The IMF Descends: A Crystal Ball gazing...

By now, the story of how our local authorities here has handled public protests/demonstrations is well-known - both locally and internationally. In my opinion, getting the World Bank/IMF folks to town is a bad mistake - not so much for its security implications - but for the Singapore Brand Name (assuming we even have one).

Let's take a look at how this entire IMF/World Bank circus is generating a load of unnecessary - and unwanted- poor press from folks all around...

The Man on the Street

Let's be honest and admit that most Singaporeans do not actually care about what goes on inside those meeting halls. Transport fare hikes, English Premiership results and how-much-money-I-made-last-month are more likely to resonate with local folks rather than whether the third-world debt is reduced or not. With the IMF folks descending to town, most of us - directly or indirectly - are caught up in this. From incurring extra ERP charges to four million smiles, these 10 days have never been more exciting...

The Journalist

Coming from a journalistic background, its obvious what the news of the day is for foreign correspondents. Assuming that the IMF-World Bank meeting don't turn up any breaking news (such as erasing all the debts of the third-world countries), the general take-home news is likely to be more of the same. This is where - in my opinion - allowing protests would be useful. By allowing outdoor protests, it diverts attention from more critical issues at hand, and after all, protestors do regurtitate the same old arguments after a while. However, by prohibiting outdoor protests, the Government has only ironically opened a pandora can of worms for foreign journalists (who are not paid by SPH or MC) to have a field day with.

The Rest of the World

Now I don't have to remind you that the rest of the world does not read our beloved Straits Times nor do they tune in faithfully to Channelnews Asia. Chances are, they are likely to read The Guardian, The New York Times and Washington Post...so unless Temasek has some MOU with them, it is unlikely that their stories will sound like our local press... after all, as Journalism 101 teaches, bad news is always good news.

Next, let's take a look at what could possibly happen regarding this entire issue of outdoor protests. Below are four possible scenarios (not exhaustive):

1. The authorities do a last minute u-turn and allow outdoor protests to go on. This is what I hope will happen - for the good of our international image (as earlier mentioned). Knowing our Government, this is very unlikely to happen, because in order to do so, we'll have to first admit that we made a mistake - and we all know how our MIW don't like to do so.

2. Retaining the status quo. This means that protests will go on - indoors - under the comfort of air-condition and Starbucks (when the protestors get thirsty). Everything goes on as planned, and Singapore gets a lousy reputation, once the pen of the journalist gets itchy. Those who are not allowed to come in will go to Batam to carry out their protests.

3. Indoor protests spill outdoors. This may very well happen if 500 CSOs all turn up at the same time in their designated location. As most of these guys are not schooled in the Singapore doctrine of law and order, things may really get out of hand...

4. Boycott of meetings by CSO. This will have disastrous consequences for the organisers... as it renders the entire function of such a meeting irrelevant. What we don't need is to make news for the wrong reasons (imagine the NYT Headline: Civil Societies Boycott Singapore Meetings). Our reputation of being an inclusive society and a intellectual hub will be wrecked beyond recognition.

There's a fifth, actually, and it goes by the name of Chee Soon Juan. Now the police would probably have no problems containing him and his teammates should they embark on their protest march...but if foreign CSOs start thinking creatively, things may really get interesting...imagine a Singaporean opposition leader (CSJ no less) rallying a troop of 200 ang-mohs... that would really be a sight. Will our law enforcement officers open fire... would a second Tiananmen take place?

By the way, I do not think that the terrorism factor is a terribly convincing reason for banning outdoor protests. As Gayle Goh astutely points out, "terrorist attacks... do not occur at maximum-security occasions. They do not occur at WTO rounds, APEC summits, or ASEAN meetings. They occur on buses in London. They occur on an average workday, 9/11, in New York City. They occur on trains in Madrid. They occur when tourists least expect it in Bali." I would also like to add that should someone somehow manage to smuggle a bomb in, it doesn't matter where the explosives are detonated - Orchard Road or Suntec City - the consequences will be equally disastrous.

The more understandable reason would be the fear that riots would take place (like in the past). To that, I would say, that riots can take place in doors as well - ever heard of a stampede - and things may get even worse. Unless one considers a little pushing and shoving as a riot - which in this case, Zoukout and your average campus orientation camps are full of...

In addition, the reason cited by the authorities of the significance of such an event (in being able to generate more tourism and investment dollars) is a really bad one. Come on, if the IMF/World bank folks need duck tours like these to let them know how good we are, then our STB is doing a lousy job. If we are good enough (which I think we are), then we are good enough. An extra flower pot on the ECP isn't go to change public and international opinion; if we have too much reserves to burn, then I suggest that our authorities go upgrade the lifts at Potong Pasir and Hougang (note: I have nothing against planting flowers and trees, in fact, I think we should plant more greenery instead of mining our land to build shopping complexes...but that's for another post).

P.S. In case anyone thinks that I am against the IMF/World Bank folks coming to town, let me flatly say that I am not. Chances are, if I see Paul Wolfowitz or Gordon Brown in the Suntec City toilet, I'll smile at them and say "welcome to Singapore". Its just the way our authorities have handled the entire situation that really leaves a sour taste in the mouth.