Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Amen To This.

The Straits Times, Monday, September 18 2006.
Home, H8
Viewpoint: Activists shooting themselves in the foot.

"Civil society groups distract attention from critical issues."
By Andy Ho, Senior Writer

(Interesting statements are highlighted by me in italics...)

Anti-globalisation activists are hurting their own cause.

By boycotting the discussions civil society organisations (CSOs) were scheduled to have with international Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank officials, they have directed world media attention away from a closer examination of what should have been the important issues.

These include the World Bank's controversial anti-corruption plan that could lead to cutbacks in lending to the poorest countries, thus hurting the poorest, and the push to restructure voting rights within the IMF to more accurately reflect a country's economic importance.

And there are many more important issues: how globalisation will impact on the environment; how rising income inequalities can best be dealth with; how poorest countries can learn to ride the growth wave and not be left behind.

Many CSOs were indeed founded with the noble aims of tackling variations of these issues. They set out to ameliorate the adverse effects globalisation does have on some communities. Oxfam, for instance, is a respected non-governmental organisation which has done excellent work in many famine-stricken countries. Alas, it chose yesterday to cancel its forum, out of solidarity with other CSOs.

Over the past few days, many CSOs which signed up to come to Singapore ostensibly to discuss development-related issues have chosen instead to focus on what is surely a matter outside their raison d'etre: Singapore's touch stance on protests, and restrictions on the entry of a small number of activists.

As if permission to enter any and all countries were an inalienable right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A total of 164 CDOs chose to boycott the meetings altogether. Perhaps getting away from the conference table is more satisfying for those whose game is disruption.

Who knows, perhaps certain activists even remember with fondness those halcyon days, such as Seattle 1999, when violent protests brought the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting to a standstill, and Prague 2000, when demonstrations caused the IMF and World Bank to end their meetings prematurely.

Just last year, protesters disrupted the WTO meeting in Hong Kong. Indeed some of those veterans had reportedly threatened "vigorous action" in Singapore. It makes you wonder: How genuine were they when they said they wanted to "engage" the IMF and the World Bank.

Some CSOs no doubt joined the boycott merely in a show of solidarity, not because of a strong sense of grievance.

This means, however, though they spent a whole year preparing their research papers to table at the scheduled meetings, they have caused their own efforts to come to naught.

Of course, some involved in the boycott are not even accredited for the meetings, showing perhaps a desire to stir the pot. Why else would boycott organisers reject Singapore's offer to admit 22 of the 27 delegates originally blacklisted after the World Bank decided to vouch for them?

Accredited CSOs which sincerely made the trip here to engage the IMF and World Bank in dialogue must do some self-examination to see if they are playing into the hands of doctrinaire anti-globalists, thereby letting their own constituents down by neglecting to do what they came here for in the first place.

Indeed, they can have no cause for complaint if they came for genuine dialogue and not to grandstand. Singapore has gone out of its way to facilitate.

Part of the convention centre has been set aside for CSOs to work. The CSO centre is fully equipped with telecommunication facilities, photocopiers, conference rooms and breakout rooms for small group discussions.

It is in a convenient location, not tucked away in some remote spot. Indeed, some activists even say it's the best they have come across at such multilateral conferences so far.

Bona fide CSOs should play ball according to Singapore's rules - criticise Singapore's actions if they must, but do so at the site at the Suntec City convention centre designated for peaceful demonstrations.

Unless they is something about trashing property and breaking bones that makes a protest more meaningful in some manner that escapes the rest of us who are not as eager and ready to, at the drop of a hat, pour into the streets with pitchforks and knives.

Some CSOs have cited the "draconian security measures" the Government has put in place as a reason why they held their International People's Forum on nearby Batam.

It would be mind-boggling if they sincerely cannot grasp the fact that we have genuine security concerns.

In 2001, Singapore foiled plots the terrorist organisation Jemaah Islamiah (JI) had hatched to attack Western targets such as embassies and hotels. Linked to Al-Qaeda, JI has carried out several deadly bombings in neaighbouring Indonesia.

