IMF/World Bank – A Pseudo-Government’s Perspective
The 61st IMF/World Bank meeting has just concluded couple of days ago, in our little island. While there are much breakthrough on the IMF/World Bank policies and voting rights, I guess most Singaporeans can’t be bothered by it. Perhaps the issues that interest most is the CSO – Civil Society Organization matters and what is the government’s take on these CSOs’ protests. This is just a pseudo-government’s perspective on what was possibly the sentiment on the government. Of course, don’t take this as gospel as I am only trying to second-guess the government!
Background
Just a little background for the “uninitiated”. The IMF/World Bank meeting held in Singapore from the 11 – 20 September 2006, was the largest turnout for an overseas-held meeting. A total 23,000 delegates and 300 finance Ministers from all over the world came to this much-maligned (or deservingly named, depending on which angle you see) authoritarian state called Singapore. Policy-wise, there have been major breakthroughs with the voting reforms in the IMF and policy against corrupted third-world countries. But away from the meetings, the issue that dominated some foreign press was the Singapore’s treatment to the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
For the second time in the meetings' history (the first was Dubai 2003), outdoor demonstrations are outlawed due to Singapore laws banning outdoor protests and marches. Numerous appeals to the authorities to approve such protest were rejected as the government cited security reasons including potential terrorist threat. The authorities are also denying entries of accredited civil society representatives whom the police regards as "troublemakers", despite the IMF/World Bank appeals to the government to allow them to attend the meetings. Registered civil service organisations (CSO) may hold indoor demonstrations on the ground floor of Suntec Singapore outside Starbucks Coffee, within a 14 by 8 metre space boundary, but CSOs are disappointed with the arrangement. The CSO protests were supposed to start on 11 September, but the police has pushed the date to 13 September.
On 11 September, when civic activists began arriving in Singapore, 27 activists were denied entry and had to leave the country. The police explained that these people were involved in violent demonstrations, including breaking into the World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C.. These individuals claimed that they had permission from the IMF and World Bank, but the police had stated that it is the local government's decision whether or not to allow them to enter the city state. Later, the World Bank and IMF accused the Singapore government of failing to allow the protestors into the country, with Paul Wolfowitz calling it a “going-back on an explicit agreement”, saying that Singapore had signed an open-access agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding in 2003. The World Bank added that it is a “breach” of their agreement and they worked with them and also valued their role even when they disagree on their views. They were cleared by their home governments beforehand and the World Bank believed that all of them should not be excluded from the annual meetings. The organising committee told the press, they were looking into the matter at that point of time. Later condemning the restrictions as "authoritarian". At that time, the Singapore police tried to contact the individuals via the World Bank or the embassies in Singapore, to prevent them from making a wasted trip to the country.
On 15 September 2006, the Singapore government announced that they will allow 22 out of the 27 banned activists into the country after reviewing the list of activists whose entry was subject to an interview if they entered the city-state. The organising committee said it reviewed the input provided by the IMF and the World Bank earlier that morning. On an another occasion, two Filipino activists were deported back to their country on 13 September as they were not accredited by the IMF/World Bank, and could post a security and public order threat. It was after interviews and full consideration of the circumstances. 14 September, an Indian national was denied entry into the country, and has been deported by the police.
If there were ever going to be protest in Singapore, how could ever do without Dr Chee Soon Juan and gang. The self-styled “martyr for his own voice” did his protest at Hong Lim Park with more foreign press than supportors. Many apologies, but I just can’t resist any opportunities to deliver punts at him. Just a note, have you ever visited Dr Chee’s blog? The strongest advocate for freedom doesn’t even allow comments on his blogs! So much for freedom of expression. Sorry, I really have to stop this bad habit of poking fun at him, but in my defensive, I am exercising my health need for freedom of speech! =P
The Pseudo-Govt’s Perspective
So the question, really, is the Singapore government even bothered about the protest about the protest? And what is the government’s opinion in this whole saga? Well, for the true answer, you might have to ask PM Lee or members of the Cabinet. But, pseudo-government’s guess is this.
