siteowner adds this link to the originating post
________________________________________
"Fourthly, these ang mohs should get it into their heads that it is our sovereign right as a nation to decide whether or not to let these 27 blacklisted activists onto our soil. Is this the Republic of Singapore or the Republic of IMF huh? Who is this Wolfowitz to tell us what to do? "
Erm... that's not the issue of 'Wolfowitz telling us what to do.'
it's the issue of Singapore signing an agreement to allow the activists in, and Singapore going back on an agreement.
It's a simple issue of integrity.
'Second, it is regrettable that, again, Singapore yielded to international pressure and reversed its decision on 22 of the activists.'
Hmm, I think it's more regrettable that Singapore does not have the integrity to follow through on an agreement that it has made with the WB, simply because its paranoid about 'trouble makers,' when in fact there is no real evidence that the accredited activists pose any danger to safety.
i think you are confusing a simple matter of being true to your word, with a matter of national sovereignty.
Inspir3d,
Have you read the agreement? Do you think Singapore signed over our sovereignty in the agreement? Suppose for the sake of argument that Osama bin Laden somehow got himself accredited by the IMF/World Bank. We then roll out the red carpet for him? 
Wolfowitz can say ANYTHING he wants. Suay suay we are the host. One thing the Garmen is not stupid enough to do (hopefully) is to engage in a war of words with him.
the simple fact of the matter is that part of the WB's willingness to award Singapore the bid to host the WB/IMF meeting is due to Singapore's expressed willingness to allow all accredited CSOs into its shores. This is a critical part of the meeting.
The WB/IMF has every right to criticise the Singapore government when it reneges on an agreement that it has signed. The WB/IMF is the customer, if you like, and Singapore is the service provider.
It is analogous to ordering a plate of char kway teow mai hiam and finding instead that it is mai hum - the customer has every right to ask for a refund.
And if Singapore is not willing to tolerate activists, it should not try to deceive the WB by pretending that it will, when bidding to host the event.
I'm really quite curious to read the original agreement that Singapore has with the world bank saying that it is willing to allow all of the accredited CSOs into the country, and how "all of the accredited CSOs" is defined by that agreement. Any pointers?
inspir3d,
Do you think that the IMF gave Singapore a list of accredited activists three years ago? If not, you expect the Sigapore Garmen to sign blank cheque? Makes sense to you or not?
This is press release is what I found so far:
http://app.mof.gov.sg/news_press...asp?
pressID=114
23 Sep 2003
Singapore will host 2006 Annual Meetings
1. Singapore today signed a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group in Dubai. Singapore will host the 2006 Boards of Governors Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group.
2. Hosting this meeting demonstrates Singapore’s commitment to the work of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group. Singapore actively supports the programmes of these institutions through its collaboration on technical cooperation projects as well as financial contributions.
3. That Singapore is chosen as the host of the 2006 Annual Meetings is recognition of the progress made in the development of its financial sector, its probusiness environment and excellent infrastructure. Singapore is now a major international financial centre, serving not only its domestic economy, but also the wider Asia-Pacific region and in some instances, the world.
4. “We look forward to hosting the 2006 Annual Meetings. The global financial landscape has changed significantly over the past five years. In tandem, Asian countries have made much progress in terms of developing and strengthening their financial infrastructure and markets. As a strategically-located international financialcentre, Singapore is prepared to facilitate an open exchange of ideas and perspectives on the issues that may arise in 2006,” said Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Singapore’s Second Minister for Finance and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.
5. The MOU was signed by Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Singapore’s Second Minister for Finance and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr Horst Köhler, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund and Mr James Wolfensohn, President, World Bank Group at Ras Al Khaima Room, Dubai International Convention Center.
inspir3d,
Actually, why are you defending Wolfowitz? Perhaps you may wish to read Xenoboy's most interesting blog entry on this character.
KTM,
"Actually, why are you defending Wolfowitz?"
Inspir3d is talking about the issue of Singapore signing an agreement, and allegedly going back on the agreement. Inspir3d is not defending everything about Wolfowitz as a person. You should stay focused on the issue and first find out what the agreement is.
Without this, we cannot be not sure whether Wolfowitz stated the facts or whether he is actually lying.
Correction:
Without the actual agreement, we CANNOT be sure whether Wolfowitz stated the facts or whether he is actually lying. KTM, your debate is meaningless if you do not find out the facts first.
Indeed. In fact, it is even possible (though perhaps unlikely) that both Wolfy and the Singapore government are right--if the original MOU, unwittingly, contain clauses that work at cross purposes. But we need the text of the MOU! So far, googling has turned up nothing more relevant than the press release I posted earlier...I'll try for a bit more.
sporescores,
For your benefit, perhaps the KTM can summarize the logic of the KTM's above comments. One, it is highly unlikely (or perhaps impossible) that the IMF had a list of accredited activists three years ago when Singapore signed the MOU with them. Two, the Singapore Garmen would be brained-damaged to sign an MOU to say that the IMF can take over the functions of Singapore Immigrations and import anyone into Singapore at its pleasure ('cos it's like signing blank cheque or worse, sovereign control over our territory). Therefore, by common sense, Wolfowitz claim that we renegaded on dunno what agreement is a bit iffy.
Of course if we can get hold of the actual agreement, it would be nice. But do we really need that document to exercise common sense? In any case, the KTM would venture to guess that the said document is probably completely USELESS. It is likely to be full of niceties that say nothing about the actual process, except perhaps that we're stupid enough to foot the humongous bill.
Ok, one last one. This is from the conclusion of a letter written to Wolfy by a German CSA (Knud Vöcking), dated 11 September 2006, requesting that the IMF and WB cancel the meetings to be held in Singapore because of Singapore's intention to ban certain CSOs (note the highlighted part):
We and others give notice that we cannot participate in official meetings in Singapore under such circumstances. We call on you to publicly denounce the Singaporean government for violating its recurrent breaches of its citizens’ human rights, and its violation of the memorandum of understanding signed with the Bretton Woods Institutions, a memorandum which should be made public as soon as possible. If the situation won’t change, the Bank and the Fund should seriously consider cancelling their official meetings here.
Source: http://www.urgewald.de/index.php...236&
stwauswahl=
I think the MOU was never publicized (!).
additional thought. That letter was written 11 September (last Monday). If WB/IMF had released the actual text of the MOU, I think quotations of the clauses that Singapore allegedly violated would have been in the news by now. The following is an argument from silence--which means it should always be taken with a pinch of salt: the fact that it has not been released (as far as I know) suggests that--as KTM points out--the text is useless in deciding the issue: it doesn't actually support Wolfy's contentions, or at best only ambiguously. But as I said, this is an argument from silence, though I have to say that in this case, I'm now more inclined to think that there is little to back Wolfy's accusations that Singapore has broken an "explicit agreement"...
I sincerely hope this incident does not affect our reputation too negatively. However, from the foreign press, things do not look good as of now. Even if this incident blow over without too much negative impact on us (let's all hope so as what KTM says), I hope we still learn some lessons from this.
More importantly, I think both KTM and I are focusing on how Singapore can come out of this with its reputation intact.
I am not entirely sure if the issue of us vs the IMF/World Bank vs the CSOs. Our interest is to generate positive publicity for us and one of the main focus is on security. IMF/World Bank interest is to hold their meeting, and still get the CSOs buy into their suggestions. CSOs interest is to advocate their issues. If we focused on interest rather than position, that we can think about how to balance our interest (security + positive publicity) with IMF/World Bank interest (meeting and buy-in from CSO) and CSO interest (advocacy).
P.s. KTM - I am not sure if this post is entirely in response to what I have to say - all I am focusing on is the impact of our decision on our reputation what is not control by us. In a sense, our reputation has to be determined by non-Singaporeans.
However, you do present a different point of view from mine on this issue, which is always important and helpful in any discourse. We are (always) better off when both viewpoints are presented and we can discuss this in a helpful way. I think this is how Singapore Angle value adds to the Singapore blogsphere. Depending on your perspective, I can see some of your points (maybe the negative impact will be blown over in a couple of months time), but we can agree to disagree on some points too (not sure Michael Fay is a good analogy for this issue). Cheers,
Hi Sze Meng,
Thanks for your comments. Sorry that the KTM has a tendency to ramble and is sometimes incoherent. In essense, the KTM is saying that he believes your concern about the effect of this event on our international reputation is somewhat misplaced. Nobody out of Singapore *REALLY* cares. Of course, only time will tell whether your concerns are valid or if the KTM is smoking something.
