 |
Hat tip and deep bow to Hui Chieh for sharing his insights when this piece was shaped...
A fellow blogger at Singapore Angle mused to me. When things are repeated often enough, fiction becomes fact. According to Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank President, because of the barring of accredited activists from entering Singapore, "enormous damage has been done ... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted".
The government's attitude towards IMF-World Bank protestors in Singapore can be seen in its insistence in having only indoor protests, that only accredited civil society organisations (CSOs) can participate in protests, and locals are apparently not allowed to protest. For deterence of potential protestors, the government also warned that it would cane violent protestors caught or use all means necessary to maintain security.
The deportation of the PETA activists was arguably the first significant display of the government's zero-tolerance policy on protests as the police made an effort to track down the activists bent on staging a protest. With the barring of 27 (initially for unknown reasons reported as 28) accredited activists from entering Singapore, the protest controversy deepened considerably as that was when the international media, CSOs and the IMF-World Bank intensified its media blitz on Singapore's "authoritarian" image. The allegation that Singapore "reneged on a 2003 memorandum of understanding that granted open access to activists accredited for the the meetings" also started making its rounds in the international old and local new media. By the end of the IMF-World Bank meetings, did the Singapore government suffer extensive public relations damage because of its policy towards protests?
With the media (old, new, local and international), CSO and IMF-World Bank panzering away, did the government's public relations Maginot Line hold? This short article explores the nature of the bad press heaped, the roles the media played, and net image damage the government suffered.
The Nature of the Bad Press: Shifts and Lines in the Sand
CSOs and the media were among the first who were critical of the government's little patience for protests. From the deportation of the PETA activists to the barring of accredited activists made public around September 8, the resentment towards the government built up. "Senior IMF-World Bank officials" issued a protest note to Singapore according to media reports around that time as well. But the government went on its own business apparently neglecting the warning signs and confident that the show of displeasure by the IMF-World Bank was merely hollow rhetoric. The number of barred activists then settled at 27, and the public relations fallout took a dramatic turn. The allegations that Singapore breached a contract with the IMF-World Bank on allowing protests during the meetings, and then Wolfowitz's rebuke of the government largely reported on September 15, marked the peak of the damage to Singapore's image. Singapore was implied to be authoritarian and unhonourable for going back on an agreement.
News of Singapore reversing its decision to bar 22 of the 27 activists were released late on September 15 and this u-turn on a protest policy also debatedly marked the shift in the type of bad press the govenment attracted. The government's explanation, "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", was largely rejected as too little too late, and added insult to injury according to the CSOs. While the international media still played the tune that Singapore was authoritarian despite relenting to allow 22 activists into the country, local bloggers started exploring the argument that the government's main problem was not its authoritarian style per se, which was nothing new, but rather that it mishandled the entire controversy.
From a local point of view, aspects of the government mishandling ranged from being outmanoeuvred and "double crossed" by a wily former US Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, to Singapore allowing its sovereignty to be undermined as it succumbed to foreign pressure. One main criticism not scrutinised as much is that negotiations were apparently badly carried out in the area of the 27 barred activists. For example, while the public are not privy to the details, why did the government eventually decide to reverse its decision? Negotiation with the IMF-World Bank and CSOs does not only entail allowing X numbers of activists in. Did the government try to offer something else that the CSOs and IMF-World Bank can accept instead of reversing the no-entry decision?
Negotiation is all about bartering and meeting mutual needs. The government might have come out publicly with fewer bruises if it had tacitly insisted that it is politically impossible to reverse its decision especially when there is so much media attention on it. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the protest issue as a whole is non-negotiable and something else can be marketed to the CSOs which want a bigger voice during the September meetings e.g. allowing a small contained outdoor protest or something else that the CSOs cannot refuse if they are really sincere about their causes. If managed correctly, a win-win situation might have emerged with the government redeeming itself and looking relatively good, with minimal political cost.
The International-Local-Old-New Media: What Was and Wasn't Said
The international old media e.g. foreign publications, and the local new media e.g. blogs, arguably initially played similar roles in criticising the government for its authoritarian image. But as mentioned above, some of the local bloggers gradually went on their own path and bemoaned the government's mismanagement of the controvesy after they speculated on the apparent agenda of IMF-World Bank in sheparding the CSOs and international media to criticise Singapore.
In terms of an international media blitz, the alleged breaking of the MOU between Singapore and the IMF-World Bank was one media front opened. Local bloggers picked up on this angle and lambasted the government. Interestingly, all the hullabalooo about the government being unhonourable, implied by the IMF-World Bank, highlighted by the international media, and echoed as fact by local bloggers, took place without the international media and local bloggers seeing the exact MOU and confirming the specific clauses supposedly flouted by the Singapore government. In retrospect, considering that the government is particular legalistic e.g. Singapore's insistence that Malaysia sticks to the fine print in bilateral documents, it becomes hard to believe that Singapore could have explicitly breached an agreement and set a bad precedent for itself, a small fish that relies on signed legal documents to be binding so as to survive in the big international sea.