For once, the government managed to turn the public opinion in favour of them with the help of media. Why do I say that? Firstly, this is the first time in recent history that protest was an non-event in IMF/World Bank. Hardly any solid (or liquid, for that matter) object was thrown at delegates. Naturely and diplomatically, the delegates have to say that the CSOs have the right to protest and their opinions are much appreciated. Deep down, they are extremely happy that there wasn’t any trouble and flying objects thrown at them. Put your shoes into a highly-paid CEO of an international bank being invited to attend an overseas that often resulted in a traumatic experience of fearing from your own safety and protests outside your meeting area. You fear walking in the streets being haressed or scorned and for much the 10 days. Effectively, you are stuck between the hotel and the meeting area. This is the feeling of my CEO on the past IMF/World Bank meetings, and probably the same feeling for most of the delegates.
Despite whatever have been said about the barring of protest by the CSOs, the strong turnout by the delegates was testimont to the their satisfaction. This will do Singapore lots of good and enhance our reputation as a place to hold conventions and meetings. The criticism from foreign presses and journalists are irrelevant and of little concern. The common mentality of these foreign presses and journalists are that they felt it is their moral obigation to push and expand the boundaries of freedom of speech and write on news that is of interest. While they might be opinion shapers in their own sphere, it is the opinions of the delegates, those with clout to shape economic balance of the world, that matters most during these 10 days. Singapore has demonstrated their ability to curb a traditional protest and guarenteed unprecedented security to these delegates, yet rank highly in conducive investment environment. This must have a lasting impact on these delegates and bankers. To add to the sobering effect, the Thailand military coup happened just 1 day before the end of the meetings. If you are an investor thinking of where to park your millions, Singapore just became the best alternative in Southeast Asia with Thailand shoot themselves in the foot.
For Wolfowitz to “cry wolf” and calling foul on Singapore, isn’t a problem as well. I am sure, with top legal brains like DPM Jayakumar in the Cabinet, we wouldn’t be liability for any contractual breach. Even if we do, the Singapore government would have choice their words carefully to circumvent the clauses. To the public, the blame game by Wolfowitz was made too blantly even for the CSOs to buy into that argument. This has worked in our favour.
So, the foreign opinions that needed to be secured were secured. This leads me to my second point. Locally, the papers have published letters by Singaporeans speaking in support of the government against the remarks by Wolfowitz. For the government not to reply too deeply and reactively (aka Bavani-style), they actually gained more goodwill for themselves. Seemingly, the government has used this incident to good effect to gain support from the local Singaporeans. While Dr Chee tried to use this event to rally support, it didn’t work well. He landed up bunching himself with the Wolfowitz-Singapore-government-bashing gang, that happens to be “target of the month” of Singaporeans.
In summary, it is really a win-win for the Singapore government. They have won local opinions and the delgates’ opinions without bending backwards for it. Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions.
The 61st IMF/World Bank meeting has just concluded couple of days ago, in our little island. While there are much breakthrough on the IMF/World Bank policies and voting rights, I guess most Singaporeans can’t be bothered by it. Perhaps the issues that interest most is the CSO – Civil Society Organization matters and what is the government’s take on these CSOs’ protests. This is just a pseudo-government’s perspective on what was possibly the sentiment on the government. Of course, don’t take this as gospel as I am only trying to second-guess the government!
Background
Just a little background for the “uninitiated”. The IMF/World Bank meeting held in Singapore from the 11 – 20 September 2006, was the largest turnout for an overseas-held meeting. A total 23,000 delegates and 300 finance Ministers from all over the world came to this much-maligned (or deservingly named, depending on which angle you see) authoritarian state called Singapore. Policy-wise, there have been major breakthroughs with the voting reforms in the IMF and policy against corrupted third-world countries. But away from the meetings, the issue that dominated some foreign press was the Singapore’s treatment to the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
For the second time in the meetings' history (the first was Dubai 2003), outdoor demonstrations are outlawed due to Singapore laws banning outdoor protests and marches. Numerous appeals to the authorities to approve such protest were rejected as the government cited security reasons including potential terrorist threat. The authorities are also denying entries of accredited civil society representatives whom the police regards as "troublemakers", despite the IMF/World Bank appeals to the government to allow them to attend the meetings. Registered civil service organisations (CSO) may hold indoor demonstrations on the ground floor of Suntec Singapore outside Starbucks Coffee, within a 14 by 8 metre space boundary, but CSOs are disappointed with the arrangement. The CSO protests were supposed to start on 11 September, but the police has pushed the date to 13 September.