If there's a impact in this whole matter, it's really the Garmen's credibility with the people. Think about it, you ask everyone to smile like idiots to welcome these ang mohs, and these ang mohs come and shit in your face. Way to go for a Garmen's credibility to its people. :-( Then again, Singaporeans also got short memory, so perhaps it's not going to make much of a dent either.
Looking forward to being able to go shopping at Carrefour again next week.
The IMF WB and Singapore government are just playing old types of commerical-political tactics and tug-of-war mind games, the entire episode is as deja-vu as having already watched a Warner Brothers Friends program spoiler. It's playing the age old, "They don't know that we know that they know" mind games.
I also tried googling. World Bank, IMF page. Cannot find. Terrible mess.
KTM Said "Then hor, the meeting will be over and we can say, "After due consideration, we think you have a really good point.... oops, too bad the meeting is already over. Nevermind huh, next time you come again, we'd fix this...." When they come again how? Hehe. What you think leh? :-P"
Singapore, for what the world might say about us, we stick to the letter of the Law. And if our hosts think we interpret the MOU over-vigorously, we could argue that it is our duty to do so, since the responsibility is on us to protect them. However, the World Bank/IMF can simply argue that it is implicit in any agreement to host the event that we support their aims, and their aims are expressly to allow for participation, and the only way for participation to rightly take place is for the standard accredition process!
If there are no "legal consequences", the political damage is that "Singapore gains a reputation for not sticking to their agreements." That is a serious charge that we should try to defend not by the law, but by diplomatic solutions. If there are no legal consequences, then how is anyone going to sue anyone. Each will merely insist one interpretation is right, implicit, express or otherwise. And if that is the case, then we are bound to lose, because, as rightly pointly out, we bear the risks in all the scenerios.
So in this case, the whole idea of doing nothing will 1) upset the Media which is already upset, and 2) further upset the IMF and world bank. It is immensely practical to reverse the ban while explaining our rationale which I think is as good a rationale anyway.
So I agree with the state for reversing. It is wise and practical. But we need to see the MOU.
KTM said "Fourthly, these ang mohs should get it into their heads that it is our sovereign right as a nation to decide whether or not to let these 27 blacklisted activists onto our soil. Is this the Republic of Singapore or the Republic of IMF huh? Who is this Wolfowitz to tell us what to do?"
I think that the bad press Singapore gained is not the World Bank/IMF doing. They are not accusing us of giving CSos too small a space, or not allowing outdoor protest. They have only one specific request and there is no reason why we should not grant it. (see above)
Further, I think the World Bank position is not an entirely extreme one. They are not saying, let them march, hold outdoor protest. No, no. They say, let them in. KTM call this giving out Sovereignty. I think he does over exaggerates. So see above reason why I think we should let them in anyway. Morover, what Dr. CSJ and the CSOs were originally asking for (right to protest, and take to the streets) - that is something the World Bank does not require Singapore to do. So I think we should not blame our guest. And its not an issue of the MOU, not an issue of Sovereignty.
Ktm said "But hor, people dun hold conventions so that they can promote democracy in the host country hor. They choose a country to host conventions 'cos the travel is convenient and the infrastructure is available."
True. I don't know how bad it will be. I know that "benefits" from hosting the World Bank/IMF meeting might be reduced somewhat. I am sure that if we get a 100/100, *more* people will demand to come to Singapore to have meetings. But lack of rights, perhaps to many is a 99/100, to some is a 60/100. I don't know.Perhaps are not reaping as much benefits.
I think we should be thankful that the CSO never came. Imagine the scenario that would have taken place if the CSOs instead of boycotting decides to join CSJ?
The bad press I think is generally police reaction to CSJ, and the pictures splashed all over the globe.
I believe we made the most out of a bad situation. Regarding CSJ I think the police does protest too much in that instance. I am not a fan of that fellow's tactics but really, did you see the photos? And surely, why does the state want to look like bad people?
"Suppose for the sake of argument that Osama bin Laden somehow got himself accredited by the IMF/World Bank?"
Don't lar. That is quite jialat an example.
hey...correction...i meant "and its an issue of the MOU, not an issue of Sovereignty" not "and its not an issue of the MOU, not an issue of Sovereignty"
I found this post highly thought-provoking. I suppose it’s interesting to put yourself in the shoes of our government and see things from their point of view (or at least a point of view that is not so politicized) once in a while.
I agree with your arguments about areas such as the planning of the event, the barring of outdoor protests, and the 27 activists being banned perhaps not for political reasons, but because our government just wants everything to go as beautifully as possible, and it does not want an outcome to the more notorious ones in other cities whereby outdoor protests have turned into riots and resulted in security threats as well as damage to property.
However, like the other comment writers to your article, I do believe that our government cannot be as stupid as to not have known, that by inviting in the IMF/WB, they would also have had to allow for the CSOs and what-not that come along. Arguing that for example, disallowing of the IMF/WB’s 27 accredited activists to enter Singapore is an assertion of its sovereignty, may be considered fallacious as our government should have reasonably foreseen that CSOs are an integral part of the IMF/WB meetings, like it or not. And seeing how the IMF/WB are international entities, they make good foreign media fodder.
In any case, our tough stance on the CSOs is giving the foreign media a fantastic field day opportunity to go wild and capitalize on what authoritarians we are!
If the government had had an issue with the CSOs protesting in the first place, they should have made it a point to have clarified these issues and worries regarding the CSOs with the IMF/WB before signing the MOU. The MOU is a contractual agreement that ought not be breached; and the sad thing is that none of us really knows what exactly was in that agreement. But from the looks of it, the government’s defence that they were relying on the “safe passage” clause falls flat in the IMF/WB’s arguments for open civic engagement with the activists.
I suppose even though Singapore is the host country, and even though we would much prefer to keep our streets safe (barring all political motivations), as a host we have to cater to our guest. And although we put in great effort with the tight security, flowers, campaigns etc; we did not realize that this is all peripheral to the meetings. Civil debate was a tenet that was fundamental to the meetings, and thus fundamental to our MOU. And by not allowing for civil debate – and not clarifying before hand whether we could have taken such liberties with our agreement, we took the risk of looking like idiots in the world’s eyes.
And Chee happily capitalized on that. I don’t think too much of him either – I’d be totally panicking if he ever attained a position of power. But he is smart to do this – the international media couldn’t have had it any better, what with the disproportionate amount of police presence in Hong Lim. And though Chee is a bit of a pest, we can’t deny that this really looks like a clear case of intimidation. Oh well. Cést la vie.
KTM
I like your post. We may have our differences over the form and function of protests in Singapore. But when sovereignty is slighted, I agree with you that we should have a united front approach to the whole controversy. We do things our way at our own pace without outside arm-twisting. The foreign press will certainly have a go at Singapore, especially those among the 5 which had to have some legal rep in Singapore or something. The best thing now is damage control. The least that can be done now is to make sure that Singapore continues to be a good host for the delegates particularly (let's be frank, they have the potential to spend good tourist dollars). Win some lose some.
I don't think the MOU is useful for discussion purposes since both sides appear to have different interpretations about what it means. Singapore harps on the security bit while the World Bank/IMF focus on the CSOs and their participation. The problem is that neither side raised this issue early enough to work around it, so what we have is just a lot of finger-pointing, but how can Singapore point an accusing finger at the World Bank/IMF since they are our guests now? It's simply impossible! Conversely, the World Bank/IMF can easily accuse Singapore out of convenience because having CSOs boycott the event is not exactly a good thing for them.
Singapore is unfortunately left in a very tough position, but it's fairly understandable why our organizers were caught off-guard. Who in our government gives a hoot about CSOs anyway? Why would they have even thought that some of these CSOs would have sufficient influence to convince foreign media to spin some horrendous stories about Singapore? The fact is that without any exposure to civil activism, it is unsurprising that our government (and organizers) completely failed to consider the possibility of CSOs giving us a hard time. So these CSOs don't get an opportunity to protest - good. But look at all the bad press they've managed to generate in return! I don't think our organizers realized that this could happen. If you were part of the government, would you have pre-empted this scenario? I doubt.
But should Singapore make adequate preparations for something of this nature happening in future events? Probably. And we should take this as a painful lessson that the Singapore system simply doesn't work outside of this country.
To use my post on Wolfowitz to silence inspir3d is not good for discourse. The post was not meant as a jingoistic jingle but to point out hypocrisy of people in positions of power.
There is indeed a "crisis" as Sze Meng points out, but I think it is not exactly about reputation, it is deeper than that. It is what KTM inadvertently alludes to in his comments.
It is the empty spaces which abound this entire fiasco.
And when the fiasco ends, these spaces will be filled by shoppers again.
