Singapore bans protest at World Bank meeting

[AnonDisenter]

Singapore bans protest at World Bank meeting

WHEN the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank meet in Singapore next month there will be no placard-waving protesters clogging its streets, despite earlier promises that there would be space for dissent.

Using the threat of terrorism and concern that protests would be too disruptive, the Government has refused to waive its strict controls on public protests, under which a gathering of more than four people outdoors without permission is illegal.

The decision, while not surprising, is the latest in a series of restrictive moves by the Government, which has also take aim at foreign and local media.

Appeals to allow the protests have gone unanswered.

"Frankly, we knew it would be very difficult for civil society to have any form of protest in Singapore," said Jenina Joy Chavez, a senior associate with the think tank Focus on the Global South, based in Manila.

"The bank wanted to bring the meeting back to Asia but it's a tricky situation to find [a country] who would welcome it other than Singapore," she said.

The meeting will bring 16,000 delegates from 184 countries to Singapore to discuss global issues ranging from poverty reduction to international finance. Every three years, the meeting is held outside Washington.

"For many groups it is more symbolic than having any notion of getting redress," Ms Chavez said. "The World Bank and the IMF are largely inaccessible to the people affected by their programs. These meetings give them a chance to air their grievances."

The Singapore Government is also reinforcing controls on foreign press circulated in Singapore. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts issued a statement this month warning the Far Eastern Economic Review, International Herald Tribune, Financial Times, Newsweek and Time to steer clear of domestic politics.

For local dissenters, the situation is even more difficult. In a recent incident, a satirical blogger, "Mr Brown", whose work appeared in the tabloid newspaper Today, was suspended after the Government complained about a column headlined "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!", which focused on increases in transport and electricity costs.

Interesting decision for the government to make... given the large numbers of singaporeans based overseas (studying, working etc)

[Native Woman]

I think the rationale is - if you are interested in the welfare of your fellow citizens and you want to lobby for changes to be made - study politics and get yourself into politics - is absolutely sound.

It's easy to be an armchair critic, anyone can do that. Being a politician is not at all easy. Whatever policies, whatever laws are enforced, there will be some for it and some against it.

Think about being the management team in a large MNC. Aren't there policies too? Aren't there disgruntled employees who detest the rules and regulations?

Aside from holding street protests, aren't there any way the protesters can lobby for changes to be made? Generally speaking, those people who march on the streets with placards held high can be anyone who just wanted some attention and hopefully some excitement. (Being chased by the police can be a big thrill to some people).

On the street, any Tom, Dick or Harry can join in the protest and amongst them could be a crazy who can ruin an otherwise quiet protest march. By joining in the herd, mentally unstable people can cause more trouble to the protesters than be of help.

Think about that please.

[Ex-Calif]

In the world many very large groups make important decisions that affect very small groups.  Small groups have no access to political action committees or have the ability to circulate in the social circles that decision makers circulate in.

In democratic governments, people can elect people to represent their views.  In other governments this is not always the case.

Meetings of very large groups usually attract media attention.  Small groups capitalize on the announcement of these meetings and the presence of the media to gain voice in the world.

Throughout history protest has been an effective way to affect change.  It is messy and uncormortable for those interested in protecting the status quo but there is no way minority voices will be heard without media and outlets for their voice.

One could argue, "So what?  We don't care about minority opinion because we cater to the majority."  The counter argument is, of course, that for there to be harmony in a society the society must make sure that the rules are fair and balanced and that people are treated equally and fairly.

US civil rights is the perfect example of a continuing, messy, struggle marked by protest and periods of violence.  I doubt there are many Americans, even those in the majority groups who won't allow that the civil rights process is a critically important piece of our culture that allows the US to integrate hundreds of thousands, and thoughout history, millions of immigrants into the society.

It is very difficult to find any other country in the world with the diversity and freedoms of the US for all races, religions, cultures, genders and groups. And yes it is extremely messy, difficult and constantly frustrating.

So - Singapore is hosting the meeting.  Singpaore has clear rules about the behaviors of people regarding protest.  Singapore has that absolute fundamental right to execute its own rules and policies.
Everyone else should get over it and wait till next year when it is again hosted in the US.

[Ah Seng]

Times have changed. People took to the streets because there were no other better channels for them to be heard. Not so anymore and we should move with the time.

Besides, given the current terrorism threat all over, it's wise of the government to stick to their guns. They'll no doubt have to give in eventually to the demands of the IMF people, but hopefully not too much.

And these IMF people are hypocrites, if you ask me. They can say allow this allow that, away from it all, in the name of democracy and freedom of expression. What positive objectives have such protests achieved in recent history? It's all at best symbolic these days. Try getting these big shots to be near the protesters when it happens and see their face turn green with fear...

And what's wrong with protesting in an enclosed place?