On 11 September, when civic activists began arriving in Singapore, 27 activists were denied entry and had to leave the country. The police explained that these people were involved in violent demonstrations, including breaking into the World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C.. These individuals claimed that they had permission from the IMF and World Bank, but the police had stated that it is the local government's decision whether or not to allow them to enter the city state. Later, the World Bank and IMF accused the Singapore government of failing to allow the protestors into the country, with Paul Wolfowitz calling it a “going-back on an explicit agreement”, saying that Singapore had signed an open-access agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding in 2003. The World Bank added that it is a “breach” of their agreement and they worked with them and also valued their role even when they disagree on their views. They were cleared by their home governments beforehand and the World Bank believed that all of them should not be excluded from the annual meetings. The organising committee told the press, they were looking into the matter at that point of time. Later condemning the restrictions as "authoritarian". At that time, the Singapore police tried to contact the individuals via the World Bank or the embassies in Singapore, to prevent them from making a wasted trip to the country.
On 15 September 2006, the Singapore government announced that they will allow 22 out of the 27 banned activists into the country after reviewing the list of activists whose entry was subject to an interview if they entered the city-state. The organising committee said it reviewed the input provided by the IMF and the World Bank earlier that morning. On an another occasion, two Filipino activists were deported back to their country on 13 September as they were not accredited by the IMF/World Bank, and could post a security and public order threat. It was after interviews and full consideration of the circumstances. 14 September, an Indian national was denied entry into the country, and has been deported by the police.
If there were ever going to be protest in Singapore, how could ever do without Dr Chee Soon Juan and gang. The self-styled “martyr for his own voice” did his protest at Hong Lim Park with more foreign press than supportors. Many apologies, but I just can’t resist any opportunities to deliver punts at him. Just a note, have you ever visited Dr Chee’s blog? The strongest advocate for freedom doesn’t even allow comments on his blogs! So much for freedom of expression. Sorry, I really have to stop this bad habit of poking fun at him, but in my defensive, I am exercising my health need for freedom of speech! =P
The Pseudo-Govt’s Perspective
So the question, really, is the Singapore government even bothered about the protest about the protest? And what is the government’s opinion in this whole saga? Well, for the true answer, you might have to ask PM Lee or members of the Cabinet. But, pseudo-government’s guess is this.
For once, the government managed to turn the public opinion in favour of them with the help of media. Why do I say that? Firstly, this is the first time in recent history that protest was an non-event in IMF/World Bank. Hardly any solid (or liquid, for that matter) object was thrown at delegates. Naturely and diplomatically, the delegates have to say that the CSOs have the right to protest and their opinions are much appreciated. Deep down, they are extremely happy that there wasn’t any trouble and flying objects thrown at them. Put your shoes into a highly-paid CEO of an international bank being invited to attend an overseas that often resulted in a traumatic experience of fearing from your own safety and protests outside your meeting area. You fear walking in the streets being haressed or scorned and for much the 10 days. Effectively, you are stuck between the hotel and the meeting area. This is the feeling of my CEO on the past IMF/World Bank meetings, and probably the same feeling for most of the delegates.