The local old media was relatively open about the criticisms of the government and its protest policy. IMF-World Bank and CSO unhappiness with the government were reported seemingly without self-censorship. One reason is that the local media knew that could not hide the criticisms heaped on Singapore and there was no feasible way for them to, without looking unprofessional. But whether the local old media was just as critical of the government compared with the likes of Financial Times (FT) etc is debatable. For instance, FT, one of the 5 foreign publications penalised by the government, was among those at the front in caricacturing the government as authoritarian. Coincidentally, FT distributed free its September 18 issue to some Singapore households. This issue had a compelling photo of the Chee Soon Juan protest that weekend and from a conspiracy theory view, FT timed the distribution of free copies of its newspaper with its excellently taken photo to further press down on the government's forehead the label, "Authoritarian".
From browsing through the international and local old media, and the local new media, the government did suffer a public relations backlash. However, the bad press was not absolute and did not spread to the international new media. From searches in blogspot.com, the international blogs were practically silent on the protest controversy raging in Singapore. In contrast, the Nguyen Tuong Van execution not only made local and international old media news, it also swept the local and international blogs by storm. While the international media, CSOs and local bloggers cared about the protest issue in Singapore, the world apparently didn't.
Net Damage to Singapore's Image: From the Actual and Short Term to the Potential and Long Term
The short term actual damage to Singapore's image because of Singapore's zero-tolerance towards protests and its u-turn on the 22 of the 27 activists is undeniable. However, the extent of damage is not as earth-shaking as it seemed. Bad press was temporary and eventually became localised. The controversy became just another exaggerated quirk in Singapore's image, akin to its Disneyland with a Death Penalty reputation popular among its critics. The local blogs are already moving on to debating other issues e.g. MM Lee Kuan Yew's comments on ethnic minorities, and this also suggests that the anti-government sentiments over activism related to the IMF-World Bank are displaced and just added to the memory of how the government is not opening up as much as it could.
The international media, the main force in labelling the government as authoritarian and undermining the government's image, similarly did not sustain their pressure after the IMF-World Bank meetings, partyly because apparently no IMF-World Bank attacks on the Singapore government were made in the closing of the meetings, and partly because of the Thai coup. There were simply other more interesting stories to cover and Singapore-bashing lost its appeal for the time being.
The government, to its diplomatic credit in the end, probably did some effective damage control behind the scene as the IMF-World Bank did not repeat its high-profile rebuke of the host country at the end of the meetings. Furthermore, after the u-turn decision, the government kept a low profile and seemingly did not retort on a scale like that before the u-turn. Hence, there was no escalation of the CSO protest tension and the media had nothing to report on. Looking back, the government managed in a way to regain its composure after being backstabbed by the IMF-World Bank, if the conspiracy theories hold some truth.
However, the most salient potential long term damage to Singapore's standing lies in its decision to back down on letting 22 of the 27 activists into Singapore, however ill-advised the initial assessment to bar them from entering the country was. The Singapore government perceived that it was appropriate damage at that point in time but the future implications cannot be felt yet. The extent of this damage in terms of Singapore's foreign relations cannot be measured now but it sends a signal that with the right public international pressure, Singapore can give in to the demands of a table-banging foreign actor, possibly without an attractive quid pro quo.
Background: Selected Media Reports
Attitude Towards Protest
Singapore ready to cane World Ban/IMF protestors
Three PETA activists deported from Singapore over planned protest
Singapore under fire as World Bank-IMF protest
CSOs disappointed with space set aside for protests at IMF/World Bank meetings
Singapore Bars Activists From Entering Country During IMF-World Bank Meetings
The Rebuke
Singapore's Activist Stand Causes `Damage,' Wolfowitz Says
World Bank chief says Singapore damaged reputation
IMF-World Bank criticizes Singapore for barring entry of some activists
Singapore deters IMF protesters
IMF and World Bank rebuke Singapore
Groups mull boycott of IMF, World Bank
U-Turn
Singapore relents over ban on activists
Singapore shift on IMF activists
Background: Selected Blog Postings
Singaporeans and Protests During IMF Meeting
Is the Singapore Police Force inadequately prepared for outdoor protests?
Where Frowning upon globalisation can get you arrested
Culture of Lack of Protest
The Protest Against No Protest
BloodFlowers
Who ever said that Singapore was boring?!
World Bank's Wolfowitz Says Singapore (Government) Backtracked on Agreement
No Impact
Excitable Silence: speechless paradoxes
Attitude towards CSOs and Protests
An impending crisis to our Singapore reputation from offending the international CSOs?
State of Police Action
Hard-line stance against civil society voices does Singapore no good
An impending crisis to our Singapore reputation from offending the international CSOs?
The Rebuke
Schizophrenic Smiles
The Token Rebuke
Remembering our place (and retaining some pride)
imf-world bank and the little red dot
Wolfowitz and Singapore
Noisy when people throw stones at tinpots
Change of Mind
Secret Meeting between IMF, Sg and CSO Leplesentatives
Wolf o' wits
On IMF and Protests
Hydra Wolf
Post-Meeting Reflections
IMF/WB summit ends; so, did they like it?
IMF Meeting - A Failed Branding Exercise
IMF/World Bank - A Pseudo-Government's Perspective
Non-Local Bloggers' Views
Blamestorming Motivates Action.
The land of four million smiles
