See lah. How like that? Was an agreement made three years ago breached? Was there any agreement to allow these accredited CSO and NGO to attend and demonstrate made in the first place?

But I also understand our government's predicament (not that I necessary agree with it) in this situation. If they allow this, they will be setting a precedent. And in that case, it would be easier for Singaporeans to publicly (and peacefully) demonstrate their discontent or grievances in future. If they clamp down on that, it will reflect badly on them. After all, if they allow it during the IMF/World Bank meeting, they would be guilty of double-standards if they disallow their citizens from doing so.

But in any case, I find it a bit extreme that they view such things in an extreme manner. To them, all public demonstrations will result in violence and damage. But is that always the case? It may seem so in the media because such drama makes for better news while most of the peaceful ones are ignored.

In this respect, I think some of these demonstrators may have to take the blame for that. Once you up the drama factor, the news organisations will start to ignore the peaceful ones because of their lack of violence and damage. And to compete for media attention, other groups will soon emulate their examples and go for the full Monty Korean-style demo to attract the journalists' attention so as to get their message across. Where does one draw the line?

But having said all that, there are still a lot of demonstrations and protest which are very peaceful by nature. Look at the Hong Kong example. Remember when they marched peacefully together to demonstrate for more democracy? That was admirable and we can strive for that. Demonstrations do not automatically have to sink to a violent form. After all, that does more damage than good to their cause.

Labels: america, imf, international, politics, singapore

I was going pass the National Museum when I came across this disconcerting sight: sunflowers growing in Singapore. Since when? I didn't even know that sunflowers can grow in Singapore. Did our DSTA guys find a way to "fix it"? Then I realised, these are just planted for the IMF/World Bank meeting and probably won't survive pass the week. (notice the pots)



Ahh... the IMF/World Bank meeting. It's going to be quite interesting, especially on the issue of demonstrations that has been disallowed by our dear government for fear of violence and terrorism but which the IMF and World Bank wants us to allow.

So who's to blame for this cock up? Singapore or the IMF/World Bank?

I'd say all parties concerned. I mean it's not like Singapore's anal retentiveness about public demonstrations is a secret. So the IMF and the World Bank should have known better than to expect Singapore to bend the rules for them. On the other hand, the Singapore government should have known better than to offer the country as a host to these sorts of meeting if it is not willing to accommodate the demonstrators and the IMF/World Bank's request to allow these civil society organisations and NGOs to do their thing.

Then again, there may have been some misrepresentation on our government's part when it was reported (if I recall correctly) some time ago that they were willing to allow some controlled demonstrations. But to say that an outright ban on demonstrations is inaccurate, the only place these groups can do their thing now is at some designated indoor location at Suntec.

So how like that? Cancel the meeting? Wooo... that will be a big slap across our government's face.

Then again, we can't exclude the possibility that the IMF and the World Bank wanted to go ahead with the meeting here precisely because of Singapore's stance on outdoor demonstrations. In which case, they can appear as the good guys while our government appears to be the bad guys. Quite convenient if you ask me.

On a slightly different note, I wonder whether Chee and friends will turn up there too. Now that would be interesting.

Maybe these sunflowers are meant to give the illusion that everything is nice and dandy and nothing is amiss.

Labels: imf, international, politics, singapore