Despite whatever have been said about the barring of protest by the CSOs, the strong turnout by the delegates was testimont to the their satisfaction. This will do Singapore lots of good and enhance our reputation as a place to hold conventions and meetings. The criticism from foreign presses and journalists are irrelevant and of little concern. The common mentality of these foreign presses and journalists are that they felt it is their moral obigation to push and expand the boundaries of freedom of speech and write on news that is of interest. While they might be opinion shapers in their own sphere, it is the opinions of the delegates, those with clout to shape economic balance of the world, that matters most during these 10 days. Singapore has demonstrated their ability to curb a traditional protest and guarenteed unprecedented security to these delegates, yet rank highly in conducive investment environment. This must have a lasting impact on these delegates and bankers. To add to the sobering effect, the Thailand military coup happened just 1 day before the end of the meetings. If you are an investor thinking of where to park your millions, Singapore just became the best alternative in Southeast Asia with Thailand shoot themselves in the foot.
For Wolfowitz to “cry wolf” and calling foul on Singapore, isn’t a problem as well. I am sure, with top legal brains like DPM Jayakumar in the Cabinet, we wouldn’t be liability for any contractual breach. Even if we do, the Singapore government would have choice their words carefully to circumvent the clauses. To the public, the blame game by Wolfowitz was made too blantly even for the CSOs to buy into that argument. This has worked in our favour.
So, the foreign opinions that needed to be secured were secured. This leads me to my second point. Locally, the papers have published letters by Singaporeans speaking in support of the government against the remarks by Wolfowitz. For the government not to reply too deeply and reactively (aka Bavani-style), they actually gained more goodwill for themselves. Seemingly, the government has used this incident to good effect to gain support from the local Singaporeans. While Dr Chee tried to use this event to rally support, it didn’t work well. He landed up bunching himself with the Wolfowitz-Singapore-government-bashing gang, that happens to be “target of the month” of Singaporeans.
In summary, it is really a win-win for the Singapore government. They have won local opinions and the delgates’ opinions without bending backwards for it. Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions.
Note: After reading some of the comments, I guess most people would disagree with this article. Very rightly so. That is one reason why I stated the title as pseudo-govt's perspective. This is possibly the opinion of the government, hence, they didn't really bother much about the external noises by the foreign presses. But keep your comments coming in and all opinions are very much welcomed.
Why "pseudo"? It makes your arguments as half-baked and whiney as the liberals you attacked.
- Floyd
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 25, 2006 4:57 PM
As a "elected" government, it did not response directly to the issue of the day. It has to use "perception", it hides behind public opinions and if the opinions failed, it will blame someone but not themselves. Notice that during the IMF/WB meeting, most ministers were lying low, they are afraid to be questioned on the issues of the day.
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 25, 2006 5:55 PM
Hi Floyd
It is "half-baked" and "whiney" as you've mentioned. Guilty as charged! =P
Cheers!
T
Posted by
Thrasymachus |
September 25, 2006 5:55 PM
hello T
i really appreciate you writing this blog and i always find your posts very engaging and informative.
however, i have to disgaree with this post... i think you overloooked all the bad press Singapore has got by banning ths CSOs. As a singaporean,I certainly feel Singapore's image has been badly torn apart overseas. the world bank president himself said it was too late to cancel the meetings and best to just proceed. i really think he was genuinely pissed with Singapore and how we just barred everybody. How can you marginalise the negative effets of the foreign press reports?
in fact i was really disgusted when i read all those ST articles "thanking singaporeans for making the WB/IMF meetings a success." oh man, why delude Singaporeans even further?
ST or TODAY also carried quotes form those foreign delegates on their opinions about banning the CDOs. one said he dound it oo authoritarain, but it's Singapore's choice. What does that tell us about his opinion about Singapore?
Abt CSJ, normally i do not pay attention to hsi antics, but like mr wang of commentarysingapore.blogspot.com, the police's attitude and the way way their handled the protest was just way childish and paranoid.
the PAP may see this as a win-win situation in your opinion, but many others like me certainly don't think so.
these are just my thoughts....
please keep writng in this blog. i look fwd to read more of your posts!
