Testing the limits in Singapore
By Alex Au
SINGAPORE - When the World Bank and International Monetary Fund
(IMF) open their week-long annual conferences in Singapore on
September 12, the events will not be attended by the usual
anti-globalization street protests, burning effigies or other
anti-establishment antics. Singapore's authoritarian government
guarantees that.
Police chief of staff Soh Wai Wah announced late last month that
"outdoor demonstrations and processions will not be allowed, in
keeping with current rules" and that "a private secured area will
be set up at the lobby of the conference venue" for "accredited"
persons and groups to conduct their activities.
The Straits Times, Singapore's government-influenced main
English-language newspaper, obediently reported the following day
that this decision was "in keeping with the tradition of these
meetings". However, "they must stick to the police rules, which
include bans on wooden or metal poles to hold up placards".
With the streets around the convention area forcibly closed and
accreditation nearly impossible to obtain for activists and
advocates, allowing for a select few state-sanctioned civil-society
folks to conduct indoor activities will, to the government's
approval, ensure a polite and peaceful event.
To justify the restrictions, Singaporean police officials have
repeatedly invoked the fear of international terrorism and the
domestic need not to "disrupt our compact, multi-ethnic and
multi-religious community". At the same time, by agreeing to hold
their meetings under such severe restrictions, the World Bank and
IMF are granting a de facto endorsement of Singapore's mix of
capitalism, authoritarian governance and limited civil
liberties.
Peter Stephens, the World Bank's representative to Singapore, has
publicly voiced his alleged disappointment with the ban. He
recently told local reporters, "The bank's preference is that
civil-society groups should be able to peacefully express their
views outside of the conference facility in a way that doesn't
cause disruption."
The conflicting positions of the World Bank and Singapore on
freedom of assembly have led to some speculation about what
implicit or explicit promises Singapore may have offered when
pitching to serve as the event's host, which the government later
possibly reneged upon after securing the contract. Singapore's
business-minded government is now bidding to win a larger share of
the lucrative global conventions and conference market - though
notably without compromising on its laws restricting freedom of
association and assembly.
The World Bank/IMF meeting is bringing those seemingly
contradictory perceptions into sharp view - though neither of the
multilateral institutions, which are currently promoting greater
transparency and inclusiveness as part of their new vision, has
threatened to pull out of the event over the restrictions.
In June, Stephens wrote a public reply to a broad coalition of
activists that the World Bank was "working closely with the IMF and
with the Singapore government - and [has] been for many months - to
ensure that diverse civil-society voices are very much heard
before, during and after the annual meetings'.' Singaporean leaders
have so far remained tight-lipped about the controversy.
Read more here..
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HI01Ae01.html