The MOU basically gave a long list of the IMF WB hosting requirements and a short section on stating the host country's right to reject participants who do not abide or fulfill the host country's requirements for maintaining security and order.
Signing an MOU is very different from closing a negotiation treaty. The signatures only confirms the written agreement and not any further conditions unstated otherwise. Otherwise, the wording and signing of the MOU would have taken much longer to complete. An MOU signed out of convenience would therefore open itself to many loopholes and open conditions. Souvreignty is irrelevent of the agreement.
And now, this has resulted in loopholes and conditions being leveraged on and capitalised quite profitably.
In actual fact based on the wording of the MOU, neither parties has failed to fulfill its side of the agreement. The only party at the seemingly losing end at the forum are actually the protesters.
Singapore will not suffer any taint to its image, nor the IMF WB. Any blame is directed at constructs of MOUs. No one could truly br deemed at fault, unless if one would to judge based on personal biases.
whybegay: You sound as if you have access to the text of the MOU. If so, please do share it with us, unless for some reason, you are not supposed to (classified, etc.) Until we see the actual text, it's next to impossible to make firm judgments, including about such things as whether "both sides have their own interpretation"...
More confirmation that nobody apart from the Singapore Government and IMF/WB know what the MOU actually says:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/
2006...imfworldbankngo
...In their statement, the NGOs urged the World Bank and the IMF to explain why they proceeded to meet in Singapore "when restrictions on civil society engagement were evident months in advance." It sought a full disclosure of the contents of a memorandum of understanding between the World Bank-IMF and the Singapore government. Wolfowitz had earlier said Singapore appeared to have reneged on the agreement when it blacklisted the 27 individuals...
(This seems to be part of the reason why the NGO's, while slamming the Singapore government, aren't all that impressed with Wolfy's finger-pointing either. "A pox on both your houses", as some might say.)
I love you guys. I'm the lawyer here but you folks get more hung up about the fine print of a document than I do.
People, as a famous judge once said, "In this case, I shall not permit form to prevail over substance. The spirit of the agreement speaks clearly to me."
Here we are not even in court. Let's be very commonsensical about it.
As a matter of common sense, the Singapore government knew very clearly that the World Bank and IMF wanted active CSO participation. They must have known it in 2003. If they did not know it in 2003, they must have known it in 2004, or 2005, or in 2006.
If you know very clearly what your customer wants, and you know that the customer thinks it is very important, and you cannot give it, or you are not prepared to give it, then for goodness sakes, say so early, and pull out.
That's a simple matter of integrity and honesty.
Some people here get hung about (1) accreditation, and (2) entry into Singapore. I say - please use your common sense. Of course they are two different things. But of course it is understood - it is in the spirit of things - that if WB/IMF have done a proper accreditation process, then Singapore should let the activists in.
If Singapore takes action which effectively "vetos" WB/IMF accreditation decision, and for no reason that it is prepared to explain, then why have an accreditation process at all?
To use an analogy, it would be like Singaporeans voting Low Thia Kiang into Parliament, and then the PAP drastically amends the Constitution to create for itself the right to kick Low Thia Kiang out of Parliament. It makes a sham, a mockery of everything.
That's what this matter has become. A sham, a mockery. That's why WB/IMF are angry. Note that they need not have held their conference here. They could have held it in at least 33 other possible venues around the world. They came because Singapore held itself out as being able to meet their requirements - one of which, a key one for them, being that active CSO/NGO participation would be permitted.
So we have a very angry customer. Why shouldn't they be angry? Wouldn't you be, if you were them?
Mr. Wang
Yes, obviously common sense is part of the deal. But without the actual text of the MOU, how exactly do we even know what the agreement amounts to--and therefore what is the appropriate "spirit" thereof?
According to their own words, IMF/WB's anger is explicitly justifed on the basis that Singapore has broken an explicit agreement of some sort. They didn't say something like: whatever the MOU said, surely Singapore is oblidged to uphold the spirit of the agreement we made in 2003.
Sure, let's grant that IMF/WB's anger is understandable (really, I'm not even all that convinced that they are are all innocent, but that's not the issue), but it does not follow that it is justifiable. And until that is cleared up, we are are no wiser about any alleged integrity/honesty issue. And that latter issue is precisely the bone of contention here.
It might well be the case that we have a very angry customer and even such that it is entirely understandable why someone in his situation would be angry. And it might even be the strategic thing for us--good service counter and PR folks--to smile and bear it, saying sorry all the way. But I am not part of this service counter or PR machinery (are you part of that crew?). What I want to know is whether the customer is right to be angry, whether if I would be right to be angry if I had been in their shoes, even if, as a matter of fact, it is also the case that I would be angry.
As the CSOs themselves point out, IMF/WB know well in advance about Singapore's stand--in your own words, "they need not have held their conference here".
This is exactly parallel to your later: "If you know very clearly what your customer wants, and you know that the customer thinks it is very important, and you cannot give it, or you are not prepared to give it, then for goodness sakes, say so early, and pull out." In fact, what the CSOs are saying (apart from slamming Singapore), is exactly the above--except that in this case, the "you" refers to IMF/WB, the customer being themselves, and the "pulling out" refers to IMF/WB always having the option of cancelling the meeting in Singapore.
coda: if it is somehow besides the point, what then are the CSOs--the very ones slamming Singapore--thinking when they say about the memorandum that it "should be made public as soon as possible", or when they seek "a full disclosure of the contents" (sources in previous my comments). Are then manifesting a lack of common sense?
Paul Wolfowitz? The same guy in the Bush Administration that advised it to go after Iraq? Why am I not surprised they have an agenda to push?
The details I stated about the MOU was revealed and mentioned on the tv news.
whybegay:
On local news? (I don't have TV) A linkable source would be very nice...
As far as you recall (quoting your earlier comment), "The MOU basically gave a long list of the IMF WB hosting requirements and a short section on stating the host country's right to reject participants who do not abide or fulfill the host country's requirements for maintaining security and order"?
If this is an accurate description--if there really is a section stating "the host country's right to reject participants who do not abide or fulfill the host country's requirements for maintaining security and order"--then Wolfy is basically bull----ing when he accuses the Singapore government of violating an explicit agreement. Either that, or, as the CSOs themselves are saying, the Singapore Government and IMF/WB are equally guilty of bad faith: any argument to the effect that the Singapore Government has an integrity/honesty deficit is going to equally well apply to the IMF/WB.
As I said earlier: "a pox on both your houses!"
I happened to be reading the latest edition of "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman and in pg 176, he described how United Postal Service (UPS) is now helping many businesses with their distribution under "insourcing".
The key component of the relationship between UPS and those businesses? Yes, it is trust. Since UPS talks to their customers, look at their inventories etc etc, trust is very important.
Reading that section allows me to understand better why IMF/WB are angry about us going back on the MOU.
This is a digression -
but ironically, it seems that I *have* become part of the "service counter" for the conference. I have been "commanded" to leave my lights on at night in my office, until midnight. That is because I happen to work on one of the higher floors of Suntec City; and the IMF/WB delegates are having an outdoor party at the Esplanade; and the organisers want them to be able to see a beautiful, lighted cityscape on that night. So I - and everyone with a window in their office in Suntec City - have been told to leave our office lights on for that night.
Ridiculous ...
Here is the link,
Title : S2006 organising committee says it has not breached agreement with IMF/World Bank
By : Rita Zahara, Channel NewsAsia
Date : 14 Sep 2006 1852 hrs (GMT + 8hrs)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/c...h=IMF&
id=230409
Additional report,
Title : More protests, now from the World Bank
By : Ansley Ng, TODAY
Date : 14 Sep 2006 1326 hrs (GMT + 8hrs)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/c...h=IMF&
id=230345
Additional report just yesterday,
Title : Activists not convinced S'pore-bashing Paul Wolfowitz on their side
By : Jasmine Yin, TODAY
Date : 19 Sep 2006 1348 hrs (GMT + 8hrs)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/c...h=IMF&
id=231272
Thank you all for your comments. The comments are too fast and furious -- the KTM cannot really cope, so boh pian, will have to response to some of the longer ones lah. As for the others, the KTM asks for your kind indulgence.
ben,
Always a pleasure to engage a bright young mind. As a young, aspiring lawyer, do be careful, not to get too caught up with the paper, a la "word of the law". Sometimes, it's sufficient to exercise common sense.
There was never any doubt that there was never a "legal consequence" to the MOU. You have to give our Garmen lawyers some credit, they do cover the Garmen's legal behind quite snugly. This whole matter is extra-legal and lies completely in the realm of PR and diplomacy.
It is interesting that you think it was wise to reverse the stand. The KTM has a short story for you....
