I returned from Bangkok yesterday afternoon to be greeted by striking banners that hailed the arrival of the IMF/WB delegates to Singapore.  A huge panel filled with smiling faces scratched annoyingly at my peripheral vision.  Tonight, returning home on the bus, I saw another double-decker bus decorated with nothing but smiles, smiles and smiles!

I'm sorry, but I'm quite disgusted. The whole affair is nothing but a cheap plastic, embarrassing multi-million-dollar scam.  We were told to behave ourselves like good children for our visitors.  Taxi drivers, don't talk politics! Waiters, waitresses, sales clerks, must smile and give them a good impression.  Brush up on your French or Spanish.  Poly students, make sure you speak proper English! Kids, behave. It seems, though, that our best behavior and efforts are not the most memorable characteristics of the occasion that delegates will walk away with.  Instead, it will be the sour taste of miscommunication and frustration.

No matter what happens these coming weeks, no matter if there are illegal marches on the streets or if everything is pulled off squeaky-clean, Singapore-style, I already consider the IMF/WB meetings a flop.  Singapore's gag on civic expression has been dragged into the international spotlight.  For goodness sakes, we can't even fill up the 11 000 hotel rooms set aside for the delegates.  More importantly though, any institution which wants to retain a reputation for consultative transparency and legitimacy will have to think twice -- or three or four or five times -- before it seriously considers Singapore as a destination for its conventions. 

Now, I don't believe the IMF and the World Bank could have chosen Singapore as a host destination without knowing that protesters would have a tough time.  They probably decided on Singapore because they wanted more security. 

What they seemed not to have bargained for, however, is the extent of Singapore's hardnosed and uncompromising refusal to accommodate, to negotiate, and to inform them ahead of time of their decisions (this is not the first time the World Bank has complained being told tardily of Singapore's decisions). 

I make that conclusion based on the simple calculation that despite the fact that we can only speculate as to the private discussion and correspondence between the parties involved, we may safely say that Singapore would not countenance undergoing so much public blame if such blame were unfairly placed.  In other words, the extent of the World Bank or the IMF's complicity in any 'conspiracy' to stifle the participation of activists in the meetings is limited, because of the negative publicity that seems to have spun out of the Singapore government's control; publicity that I doubt the government would allow to continue without clarification unless it were true: that the Singaporean authorities really have been uncommunicative, tardy in their releases of information, and just plain stubborn. 

And now that that no-nonsense adamancy has been revealed, there is little reason or excuse for any other similar convention/round to make its way to Singapore again.  Nope, we'll have to settle for the 2013 SEA Games, my friends.

But -- lo and behold! Defying all reason, intuition and instinct, the Straits Times's 6-page special report printed today (09/09/06) cheerfully reports World Bank Singapore Representative Mr. Stephens's assessment of the relationship between Singapore and his organization to be a "full, rich and very rewarding relationship", with no mention whatsoever of the disagreement which, going by the above report and by other international accounts, has become a full-blown public spat.  For instance:
Oh yes, let's remind ourselves one more time why they cannot corrobate it.  Because terrorist attacks to the best of my knowledge 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.  Allow me to suggest that we should ban buses, trains, cancel work and close our country to tourists because of the threat of terrorist attack.  That would actually make more sense than banning public demonstrations under maximum security.  That is why the government's concern over terrorist attacks as a reason for banning protests is noble but uncorrobated.  Of course, though, the Straits Times would never question self-evidently good intentions.

And neither would Singaporeans.  I was at the Bangkok forum for Free Expression in Singapore, organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance earlier this week, and a reporter asked the panel whether or not a big part of the problem was simply that Singaporeans were unwilling to go out there and hold a demonstration even if it means getting arrested.  I essentially said yes; it's a huge part.  Why would any reasonable Singaporean jeopardize his security, his bankbook, his comfortable job, and everything he's worked so hard to build in his life, for the sake of something as abstract as a right? Why would the masses do something like that, especially since the connections are drawn so early for them by the textbooks and the media, connections between stability and prosperity, the Great Impeccable Clockwork and their precious livelihoods.  No one wants to mess with that.  Well, no one except Chee Soon Juan and his homies, reportedly.  And then I told her frankly: "If you're a Singaporean and you want to go to jail for your beliefs, please go right ahead.  But don't expect anyone to be holding your name up on placards.  They'll be reporting to work from 9 to 5." Alex Au, during his speech, also laid much of the responsibility on the shoulders of Singaporeans who have been conditioned to love their government in what he called an apparent manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome (the phenomenon whereby the captive comes to sympathize with or have affection for his/her kidnapper).

This is why I think maybe Singapore shouldn't have bothered to ban outdoor protests for foreign activists.  Go ahead and have double standards for foreigners and locals.  No Singaporeans will show up anyway, except Chee, who plans to be there, ban or no.  Even though this is a fantastic opportunity, with representatives from foreign media crowding the place, and activists milling about ready to support and encourage other like-minded English-educated radicals, Singaporeans just aren't ready or willing to harness it.  Well... maybe if they hadn't banned it though, the sight of long lines of people just walking down a road, just being there and expressing, through their presence, through their expressions, through the words on their signs or their calls and cheers, an opinion -- maybe that sight would have been a breath of democracy that would have stirred life in the Singaporean soul.  Maybe that's what they're afraid of after all, more than terrorist attacks or bomb plants.  Maybe they're afraid of us.

So if you'll be at home for the next weeks, kicking back and relaxing after a long hard day of work, watching TV and learning how the delegates were all thrilled by, ohmigawd, the efficiency of how things are run in Singapore, and the warm welcomes, and the lion dances, and the great service, then smile! Cos you're a trueblue Singaporean, one in a million or four.  Oh, they would be proud.