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.
The World Bank and IMF annual conferences
- along with meetings of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and the Group of Eight summit -
have in recent years presented a useful venue for
global activists and non-governmental
organizations to express their gripes about the
inequities perpetuated by the prevailing
neo-liberal global order. With the rising cost of
living here, many lower-income Singaporean
citizens would likely find common cause with
international protest groups.
Therein,
perhaps, is the rub. Some of the past
anti-globalization protests have escalated to
violence, where security forces clashed with and
arrested protesters, including the WTO's meetings
in Seattle in 1999 and in Hong Kong in 2005, as
well as the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001.
Singapore's government is under unprecedented
political pressure to justify that its strict
adherence to neo-liberal economic prescriptions
are benefiting the majority of the island state's
4.4 million people and not just the elite.
Earlier, there had been speculation that
the government might lift the ban on outdoor
demonstrations temporarily during the conference
week, but this spawned torrents of criticism over
Singapore's feisty blogosphere, including numerous
online jabs at the government's perceived double
standards in dealing liberally with well-heeled
foreigners and harshly with its own citizens.
Harsh
interpretations Singapore's laws and
regulations are often interpreted in
anti-democratic fashion, even as Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong tries to promote a racier national
profile to foreign audiences and investors. Local
police claim that there are explicit laws on the
books that ban outdoor demonstrations, though the
actual text of the law is more nuanced.
Outdoor protests and marches involving
more than five persons are required to obtain a
permit under the Public Entertainments and
Meetings Act. However, for decades the authorities
have regularly refused to grant such permits -
despite the fact that the intent of the law is to
regulate public assemblies, not ban them.
Oddly, perhaps, Singapore's constitution
guarantees freedom of speech, expression and
assembly, though the national charter also says
parliament may impose "restrictions as it
considers necessary or expedient in the interest
of the security of Singapore or any part thereof"
as well as to uphold "friendly relations with
other countries, public order or morality".
In a recent attempt to test the limits of
this constitutional guarantee, four people tried
to mount a silent demonstration in front of the
headquarters of the government-run Central
Provident Fund (CPF) in August 2005. They wore
T-shirts emblazoned with slogans calling on the
CPF to be more transparent with pensioners' funds
while standing in complete silence. Soon
thereafter, 40 or so police officers in anti-riot
gear confiscated their T-shirts and demanded that
they disperse because they were a "public
nuisance".
Three of the four silent
protesters mounted a court challenge against the
government for denying them the freedom of
assembly. However, Justice V K Rajah dismissed the
suit, ruling that the police could reasonably have
deemed the words on the T-shirts and placards as
"insulting and/or abusive apropos those
responsible" for managing the CPF, a public
institution, and that their being stationary in
front of the building represented harassment. "A
persistent course of conduct for a sustained
period of time can constitute harassment," the
judge ruled.
Another closely watched case
testing the bounds of freedom of expression and
assembly is now being heard in Singapore's
Subordinate Court system. Two Singaporean
citizens, Erh Boon Tiong and Ng Chye Huay, are
being tried for standing across the road from the
Chinese Embassy on July 20 holding a banner with
the words, "Stop persecution of Falungong in
China." The local media reported police saying
that the banner's message was likely "to cause
harassment to Chinese Embassy staff, visitors and
passers-by".
These cases indicate clearly
that the police, government and courts in effect
ban most sorts of public assembly, particularly
meetings with a political flavor.
Institutionalized curbs on civil liberties
continue to earn criticism from Singapore's most
important global allies, including senior US
officials.
Outgoing US ambassador to
Singapore Frank Lavin said in his farewell speech
in October, "It is surprising to find constraints
on discussions here. In my view, governments will
pay an increasing price for not allowing full
participation of their citizens."
Lavin
later made reference to a small group of
protesters against the Iraq war who tried to
demonstrate outside the US Embassy but were
immediately dispersed by police, who later asked
him if he wished to press charges against the
demonstrators. Lavin said he told police that he
was embarrassed by such a proposal, adding: "I
said 'No.' I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and
say something if you want to."
Neither the
World Bank nor IMF has so far taken a similar
tough stand against their Singaporean hosts.
Still, there are indications that Singapore's
police may be put to the test during the September
meetings. INQ7, a Manila-based news site, recently
reported that 200 activists from around the region
plan to visit Singapore during the meetings.
That's assuming, of course, that they can
get past the intrusive airport screening,
on-the-ground surveillance of their movements, and
ban on entry to the meetings' venue that they are
certain to encounter upon their arrival.
Alex Au is an independent social
and political commentator and freelance writer
based in Singapore. He often speaks at public
forums on politics, culture and gay issues.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