-----
Recently hor, the KTM kenna this really unreasonable customer leh. Three weeks ago, he came to my stall to order chay kway teow and he said he was going to order dunno what 500 plate of KT for yesterday. The KTM thought to himself, "win already. Such big business." But the KTM is a very careful business man, so he tells this customer, "500 is quite a lot. I will try my best to fry up the kway teow, but I might not have enough hum". "Okay" said the customer and went on his way.
Actually hor, the KTM also know that 500 is quite a lot and even though he buys quite a lot of hum from the market, he might not have enough. But nebermind lah, if I can serve up 470+ plates of KT, the customer should be happy right?
(Long story continued...)
So the KTM kwai kwai fry his KT. Eh, 500 plates leh. You know have to fry how long or not. Come yesterday, the KTM finally finished frying the KT. Suay suay got not enough hum and only got 473 plates of KT. Short of 27. Then what happen? Customer come and kick up a big fuss.
"I am so disappointed that you failed to deliver on your promise of 500 plates of KT. What is this? No integrity." Then the customer starts cursing and swearing and making a huge din. The other patrons nearby probably think that the KTM killed his father or his mother.
Actually hor, the KTM already learnt a big lesson from the learned Bak Chor Mee Man already and set up a CCTV cambera at his store. If we look at the CCTV recording, the customer where got insist that
The KTM panicks and starts to sweat, "Wah sei, like that jialat. If he goes on like that people will think my KT got poison...."
Then inspiration strikes and the KTM decides to borrow some hum from the mee siam seller at Junction 8. Mee siam got hum meh? Dunno leh, but like the KTM cares about why mee siam got hum or dun have hum. Can borrow hum can already.
Alamak, suay suay only got enough hum to fry 22 plates of KT. So boh pian, the KT kwai kwai fry the 22 plates of KT to serve to the unreasonable customer, thinking that he would be pacified. Little does he expect the response....
"What's this? How come you put mee siam hum into the kway teow? I want chay kway teow with kway teow hum, not mee siam hum"
Huh? Got such thing as "mee siam hum" and "kway teow hum" meh? Neber hear before.
"Given you lousy service attitude, I've decided that I will only buy 200 plates of KT." The fella paid up and leave -- and the KTM is stuck with 295 plates of char kway teow to eat for the rest of the month.
Was it worth the KTM's effort running to Junction 8 to borrow the extra hum??
Ben,
Back to the *real* world, the KTM agrees with you that World Bank position is not an extreme one. The crux of the matter is whether it is the sovereign right of Singapore to deny access to activists accredited by the IMF. It matters not whether Singapore blacklists 5, 22, or 200. The question here is whether Singapore has the right to bar people whom it considers likely pain-in-the-behind's (The KTM wouldn't even go so far as to label them "security risks").
You asked, whether Singapore could have acceded to the IMF's request to let all 500 fellas in. Of course, we could have. But what probably happened is that the security tzar (probably some high-ranking police fella) advised his boss otherwise. The Minister in his infinite wisdom probably figured that 473 plates of CKT, whoops, I mean letting 473 activists in was sufficient to appease the IMF while managing the risks of things blowing up, i.e. headlines like "IMF Protest in Orchard Road leaves one dead and 15 hurt...." Like chrischoo says, who could have predicted the outcome? It was probably a perfectly rational decision that failed to anticipate Wolfowitz's sliminess.
As for CSJ's photos, can people not see that our friend is setting up the police for the photo op? Actually, the police is overly kind to Chee already. If the police had asked for suggestions on what to do with Chee, the KTM would have suggested that the police invite Chee and Co to a police station to have tea to assist them with some investigations. Eh, assisting with investigations only hor, not arrest hor. Even ordinary kay pohs like the KTM can also qualify for such tea sessions without having to commit a crime. Police station hor, cannot bring camberas one. The current arrangement is *SUCH* a waste of good manpower. If Chee and Co got invited to tea, then they probably need only one officer to host the whole bunch of them for them. They can also take the opportunity to make police statements about their grievances against the Garmen. Lots for them to do.
"Suppose for the sake of argument that Osama bin Laden somehow got himself accredited by the IMF/World Bank?"
Don't lar. That is quite jialat an example.
Okay, okay. I'd concede. This example is quite jialat. Hehe. Sorry the KTM got carried away.
Kitana,
Thanks for your kind words and for sharing your thoughts.
My response is that 470+ activists were actually allowed to come into the country. The fact that some decided not to come in the end is their problem lah.
Any quick note is the following: do people pause to think about how carefully the IMF is likely to be at accrediting the CSO activists? People should think about the incentive structures and IMF's position. Does the IMF worry about security at all? Do we think that we have particularly good or bright administrators at IMF? The KTM would venture to guess that some bureaucrat at IMF sends out these letter to various Governments and the Governments will arrow some poorly paid civil servant to compile a list and send it back to the IMF. Who in this chain has the incentive to ensure that we don't have a terrorist in the midst? Got terrorist how? Nebermind. Why? Singapore will deal. :-(
xenoboy,
What gives you the impression that KTM was trying to silence anyone?? Seriously thought that your entry was interesting. Didn't know so much about Wolfowitz and too lazy to find out. Apologies for the KTM's suaku-ness.
The KTM agrees with you that there more serious issues in this fiasco, but those are not new issues. The issues have always been there.
Mr Wang,
"That's a simple matter of integrity and honesty."
You are not being coherent. Isn't it abundantly clear that the Garmen would have left an escape clause in the MOU? If there is an escape clause and there are ample reasons to argue for why some fellas should be barred from coming in, what integrity and honesty are you talking about? The whole point of having an escape clause to allow for some room for manoeuvring what.
Your point about leaving your lights on does remind the KTM of his irritation at this stupid hare-brained scheme that was proposed to spend dunno how many million of dollars to dunno what light up the Singapore skyline. The KTM doesn't remember what that figure was, but it was some obscene figure in the millions.
Talk about conserving electricity. Some idiot civil servant or minister must think that Singapore is sitting on an oil well.
Kelvin,
Agree with you that trust is important. The Garmen probably trusted the IMF too much. The Garmen probably didn't forsee the finger-pointing from the IMF. Seriously, Wolfowitz didn't need to do what he did. IMF could have shared a little of the blame with Singapore instead of doing tai-chi.
Hands up all those who believe that Wolfowitz loves the CSOs!
KTM:
Still cannot see it?
Of course Chee wants the photo opportunity. EVERY demonstration wants publicity. Otherwise, you might as well demonstrate in the privacy of your own bedroom.
Chee wants the photo opportunity ... to do what? To show the world that Singapore is such a repressive place that even three or four or five or six jokers cannot walk from Point A to Point B wearing a T-shirt that says "Democracy Now".
And the fact that the police are giving him trouble proves that .... he is right!
---
By the way, yes, the police can ask you to assist in investigations. But you can say, "No". You don't have to do everything and anything that any idiot police officer wants you to do.
If they still want to ask you assist, they must get a certain kind of summons under the Criminal Procedure Code. They cannot get that summons unless they have actually initiated a process called "investigation". "Investigation" means that either
(i) someone must have reported the occurrence of what appears to be a crime to the police; OR
(ii) the police officer himself believes that a crime (belonging to the category called "seizable offences") has been convicted.
The point is - Chee Soon Juan did not commit any crimes. Neither (i) nor (ii) applies. If indeed he or his sister had actually committed a crime, I assure you that the police would have arrested them straightaway, instead of (in the sister's case) getting six officers to hold hands, form a circle and trapping her inside.
Mr Wang,
The police are under orders from the Minister not to let Chee disrupt the IMF and so they have a job to do.
Chee is trying to manoevure the police into a position where he can snap unflattering pictures of the police to post on the web.
To show the world that Singapore is such a repressive place that even three or four or five or six jokers cannot walk from Point A to Point B wearing a T-shirt that says "Democracy Now".
Actually, I don't believe you. One of these days, perhaps the KTM will gather a group of 6 friends wearing a similar T-shirt and he's probably be okay. Why? 'cos Chee is a known trouble maker (did you say joker? You mean clown right?) while the KTM is only a chow kay poh.
There is a difference between people who are just hanging out and people who are trying to disturb the peace. The KTM suspects that the police got sufficient IQ to tell the difference -- even if they dun have the common sense to ignore frivolity like White Elephants.
Mai kuncheong hor. At some point, the Garmen will probably decide to outsource the risks of maintaining law and order for protests to the insurance companies. Given the current trends, it's only a matter of time in the KTM's opinion.
KTM says,
The police are under orders from the Minister not to let Chee disrupt the IMF and so they have a job to do.