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 26, 2006 12:36 AM
Like the previous poster, I disagree with your win-win viewpoint. It does not take into account certain factors - the security felt overdone by many delegates. The assessment of the coup in Thailand is generally seen in a positive light by Thais in Bangkok, and opinion is mixed - notice not many countries made a heavy critique on the coup. As for letters - they can be selectively published - people know that. With regards to CSJ, I think many people felt the police were a bit over the top - surrounding a politician to prevent him/her from breaching the law is just ridiculous.
I concur that there is no case for IMF/WB to sue the government - it is a MoU after all, difficult to enforce. And where can they sue the Singapore government anyway - you gotta be kidding me that they can win and enforce a ruling anywhere in the world.
I feel in general - it wasn't win-win - I think most Singaporeans just didn't care.
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 26, 2006 12:47 AM
I would have liked to agree with you that the IMF/WorldBank event was a win-win situation. But walking past the barricades and barbed wire fences into deserted shopping malls proved that the MIW once again over-reacted like they during the SARS situation. It scared the hell out of the visitors then and emptied hotel rooms, this time the shoppers at Suntec Malls kept away no thanks to the traffic diversion warnings. I nearly missed my Sunday lunch at Raffles City until my kids told me it was out of the verboten area. As for Chee and his sister, can you honestly say you looked at the photos of the stand off and not feel a pinch of disgust for the police?
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 26, 2006 3:06 PM
Hi T,
I do not agree with your upbeat assessment about the success of the recently concluded meeting.
I guess all of us ( on all sides of controversial issues), choose to see things only from our own perspectives.
About Dr. Chee: CSJ seemed like a trouble-maker previously, but somehow, he is looking more and more like just an misconceived idealist.
To some of us, idealism is not a dirty word. Don't get me wrong,he has not convinced me (yet) that his way of trying to change the system is necessarily the best way.
But in all societal changes, if no mad and reckless people lead the charge, what are the chances that the incumbent ( who are comfortable with status quo) will on their own accord carry out significant reforms? Think about it.
Dr.Huang
Posted by
nofearSingapore |
September 26, 2006 4:46 PM
List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.
This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.
This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.
Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?
This list cover a period of about 49 years since independence (1957).
List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):
(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays
(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays
(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese
(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status
(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies
(7) 5% of all new intake for government army, nurses, polices, is non-malays
(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960
(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%
(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960
(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays
(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Approved permits, Taxi permits, etc
(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers
(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. MISC, UMBC, UTC, etc
(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses
(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given
(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)
(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period
(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000
(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%
(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible
(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays
(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004
(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years
(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"
(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired e.g. Medicine (in 2004)
(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays
(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003
(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957
(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957
(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago
(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas
(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status
(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compare with the Chinese and Indians
(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is poor or rich
(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget
(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names
(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort
(41) 0 churches/temples were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built
(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No churches, no temples are required to be built in housing estates
(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004
(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins
(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less
(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969
(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s
(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960
(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s
(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record
(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays
(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum
There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.
Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.
Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.
If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.
Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish……….
We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 26, 2006 8:32 PM
Hi guys
"Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions."
I don't think the Singapore government's corp comm people are the sharpest tools in the shed. The government will continue to bear the brunt of self-inflicted bad press.
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 27, 2006 1:40 AM
Whether it was a win-win situation, I wouldn't know. I think most people didn't really care. But unlike several on this blog, I also knew several people that were approving of the heighten security.
I think in the post 9-11 world, there are people who really do think that a bomb could go off anywhere. Since 9-11, the world just seems less safe and after many massive and devastating suicide attacks in several Europe countries, I have to say I and several of my friends, while having mixed feelings about it, kind of feel they are necessary since so many targets are in the country.
Anyway, I don't believe in public protest like picket lines and strikes. Ultimately, I think they hurt more than they help. When I was in the States, the big unions in the industry I work in would strike every two years and each time all they ever really did was secure more benefits for their members and the jobs of all the successful people in the industry while shutting out recent graduates and non-union workers. I don't think they helped my industry at all and they certainly didn't help a lot of us non-union workers. It's not like we didn't want to get into the union but getting in is harder than joining a country club in Singapore in the 80s. It's ridiculous.
