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.