I am under the impression that the march is from Speaker's corner to the parliment house. In what way is it disrupting meetings at Suntec? Even if he is disrupting, they can arrest them immediately without going through all these embarrassment(to the police)
Btw, if KTM really intends to prove that walking from speaker corner to parliament house wearing a loud shirt announcing "Democracy now" will not get the police attention, I would really applaud you.
Ron,
As the learned Mr Wang quite rightly highlighted, Chee and Co are trying to get attention. Suppose the Police kwai kwai let them march from Speaker's Corner to the Parliment House and they dun get no attention, who is to say that he wouldn't try something even more daring to test the system to provoke the police into yet another situation like a lawsuit?
Aiyah, do pity the poor police commander who has been tasked to ensure that Chee doesn't cause any problems for the IMF. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Cut these fellas some slack lah. Chee and not getting beaten up and they are actually getting the media attention they want. Some may even argue that it's a win-win situation for the police and for Chee. The police contain Chee and prevent his gang from getting to Suntec and they get their job done. Chee and Co get their photo ops and achieve their goals also. So everyone should be happy right?
Aiyah, KTM. That one is for the police to do *after* he tries something funny. I don't think you can simply hold hands and stand around people based on some hypothetical scenario that has only occured in your head. Only AFTER the provocation can the police do something. At least according to what I know about the law anyway, for most/if not all cases to do anything to kena someone, must prove actus rea (something has been done) and mens rea (the person actually intended it), except maybe in Singapore where things like sedition can totally do away with mens rea (technically) but it appears no need actus rea also. But if wrong don't blame me hor, I is Engineer, not lawyer. That one I hear from somewhere.
It's not win-win because hor, if you think of it in a game theory sense, there is definitely one more player in the game... the Singaporean people. They lose in the current scenario. Must see the forest and not just the trees.
KTM,
I do agreed that they are trying to get attention. It is undeniable that Chee is doing that. As for the members of the police force, I don't really blame them but I do hope that this episode would give them something to think about.
Anyway, to drag the discussion back to topic, I think until the agreement content is revealed, both parties would be at fault. I do wonder why do they keep the agreement confidential now than they are using it to point fingers at one another.
RSE,
The KTM believes what you said about actus rea and mens rea is accurate. However, the KTM also not lawyer, so he also be completely wrong with you. Nebermind lah, talk is cheap (actually free in this case).
What we don't have at hand is an understanding of the circumstances under which Chee Siok Chin got surrounded by the six policewomen. Actually it looked from the picture that the chief policewomen (with the crab on her shoulder) was trying to address Ms Chee. It is also quite possible that the police screwed up again and next week we will hear about another Chee Siok Chin vs Commissioner of Police for "wrongful confinement" or something. Who knows? Nevertheless, the police at least smart enough to capture their own video footage of the event to try to justify their actions.
Agree with you that the Singapore people lose in the current scenario. Think about all the public funds that we would save if Chee got run over by a truck two weeks ago .... must cost us quite a bit to deploy a battalion of police officers at Hong Lim. However, this might not the perspective that you had in mind. You wanna elaborate on your game theoretic view of the issue? The KTM has always been quite a fan of game theory.
Ron,
I think that some of the posts above have mostly clarified the content of the MOU. There is an escape clause which the Garmen has built into the agreement so that we dun have to surrender our rights to decide on who gets to come in. Legally, it is most probable that neither party is at fault.
IMF probably doesn't want to take the document 'cos it doesn't help their case; Singapore probably doesn't want to take out the document 'cos we're trying to play good host. To the best of the KTM's understanding, most of the finger-pointing was done by Wolfowitz/IMF. Our side only make a weak squeek of protest about we dunno what "take (our) duty as HOST country seriously" and are "obliged (under the agreement) to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of delegates". Something wimpy like that lah. To engage the IMF in a war of words is a diplomatic fiasco that we probably want to avoid.
Petition to Singaporeans and its leaders.
We as Singaporeans acknowledge that Mr Paul Wolfowitz is an uncivilised, cunning and undiplomatic fire-spitting dragon with old leopard spots even though there is no real evidence to proof so except by the stench that he left behind in Suntec Convention Centre.
Mr Paul Wolfowitz has offended many kind and hardworking Singaporean hosts by the unsensitive and defamatory remarks of the host country he has conveyed to the worldwide media.
We sincerely hope that this high-risk individual is not welcomed and invited into Singapore territory again.
We hope Singapore will not in future, commit the same error by risking its reputation by hosting high-risk group forums with very questionable agendas without thorough risk analysis and full consultations from the relevent experts.
Thank you.
On the main topic: this is more than just whether we violate agreement or not. This is an issue of image and credibility. Not the image with the average man on the street, but our international 'street cred', it's a bigger issue than face. And it's not just us, it's also the IMF and WB. One of Singapore's goal in this meeting is to increase international standing, remember?
Singapore's ban has a bad effect on IMF/WB image. Since one of their supposed ideals is democracy, this really effects their credibility, and hence their ability to influence international policy. Must remember, not everywhere else the people let their govt listen to what is perceived to be hypocrites. That's politics. So too bad must react to Singapore's ban by pointing finger at Singapore lor, some more to show that you're serious, must say violate MOU la, even if not in letter, then in spirit. So Singapore must do damage control. If neber forsee that effect, unlike Mr. Wang, too bad, you miscalculated lor. Don't KPKB, that's life.
Sovereignity (lucky the govt never play this card) is a very weak strategy in the international stage. The last country I remember playing it is Iran, and fat lot of good it did them. Anyway, you can ditch Sovereignity as a concept into the obsolete bin, blame it all on globalization. Too many icky intertwining causes and effects, you cannot make decisions without consulting, being influenced by or at least considering others on the international stage. Pull one string, then got many reaction and might bite your backside in the end, real life exampur hor, buy shares in some telco, and suddenly got military coup, then effect the way people act in the region, wah...! That's my take on it. Even if you die-die must still believe in the 'S' word, the banning of the activists, strictly speaking, is NOT a domestic issue.
On game theory fun: Game theory is just a fancy way to analyse issue with numbers, la real or not is another question. This is a multiturn game (with potentially an infinite number of branches) without complete or perfect information. We can add many players (both active and passive ones), Chee, police, Singapore people (can rename to 'fuzzy wuzzy democratic ideals', FWDI), taxpayers, govt. Unfortunately analysis is hard because we cannot predict or know everything, and there's not enough space to say (but I accurately predicted that Chee would march but I only tell my friends, so cannot claim credit), but I can tell you taxpayers get 0 in all cases, because die die must pay tax at the same rate, unless by miracle Chee abolishes taxes or something. If police langgar and act blur, I can only predict Chee gets a score < 0. FWDI < 0. police, dunno. Current situation, every one gets at most 0 lor, I don't see any real benefit, FWDI < 0. The best outcome I think, is we leave Chee alone... if people listen, listen lor, dowan to listen, don't listen lor. And I think Chee would be surprised at it, some more use less taxpayer's money than langgar ppl with van (cleaner must get terrible score in that scenario). Furthermore, don't forget hor, if they can do to Chee, they also can do to you if they want. Govt and Police not your friend hor, but can be powerful enemy.
If you want to know what I think of Chee, he's not really part of my conscious. I think more often of KTM than of Chee (because I like guo tiao la!). But since must think of him, I must say he has guts and opinions. Rare and precious commodities in Singapore. I don't exactly know what he says or does, so I cannot say smart or stupid or what. But I know that people can believe in, think, and say anything they want, whether in UFO, pro-wrestling, govt sux or rox. It's not our job to make them smarter. And as long as they stay out of trouble, who cares.
This is such a silly topic that i find it amusing you guys spend so much time taking about it since it's clearly you are ALL talking at each other. And i thought the KTM will trot out one of his favourite variation wrt Dr Chee's demostration i.e. wah waste resources. Yah lor, I will totally agree it's wasting the tax payer's money to let those police people hang around in circles.
Game theory, heh, the best moves are to adopt a mix strategy to let the opponent keep on guessing and not be able to do a simple decision tree to counter his/her moves. For the most part, the SPF is very predictable.
KTM:
I do agree with you on one thing - if the police are acting on the orders of the Minister (as they probably are), then yes the Minister deserves all the criticism that is circulating around the Internet right now.
This, however, is ridiculous:
"... who is to say he wouldn't try something even more daring to test the system to provoke the police into yet another situation like a lawsuit?"
You cannot encircle people with your many arms just because it is theoretically possible that he may contemplate committing some more drastic act which may or may not constitute a criminal offence at some future time on some future date or perhaps the same day.