It should not take much for our guests to understand why the Government is trying to minimise the opportunities for JI and other terrorist groups to exploit the situation.

It is not for fun that Singapore has deployed a security force of 10,000 to protect the 16,000 delegates.

One suicide bomber who succeeds will not just kill the innocent but also blow to smithereens our reputation as a safe and secure place - the very reason Singapore offered to host the meetings in the first place.

In a seperate article, "Time magazine article says Singapore UN ambassador is Washington's favourite to succeed Kofi Annan, although this is refuted by she herself."

And in yet another anti-government article on Singabloodypore,

"For Singapore's main champion of democracy, let Chee Soon Juan be unmolested (the regime is now in a daze after they gave in on the banned activist case and dared not arrest him yesterday). Cracking down on peaceful protests is embarassing for Singapore so the regime should put Singapore's interests first and change its position."
...

"All this, in the full glare of the international limelight, with every major news outlet keenly following everything going on in the light of the World Bank/IMF meeting?

Well done, Singapore.

Yawning Bread is right, it really and truly is embarrasing to be a Singaporean."

My God. If not for our laws, such lunatics would ply our streets unchecked. Do you want that?

Yes, these activists may have been founded on noble causes of helping the poor, but who will take them seriously if they have absolutely no respect for authority and the laws of a country? Who listens to hooligans, even if that hooligan is saying something meaningful? These protestors act with wanton regard for infrastructure and systems. With some groups acting like nothing more than terrorists hell-bent on disrupting and destroying proper, structured talks, their barring of entry into this country is perfectly deserved.

Is their sole language of communication that of noise and disruption? Is that their definition of a 'peaceful protest?' Some groups, after disrupting the WTO talks in Hong Kong, promised 'vigorous action' in Singapore. So, is their intention of 'peaceful demonstration' merely a Trojan horse for protests in which the sole goal is to bring down the IMF and WB? Do they not realise that they have to respect the laws of a country, and not apply the same formula of protests for every single host country of the Meetings?

Why do they chose to cancel the forums even after being allowed in? Are they trying to show the Singapore Government that they are superior and will not be led by the nose by the Government's laws? If yes, then I am afraid the poor of the world don't have very humble people vouching for them, activists more interests in 'saving the face' of their NGO rather then doing everything they can to benefit the causes of poverty and famine.

Okay, I am just hitting out in the dark here: Maybe these activists are disillusioned by authority (as usual blah blah blah), having come from a country in which the citizen's voice is ignored, and a mountain of red tape surrounds any proceeding.

Maybe they strongly believe that the only way to make their voices heard is to cause chaos and disruption, which is, in summary, no different than the doctrine of the most radical, extreme Mid-East terrorists who believe that evangelism is best performed through 'ethnic cleansing' (read: Nazi genocide) by way of the sword, and not by way of diplomacy and words.

In fact, this also proves their culminative stupidity: the pen is mightier than the sword. A sword can physically destroy, but the victim's willpower remain strong. A word, however, carefully chosen, can decimate a person's soul. That in itself is the most valuable resource of any country, any country at all. Tampering with the psychology of a human can drive him to desperation, incite suicidal tendencies, destroy an ego, make a person feel outcasted and worthless. So why swear by a weapon as weak as a sword? That only proves one is too stupid and ignorant to learn anything at all about diplomacy and negotiation, instead acting on his/her own very limited physical prowess, which, in this context, mean huge, ugly, banners written in primary school english, noisy protests, disruptive crowds and should it be so extreme, urban rioting.

Maybe.

And maybe thats why they don't have any place in a country like Singapore, too. A good thing is often shunned and criticised at its onset, and Singapore is like this. People criticise all they want, complain and whine all they want, but at the end of the tunnel, it is us, and our government's systems, who would earn the respect, admiration, and yes, duplication, from its former critics.

The liberal democracy demanded by activists is not democracy. It is anarchy.

jOhn thought at 6:55 AM