Singapore authorities one by one -- the protesters lined up quietly.

"These limits are ridiculous. Singapore is a developed country; it needs a developed perspective on citizens speaking up," said Haidy Ear-Dupuy of NGO Forum on Cambodia.

**********

World Bank chief says Singapore damaged reputation

by Ian Timberlake, AFP, 15 Sept 2006

SINGAPORE (AFP) - World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has said Singapore has damaged its reputation with the reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited for the Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.

Wolfowitz's comments were his strongest yet over the spat that has overshadowed the run-up to next week's meetings in Singapore, which also refused to relax its tough rules on public protests during the events.

The World Bank said he had got a pledge Thursday night from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that each case would be looked at individually, but said the city-state should have handled the matter differently.

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

"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," he said.

Singaporean officials could not immediately comment on Wolfowitz's statement.

"This is a very serious matter," IMF managing director Rodrigo Rato said at the same meeting with more than 30 representatives of non-governmental organizations.

Rato said activists accredited by the two financial institutions are people they regularly work with.

"And we don't have any doubt of their capacity to behave," he said.

Wolfowitz said Singapore appears to have reneged on a 2003 memorandum of understanding that granted open access to activists accredited for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.

He said the wording of the memorandum "seems very clear to me."

The local organizing committee said Thursday that "Singapore is aware of its obligations under the MOU and will continue to honour them."

But it said the memorandum of understanding also obliges Singapore to take all necessary precautions to ensure people's safety.

Police have said Singapore is a high-profile "terrorist" target.

Activists allege some people on their way to the IMF-World Bank meetings have been deported and accreditation has been withdrawn from others.

Police confirmed that an Indian activist and two Filipinos have already been deported after being denied entry at Changi Airport because "they posed a potential security and public order threat to the annual meetings."

A Singapore artist alleged that he and two other Singaporeans were questioned by police over anti-IMF leaflets they planned to distribute during the group's annual meeting.

Since independence in 1965, Singapore has grown from a Third World country to an Asian economic powerhouse.

Political stability has been the bedrock of the economic success of the city-state, which never borrowed from the IMF during its rise to become one of Asia's wealthiest nations.

But critics say this came at a price, in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and political activity.

NGOs boycott meetings

NGOs boycott World Bank meetings
John Aglionby in Jakarta
Thursday September 14, 2006
The Guardian

More than 80 non-governmental organisations announced they were boycotting the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings that began today in Singapore, in protest at the host government banning at least 27 accredited activists and many others from entering the country.

The NGOs were to make a formal statement on Friday but organisers told the Guardian this afternoon that 80 groups had already agreed to the boycott and more were expected.

"We estimate this means at least half of the 500 NGO activists due to attend the meetings will not do so," said Donartus Marut, of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development.

Oxfam, Greenpeace and the World Development Movement (WDM) are among the more prominent organisations now avoiding the official meetings, although some still intend to go to Singapore in an unofficial capacity or hold events away from the official venue.

"We're joining the boycott to show solidarity with our partners and allies who were denied access to exercise their fundamental rights, through freedom of expression and association, to attend the meeting," said Taylor Thompson of Oxfam.

Among the 27 activists is a Briton, Martin Powell, of WDM. Murray Benham, WDM's head of campaigns, said he could not understand why the organisation was banned.

"We've clearly got a long history of criticising the bank and the fund and recently issued a report calling for the bank and fund's abolition and replacement with other mechanisms," he told the Guardian. "But you wouldn't have thought a fairly academic report would put us beyond the bounds of acceptance."

Singaporean police have said the banned activists pose a threat to security, law and order. They have banned all outdoor demonstrations in connection with the meetings and have designated an area the size of a volleyball court for indoor protests.

In the past week the World Bank and IMF have repeatedly issued strong statements condemning Singapore's decision.

The World Bank's president, Paul Wolfowitz, today told about 50 activists that the ban meant Singapore was reneging on a three-year deal.

"The most unfortunate thing is what appears to be a going-back on an explicit agreement," he said. "So far we've had no satisfactory explanation why."

Mr Wolfowitz is scheduled to meet senior Singaporean ministers later today and is expected to protest against the ban.

Shortly before the meeting the government softened its position slightly, saying it might allow the activists in if they travelled to Singapore.

"We will assess at the point of entry whether they pose a security or safety risk," the Singapore organising committee for the event said in a statement. "If we judge the risk to be acceptable for that particular activist, we are prepared to allow him or her in. However, we cannot guarantee that all 27 activists will be admitted to Singapore."

Singapore has also banned the holding of a civil society forum that traditionally is held in parallel to the official meetings. Some 800 NGO activists are instead gathering on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam from tomorrow until Sunday.

Following alleged pressure by the Singaporean authorities the Indonesian police have ordered all outdoor events at the forum to be cancelled.

Visit these websites for regular updates from civil society organisations:

Bank Information Centre