Theoretically KTM may poison people with his Kway Teow next week because his hums are not fresh. This is definitely a factual possibility. It does not justify six ENV officers today forming a circle around KTM to trap KTM inside so that he cannot get to his kway teow stall.
Mr Wang said,
You cannot encircle people with your many arms just because it is theoretically possible that he may contemplate committing some more drastic act which may or may not constitute a criminal offence at some future time on some future date or perhaps the same day.
=====
That was the basic premise of the Tom Cruise movie, "The Minority Report".
Judging from what the police did to CSJ, soon, Singapore will end up having a police unit specifically on preventing "future" crime.
Mr Wang, that's where you are misinformed about state laws.
The government can have the right to use its security forces to temporarily detain people that are deemed a security risk even in public. Examples such as police conducting road blocks or blockades in public spaces to prevent certain people from moving elsewhere. The police used a human chain where they could have used a barrier. This happens in critical situations involving high-risk individuals that may pose a threat to state security.
We have often seen state lands that mark a signboard that says, "State Land No trespassing". Hypothetically, if the police would to set up a restricted barrier around the fence of Mr Wang's private house, Mr Wang cannot step out of his private land, he would be like Ang Sung Suu Kyi under house detainment. Doing so would be deemed trespassing into restricted territory. I sincerely hope CSJ is not doing all he is doing because he is aiming for the Nobel Prize.
Now we understand why people like to go to court to fight over single sq ft of land because they are very precious and private, like that female doctor in Dalvey estate who wanted to use her neighbour's barriered driveway instead of building her own, and the terrifying Joo Chiat neighbours.
Ah I see, the civil service must be populated with the likes of whybegay, this explains much of the attitudes and policies they produce year in year out.
whybegay:
"The government can have the right to use its security forces to temporarily detain people that are deemed a security risk even in public."
A few questions:
1. you say they "have the right". Where does the right come from?
2. you say "deemed a security risk". Who does the deeming?
3. even if there is both a right and that the deeming is legitimate, is it right, as a matter of natural justice that any person may be deemed a security risk and be detained on a whim?
RSE,
Well said. Thanks for your comments. Your point about image and credibility, and increasing international standing however needs to be qualified with a context. Are we talking about Singapore's standing with world leaders, with IMF/WB, with CSOs, or with foreigners in general? It is actually not clear to the KTM that the IMF meeting was for increasing international standing so to say, the KTM had thought that it was mostly economic, i.e. to showcase Singapore as a dunno what Mice destination and to earn some tourist dollars. Aiyah, actually who knows what the objectives was?
In any case, as mentioned, it's not quite clear what the overall effect is -- there's apparently not a lot of coverage about the IMF meeting abroad. Yeah, got some, but not a lot -- and as the KTM mentioned elsewhere, most of the world's citizens probably aren't even aware of the meeting in the Singapore. It's different from the Olympics by a long shot.
The KTM highlighted sovereignty as a point of consideration, not to suggest that we should play the sovereignty card. Agree, that would not be wise, 'cos it will win us nothing. Overall, must give the Garmen some credit for taking the flak with a straight face (even though they must be cursing away at Wolfowitz behind the scenes. ). The KTM doesn't think it was really the 'S' word particularly, but the 'E' word as in 'E' for efficiency and not having anything screw up.
The flak arising from the banning of activists is just bad judgment and had nothing to do with domestic politics whatsoever. CSJ is just a red herring who's trying to tie the two together. The point is that even if Chee didn't exist, the Garmen would likely still have gotten itself into the same hole. Chee wasn't the cause of that shit. Of course, Chee is contributing to the Garmen's headache by making a scene in the backyard. Without Chee, perhaps we might have an extra battalion of spare police officers to handle more CSO activists..... "but Minister, we cannot agree to let in these 27 activists lah.... my manpower is all tied up at Hong Lim ...." Who really knows how Chee has contributed to the problem? :-P
On game theory, it might perhaps be slightly more tractable to model it as a simple one-turn game, instead of a repeated game, since it's not clear that IMF is coming back. I don't agree that the outcome for the taxpayers is always zero. Given that Singaporeans don't really like to look stupid, the KTM believes that there's some utility from having the IMF meeting run well and having Singapore look good. On the other hand, if some terrorist suay suay bomb something then the utility would be very negative. If the Garmen also wants to model the decision making process with game theory, then the problem is that Chee is a big question mark and they're not quite sure what he will do --- basically because the fella has been so cornered that he has nothing to lose. There's a reason why there's a Chinese saying about not cornering an animal. It is completely uncertain what the best outcome with regards to Chee because there are too many unknowns. As Ben mentioned earlier, it would be a mess if the CSOs ended up line dancing with Chee and disrupted the IMF. Or perhaps like you say, the police could have chosen to do nothing and everything would have been well. The main question here is: if you were the police commissioner, how would you act in order to manage your risks (in terms of having to answer to the Minister)? In a rationale world, everyone is trying to manage their own risks and maximize their own utilities --- and the final outcome is the interaction of all those processes.
Like you, the KTM doesn't think much of CSJ either and believes that he's a total red herring as mentioned above, so sees no need to involve him in our current line of discussion.
Mr Wang,
I believe you have posted your comments in the wrong place. The debate over the police is here, but to respond to your comment anyway: the police can do anything they want. They just better be ready to answer for their actions. If the Chees are not happy, they can sue. Not like that haven't done that before. You know the law better than the KTM, so if you want to criticize the judiciary for being biased and partial, that's a completely different matter. Perhaps you can blog about that and teach the KTM something?
Similarly, if the ENV wants to send six officers to come check on the KTM's hum, that's fine too. Hopefully they will come without having had lunch so that the KTM will have some extra customers. If they come and instead of contributing to business, they make the KTM lose money. Then, ENV better start drafting a response to the KTM's letter in the Forum Page, and in the worst case, alert AGC of an impending suit. :-P
At the end of the day, people (both Chee and the police) can do whatever they want. They just have to be prepared to answer (or pay) for their actions.
whybegay,
You have left some rather unhelpful comments and the KTM believes that some of the stuff you've said is plain wrong. There are indeed standards of acceptable behaviour for the police and they are expected to abide by those standards. If the police should exceed their powers, then people can sue. As Han mentioned, there is such a thing known as "natural justice".
Also, Chee and the majority of CSOs do not constitute "security risks" as in "T" for Terrorist. They are likely to be more "P" for "public nuisance" with regards to the IMF meeting. If you are trying to host this party at some public place, it would probably piss you off if some fella comes to the party ('cos you cannot stop him since you are at a public place) and makes a scene right. That's probably the spirit of the whole matter.
Ted,
Your comments are not only unhelpful, your last is a personal attack. If you have nothing to contribute, consider minding the gap? This is supposed to be a civil discussion hor.
Not happy ah, censor me lor.
Gentlemen, please!
What is so difficult to get the points?
Spending so much time and dollars to hold this meeting for what? Have these gone to waste? All the smiles and efforts of the frontline foot soldiers (Singaporean lah) and polices are just dispensable tools of the games by the gahmen?
Well, the gahman may careless of what the international press writes about us but the Singaporean do! (not all ofcourse).
No crisis? Who is kidding who?
It maybe already well known to the world of our 'police' state but to prove it this way is a pain in the heart.
Now I can shamelessly admit to foreign friends that we are like they say we Singaporean are 'stupid', 'coward', 'simple minded', 'kiasu' and 'kiasi' living in a 'controlled' democracy without realising it.
The points are clear! The Singapore Gahman has gone back on its supposedly agreed points in MOU to allow credited protests. The actions of the police is stupid and the Minister who ordered it is too much. The Singapore media has proven itself as worthless and gutless.
Singaporean is like what my foreign friends say...sigh.
Han,
The answer to your questions 1 and 2, we are not just talking about the police but also the department in charge of National Security(I don't know what they really call themselves). The answer for question 3 is left to this department to evaluate and determine, not me.
KTM,
I honestly and truly disagree with your judgment to say my comments were wrong and analogies unhelpful to explain my points to the relevent persons. I was stating facts and not opinions, so disagree with the facts if you have to.
Does anyone remember last year september when the 3 bloggers in Singapore were charged with sedition? In that timeframe, a civil activist public speaker from the US who went to Australia was deported back to his home country as he was deemed a threat to national security.
You also said,
"Also, Chee and the majority of CSOs do not constitute "security risks" as in "T" for Terrorist. They are likely to be more "P" for "public nuisance" with regards to the IMF meeting."
Whether CSJ is deemed a potential or unlikely national security risk or to be the construct of is for the department in charge of national security to evaluate and determine, not for you or me to do so fortunately or unfortunately, even if we think we really really know CSJ.