And while the reactions about the coup in Thailand were mixed, I feel that ultimately big investors want a stable and secure government in the country they are about to invest in. It's well and good to agree with the coup privately but if a corporation was about to invest millions or billions in a country, they would want to know that this investment will be safe and Thailand didn't do themselves any favours there.
As for Chee, I still feel no sympathy for him. I actually saw him at Hong Lim while travelling to work on the bus and I think that if you feel sympathy for him based on the photos, then the photos made him look more sympathetic then the real thing. There were several policemen there but they were mostly quite relaxed and chatting among themselves and most were quite some distance from Chee and gang. I still think Chee's a fool out to get more attention then he deserves.
Lastly, keep it coming T. I really do enjoy reading your blog even if I don't always agree with you.
regards
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 27, 2006 1:46 AM
not allowing comments to be posted is not necessary a contradiction of free speech. No doubt YOU are a proponent of free speech? well you could imagine in certain contexts you may not want someone to come to your house and start shouting vulgarities at your family? you might even call the police to report a disturbance in the peace?
If you did, would you be contradiciting yourself? Free speech shouldnt be so naivy defined.
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 27, 2006 7:51 AM
The IMF outcome is a win-win?!
Or is it because PAP can never lose?
Do you know that Singaporeans' biggest fear is when the government does not seem willing to open up and learn from mistakes, even in times of such blatant fiascos ...
These situations make us realise there is no future with PAP.
Continue to behave like an ostrich, yeah!
Posted by
Anonymous |
September 27, 2006 9:20 AM
Hi T
"Locally, the papers have published letters by Singaporeans speaking in support of the government against the remarks by Wolfowitz. For the government not to reply too deeply and reactively (aka Bavani-style), they actually gained more goodwill for themselves. Seemingly, the government has used this incident to good effect to gain support from the local Singaporeans
In summary, it is really a win-win for the Singapore government. They have won local opinions and the delgates’ opinions without bending backwards for it. Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions"
i'm rather surprised that you based your claim that the govt had the support of the people on those letters published in the local papers. surely you can't trust our 140th completely, can you?
contrary to what you believe, i don't think the govt gained any goodwill by keeping an "elegant silence" on Wolfowitz's criticims. In fact many Singaporeans feel that it is proof that only a big man like Wolfowitz can take on the govt.
as to whether the meeting has helped promote Sg as the preferred place for MICE, i think it is too early to tell. the IMF/WB delegates could have just made use of Singapore govt's uncompromising stance on public protests to have a harassment-free meeting and might not be bothered to promote Singapore.
cheers!
locky2ky
Posted by
locky2ky |
September 27, 2006 6:35 PM
Well, the episode of the S'pore govt trying to control world-opinions during the IMF meetings showed just how confused it is. The S'pore govt wants to engage the world in terms of politics, arts, banking and social issues, but yet it is not comfortable with all the implications such openness entails. S'pore govt must realise that we can't play with the 'Big Boys' using our own rules; if we as a one player wants to join an existing team, we need to play by their rules, not ours.
Having said that, they just banned FEER-circulation in S'pore; I wonder if they free-FEER website is next?
Posted by
Blueheeler - the hound who sniffs out fishy news |
October 01, 2006 12:22 PM
Dear all
Many thanks for your comments. They are very useful. At least I managed to provoke some answers from you all to see the gulf between a "pseudo-govt perception" and the ordinary Singaporean's perception.
At least, we can get a clear picture, now.
Cheers!
T
Posted by
Thrasymachus |
October 02, 2006 8:40 AM
Don't worry about all the negative publicities in the foreign press. The envious will always nitpick you. The journalists need to find juicy news as well. Whatever you do, somebody will make a din. Wise decision-makers will be discreet in their choice of location for thier future meetings.
Posted by
JP |
October 13, 2006 10:21 AM
That blog is One Hundred percent original content with an impressive range of topics and i would add in my bookmarks.
=========
Kevin
Bank China
Bank China
Posted by
kevinsmith |
October 26, 2010 5:56 PM