Singapore 2006 - Controversy

Controversy

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. The area is equipped with computers, printers and a conference room. ONE (Singapore) has produced videos for awareness of poverty throughout the world, and will be aired every ten minutes at the screens of convention centre. They are expected to protest on poverty and corruption, and how civil goods should respond to Jogjakarta and Aceh. It has been reported that one activist hopes to get global policy makers more attuned to the needs of youths when drafting policies. Thirty people from Global Call to Action Against Poverty wore white t-shirts gags with "no voice" written on them on 15 September. An activist from Action Aid International held a solo protest on 14 September, and her group staged a silent protest the day after. Some CSOs have accused the IMF/World Bank of deliberately choosing Singapore to host the meetings, because of its authoritarian reputation.

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 and later condemned 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. The Singapore Government said on 20 September 2006 that its decision to lift the ban on 22 activists came before the public statement by World Bank slamming it. In a letter carried in the Wall Street Journal Asia, Home Affairs Ministry corporate communications director Ong-Chew Peck Wan clarified the sequence of events. She wrote: 'In order to be as helpful as possible, Singapore reviewed the names whom the IMF and World Bank were prepared to vouch for and lifted the bans on 22 of them. We did this before the public statement by Mr Wolfowitz.' On 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. At 0700 (GMT +8) of 14 September, an Indian national was denied entry into the country, and has been deported by the police.

Some members of the Singapore opposition, including the Singapore Democratic Party, conducted a protest rally and march on 16 September 2006. The so-called Empower Singaporeans Rally and March was set to start at 11 am at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park but was refused to continue to other planned stops at Parliament House, Suntec City, and the Istana. On 11 September, it was reported that the police had started an investigation against these protest plans. The police reportedly had denied two applications for the planned peaceful protest and therefore confiscated leaflets that were handed out at Raffles City. Dr. Chee Soon Juan, of the Singapore Democratic Party, held a speech at Hong Lim Park. On 17 September, the protesters announced that they would continue their protest until Tuesday morning, 19 September, after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech before the WB-IMF meeting.

Some organisations have decided to hold outdoor demonstrations in Batam, Indonesia instead, to circumvent the ban in Singapore. About 1,000 delegates were planning to protest there for a week with a final outdoor demonstration on 18 September. The Indonesian laws state that they were allowed to protest on the streets, if they informed the authorities three days beforehand. The authorities were reportedly lukewarm towards their proposed demonstrations and forum. A number of Indonesian NGOs took a half-page advertisement in a Batam newspaper voicing their opposition to the protests, arguing that the big gathering of NGO's activists would "undermine the investment climate on the island". On 6 September, the Batam police had sent a letter to the organisers that both their demonstration and forum would be banned. The police cited economic, political and security reasons for the ban, adding that other NGOs were not in favour of such protests. According to Indonesian officials, Batam police is helping to maintain the security during the meetings. Later, on 11 September, the Indonesian police granted a permit for a three-day protest forum in Batam, but there will still be no outdoor demonstrations.