So unless you can explain why Australia deported that civil activist back to his home country last year, people cannot claim that Singapore is doing something unfair and unreasonably undemocratic.
Did Australia and Singapore did the wrong thing? I encourage further constructive discussions on this topic.
whybegay:
"The answer to your questions 1 and 2, we are not just talking about the police but also the department in charge of National Security(I don't know what they really call themselves)."
You have not answered my questions at all. This is what you said:
"The government can have the right to use its security forces to temporarily detain people that are deemed a security risk even in public."
My first question is "Where does the right come from". More specifically, when you say that a person (by person I mean legal entity) has a right, you must identify the source of that right. Is that right legal? Moral? Or?
My second question is "Who does the deeming?". "the department in charge of National Security" is quite vague. Do you mean to say that anybody in that department which no one knows exists has the power to deem any person a security risk?
Lastly, your answer that "The answer for question 3 is left to this department to evaluate and determine, not me" is a cop-out. When I talk about natural justice, I am not asking you to decide whether CSJ is a security threat, I am actually asking you to exercise your moral judgment and come to a conclusion as to whether such exercises of power are right or wrong.
Distinguishing between facts and opinions:
"The government can have the right to use its security forces to temporarily detain people that are deemed a security risk even in public."
This statement not a fact until you can identify the source of the right you think the government has.
"We as Singaporeans acknowledge that Mr Paul Wolfowitz is an uncivilised, cunning and undiplomatic fire-spitting dragon with old leopard spots even though there is no real evidence to proof so except by the stench that he left behind in Suntec Convention Centre."
I doubt any ratoinal person would consider the above sentence to be a fact，and even by the standards of a lunatic, it would still be a stretch to consider it a fact.
"We sincerely hope that this high-risk individual is not welcomed and invited into Singapore territory again."
Interesting how you so obediently deferred to the "department in charge of National Security(I don't know what they really call themselves)" on the matter of whether CSJ posed a high security risk, but so confidently declared Wolfy to be one. Perhaps you are privy to some super duper ultra classified information that none of us have?
Average Joe,
Perhaps you can explain your definition of crisis? Foreign media publishing unflattering things about Singapore = crisis? Then, we're always in crisis. Yeah, Singapore (and therefore Singaporeans) got a slap in the face, but does that constitute a crisis?
You claim that the Singapore Gahman has gone back on its supposedly agreed points in MOU. Why do you believe this claim? Because Wolfowitz/foreign media says so? Is it not clear from the above discussion that the MOU was (deliberately) vague on the details and under no circumstances is it conceivable that Singapore would have surrendered its rights of immigration control?
whybegay,
The KTM respects your right to disagree with the KTM's judgement. You need not concern yourself with what the KTM thinks about your comments. After all, the readers can decide for themselves whether they agree with you (and the KTM is spouting nonsense half the time).
Thanks for highlighting the case of the Australian deportation. The KTM concedes that he is perhaps not qualified to make a judgement on whether Chee constitutes a "security risk". Perhaps the KTM is indeed talking nonsense there.
BTW, you may wish to consider revising your answers to Han's questions. There may be some confusion between the situation under discussion and the ISA. The law in Singapore is really not as arbitrary as what you make it out to be, where some unknown/unnamed department happily makes up all the rules.
Han,
that "petition" about Paul Wolfowitz was only a loony opinionated joke inspired by him, otherwise I would have made it a real petition for people to sign. You needn't have taken it seriously as a fact.
Refering to your questions, I have actually answered them in the manner they were asked. Maybe, your intention of your first question which is, "Where does the right come from?" meant to really ask,
"How does the right to detain a person deemed a national security risk validates itself to be a right? Or simply put, where does the validation of the right come from? "
The right clearly presented itself when CSJ and CSC turned up to organise their protest even though their permit to do so was clearly denied. The right also presented itself a second time when CSJ and CSC stepped out of speaker's corner with the clear intention to spread their public protest to key government areas.
The source of that right's validation came from CSJ and CSC themselves with their proposed threats.
The right to temporarily detain people that are deemed a national security risk actually comes from the department of national security, from their evaluation of who is or is not a national security risk. This is my answer from my previous comment.
I believe I have already answered your second question from my previous comment. If you don't believe my answer, I encourage you to seek your own answers.
Also, I have actually answered your question 3 in my previous comment.
You asked,
"3.even if there is both a right and that the deeming is legitimate, is it right, as a matter of natural justice that any person may be deemed a security risk and be detained on a whim?"
And I answered in my previous comment,
"The answer for question 3 is left to this(national security) department to evaluate and determine, not me."
Natural Justice works by assuming anyone with good intentions until proven otherwise in court. This is applicable for people and their associations who have little or no history of serious criminal acts(Now you get why the police were taking photos). However, CSJ and CSC have already stated their intentions to go against the law a few days before their public protest was to be taken place. So I guess the department of national security has already determined Natural Justice for them to be void and non-applicable in this case in order to have done what they did. This is what I have already answered in my previous comment.
KTM:
You had mentioned in one of your comments that: "there's apparently not a lot of coverage about the IMF meeting abroad."
A cursory glance at the front page of 'The Intelligent Singaporean" would show that the S'pore govt's difference of opinion with the IMF/WB over the CSO issue has been reported (repeatedly) and the news carried by major wire agencies, such as Reuters, AP and AFP, and such reports would have in turn been carried by foreign national newspapers, who generally rely on such wire reports for international news.
While I agree that "it's not quite clear what the overall effect is", it is likely that the international community's impression of Singapore as a one-party authoritarian state got reinforced over our hosting of the IMF/WB meet, since I have not really seen glowing reports of the delegates' Singaporean experience by these wire agencies.
I doubt this was one of the result(s) that the S'pore govt had envisaged when they bid to host the event.
Personally, I feel that S'pore may have been backstabbed by IMF/WB when Paul Wolfowitz made "those" public comments, and wonder how the S'pore govt presented the list of banned but accredited activists' list to IMF/WB. Was it presented with a view for advance information and possible negotiation? Was there an even earlier backstabbing by IMF/WB when the news was leaked out so quickly??
As many have pointed out, this is really a public relations fiasco. Didn't the S'pore govt consider the possible media & publicity backlash when they drew up the list? It would appear unlikely for the highly efficent govt. So, could there be some backroom maneuvres or possibilities that we are unaware of? Hmmm...
In any case, I also feel that the S'pore govt should not have backed down and de-ban the 22 activists. The damage has already been done, and as how subsequent events played out, it just made S'pore look weak and didn't help to reverse any of the earlier reports one bit.
Just my two cents worth, and hope it's okay for me to join this discussion at this late stage. Thanks!
red11,
Thanks for sharing your views. Dunno leh, was told that while the local blogosphere is having a field day arguing over the IMF, there are few/no non-local bloggers who care. While it is true that reports were carried by major wire agencies, such as Reuters, AP and AFP, how newsworthy this Singapore story is to the rest of the world is really suspect. Why do so many people seem to think that people care about what happens in Singapore I wonder? Perhaps the impression that Singapore is authoritarian got reinforced -- but it that really significant? Does Singapore have a reputation as a liberal democracy to begin with? 100000+1 = 100001 > 100000, but is the increase perceptible?
The KTM believes that the greatest regret is that we spent $150(?) million on this party and might(?) have come out looking good, but we didn't and so we effectively flushed that money down the drain. $150 million was supposed to generate $3 billion tourist revenue dollars (but Singaporeans have to pay for it by being inconvenienced with the roadblocks). Also dunno if the sums worked out overall also.
"I doubt this was one of the result(s) that the S'pore govt had envisaged when they bid to host the event."
Absolutely. Certainly can't disagree with that statement.
"Didn't the S'pore govt consider the possible media & publicity backlash when they drew up the list?"
The KTM suspects that the Garmen did consider it but under-estimated the response. It's not that Singapore didn't let any activists in. They apparently let in some 700+ activists. So perhaps they assessed (wrongly) that 27/700 is not significant to cause major problems and they likely didn't foresee Wolfowitz's knife in the back. At some level, the whole fiasco (factoring out CSJ the red herring) might not have been something that could have avoided to begin with. To some extent, it was a disaster waiting to happen.
I feel it was unfortunate that many singaporean blogs were so caught up with the superficialities of the IMF WB forum so much that they did not even touch on the inner goings of the meetings.
Instead many of them were too concerned about our local happenings and the problems encountered at the forum than the forum itself.
It seems political manipulation has worked out quite nicely to take attention off the forum itself and to put up quite a few media decoys. I only know of the protesters with the masked faces focusing on edcational issues from CNA news.
We know more about the protesters who did not make it through Singapore than of the protesters that are already here protesting. And we were concerned more about the MOU than what the forum was about. We knew more about what happened outside the meeting doors than what went on inside.
The only contributor on this site to comment on the IMF WB was Sze Meng but soon his post was sidetracked by this highly opinionated post about something else.
I feel many singaporeans are too self-conscious with their egos and defending them to be concerned about the world. It's a very unfortunate crisis in our culture.
whybegay,
Well said, even if the part about "singaporeans are too self-conscious with their egos and defending them to be concerned about the world" was directed at the KTM.
To All
Please find from the horses mouth across the border for those who think everything is hunky dory (perfect or fine) in the relationship.
"Well, the last thing Mahathir would want is to be accused of being a Singapore or Lee Kuan Yew copycat. Malaysia and Singapore have a love-hate relationship. We may be Siamese Twins and one cannot live without the other, but we are certainly far from brothers. If we do something it must be different or better than Singapore. It should not be exactly what Singapore is doing. That is Mahathir’s cardinal rule.
In the early days when Mahathir first took over as Prime Minister, he would take to task any government officer who presented his plan and added, “That is exactly how they do it in Singapore.” Mahathir would caution the officer to never say that again. “Don’t you know we are at war with Singapore?”
That was how Mahathir felt before he became Prime Minister. That was how he felt all those 22 years he was Malaysia’s Prime Minister. And that is how he still feels now. He has not changed one bit in his feelings about Singapore since the day the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, kicked Singapore out of Malaysia and gave it its independence. Mahathir himself has said this. Malaysia can never be friends with Singapore. There are no two ways about it as far as Mahathir is concerned. And copying what Singapore did would be the last thing Mahathir would do. That would be a life worse than death.
Mahathir is prepared to tolerate Singapore and treat it as a necessary evil. Dekat di mata, jauh di hati, as far as Mahathir is concerned. But there are limits to that relationship. We can tolerate, we can accommodate, but we must never give in. Tolerate and accommodate would create the impression of two equals. Giving in would instead be one dominating the other. And there is no way Singapore is going to dominate Malaysia. He is already old, admitted Mahathir. He has very little left to give to this country, argued Mahathir. But he would give the only thing he has left, his life, to defend Malaysia’s sovereignty, pledged Mahathir on 24 June 2006. If it becomes necessary to go to war then war it is. That is Mahathir’s feeling towards Malaysia kowtowing to Singapore or to any other foreign power."
http://www.malaysia-today.net/
Co...tionalistic.htm
I think the people in charge of security were out to minimize the maximum possible loss. The only way to achieve this was to let in as few prolific protestors as possible so that they could minimize any damage due to over-enthusiastic demonstrations or potential terrorist attacks. As long as they covered their backside, the worst thing that could happen to them was getting some bad press, which is not a bad result for the security team but bad for Singapore as a whole.
Instead, we should to look at this situation from the standpoint of how Singapore could have maximized a boost to its reputation. If Singapore was going to shell out more than $100mil on hosting an event, it's fair to say that we shouldn't look at hosting the World Bank/IMF from a 'kiasi' perspective. The aim should have been to tap whatever sources available to maximize positive publicity for Singapore.
The mistake was for the organizers to give in too much to the demands of the security team. They failed to recognize that the foreign media, in particular the Financial Times, could twist the barring of 27 activists in its headlines and splash an embarrassing photo of Chee on its front page. Incidentally, this paper caters to the very people that Singapore was trying to promote itself to - People With Money.
I'm not saying that the Financial Times and other foreign media have their hands clean or that they are bastions of democracy, but the Singapore organizers clearly miscalculated and went overboard by making security checks so oppressive that the CSOs were able to put Singapore in a very, very bad light although their original target was the World Bank/IMF.
Frankly, paying $100+million to host a public relations disaster is more than 200 times worse compared to trying (and failing) to rename Marina Bay. It might not be Singapore's fault alone in a sense that things just happened to turn out badly. But seriously, nobody can deny that the result is an abysmal failure.
So many comments, looks like the debate went on without me! Is it dead yet?
For all it's worth, I agree with chris choo. The target is people with money.
And to KTM, Chee is playing with a repeated game in mind, but the powers-that-be are playing it as a single game. In a sense, it is a repeated game, the scenario each round is just slightly different. Assuming that despite S'pore failure at impressing the world just this once, and MICE concept is wildly successful and takes off...
WBG, the inner goings of the meetings are in a sense, not really especially as relevant to Singapore affairs directly and hence Singapore blogs. If being concerned with Singapore affairs is being concerned with our own egos, well then that's what Singapore blogs are about, faulting them for it is like faulting a women's magazine for not being concerned with global warming. The inner-workings would have gone on regardless of where the meetings were held. They would be quite relevant if you were following the globalization debate, though. Even then, as far as I can tell, this meeting did not bring any groundbreaking issues on the table.
RSE,
you said,
"the inner goings of the meetings are in a sense, not really especially as relevant to Singapore affairs directly and hence Singapore blogs."
On the contrary, what went on in the meetings are especially directly relevent to a globalizing nation like Singapore and also relevent to singaporean blogs like Singapore Angle. You were quite mistaken to think I was refering to the other types of highly-opinionated singaporean blogs, which I wasn't.
WBG:
Singapore Angle is concerned with Singapore current affairs first, and maybe globalization is somewhere down the list. I would have to defer to those who actually write on Singapore Angle what SA is actually about (if anything). In any case, KTM's article is NOT about globalization.
You might be missing my second point, that is, I did not catch anything (is anything significant out yet?) new in this meeting that is groundbreaking in terms of globalization. In fact, I did a quick check and could not find any mention of the internals of IMF/WB in any globalization blog.
RSE,
I have to inform you that the website heading of Singapore Angle lists it as, "Singapore Angle - Looking at world and local issues. from a Singapore perspective".
Based on the wording of the heading, you are actually technically wrong to assume that the site is firstly concerned with Singapore's current affairs. It is actually concerned with both "world and local issues".
Since the site is concerned with world issues, what went on at the IMF WB weetings is also of potential concern and interest to Singapore Angle, since some of the writers are entrepreneurs.
Just a short note: WBG is right about the heading. Both world and local issues--globalisation included--are potentially of concern and interest to the bloggers here. That said, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to 'cover' all angles of every possible issue out there. Everything thing you read here is done on the various writers' own time and given our individual interests. If anyone has insight into what went on at the IMF/WB meetings whether groundbreaking or not) and is willing to write something up, I would certainly encourage him/her to send it to us as a guest contribution.
RSE,
you said,
"In fact, I did a quick check and could not find any mention of the internals of IMF/WB in any globalization blog."
Actually there is indeed a rare blog post regarding the WB meetings in BL's "SG Entrepreneurs" blog.
http://sgentrepreneurs.com/entre...siest-business/
There is no doubt that Chee wanted the attention, but it still remain a fact that the system indeed sux and allow itself to be portrayed to the world as how it actually is as what Chee had anticipated.
If KTM is really willing to prove to us that Chee is the real problem here and not the system is at fault by walking from speaker corner to parliament house wearing a loud shirt announcing "Democracy now" with some of his friends, I would too be applauding.
But before you do that, you might want to learn about the ‘white-elephant’ T-shirt saga and the recent ‘brown’ incident at certain MRT. As far as I know, Chee and his party were not involved in both cases and yet the police you so sympathized with are still overreacting.
wbg
a visit to your blog reveals that you have nothing at all to say about the forum. Going by your logic, does this mean that you yourself are totally uninterested in all aspects of the forum? You see how your argument is starting to sound hypocritical?
sporescores,
I honestly believe you are believing in a flawed type of logic that some people unconsciously follow as well.
If I am not a business journalist, it doesn't mean I cannot be interested in the business news on the papers.
Your broken logic is tantamount to saying that people without existing blogs cannot be interested to know what is going on in the blogs of others. This deduction would deem you unqualified to visit blogs like Singapore Angle.
Your flawed deduction would also imply that people who are not in politics cannot be interested to know about politics in the similar sense that people who are not lawyers cannot know about their rights.
This flawed deduction implies that people cannot know something unless they themselves are doing it in the first place.
Do you realise how contradicting and illogical your deduction is? If you follow this logic, I suggest you start your own blog soon, otherwise your deduction would deem yourself to be unwelcomed to know about what goes on in other people's blogs such as my blog and this one.
wbg
Precisely. That's my point about your earlier comment.
sporescores I don't get you, what exactly is your point?
Commenting by HaloScan
