On September 12th, the Singapore Government announced their decision to blacklist 27 activists. 12 civil society groups immediately decided to boycott the IMF/World Bank meeting, followed by over 140 NGOS 3 days later, and later ballooning to over 160 by September 16th. Many forums organized by very respectable CSOs such as Oxfam and Transparency International, have already been cancelled in Singapore. Singapore has been accused of having to "resort to draconian security measures", and being "without respect for civil liberties and human rights". An alternative forum by the CSO is being held in Indonesia, who has historically, under its old regime, been a far more restrictive environment for freedom of expression and the right to organize as compared to Singapore. World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz pointedly said that Singapore has inflicted 'enormous damage' to its reputation by its blacklisting of the 27 activists.

"Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage is done to Singapore and self-inflicted. This could have been an opportunity for them to showcase to the world their development process," "I would argue whether it has to be as authoritarian as it has been and I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they have reached, they would do much better for themselves with a more visionary approach to the process." Wolfowitz said at a meeting with activists.

It is not surprising that the organizing committee does not recognize the degree of backlash Singapore will suffer from blacklisting activists in a non-transparent manner. The Singapore Government and bureaucracy may have underestimated the organizing power of the international CSOs, given our lack of "in-your-face" Singapore-based CSOs and even political parties (except SDP) who are much less confrontational or organized.

In many of the IMF and World Bank meeting, inputs from the CSO are extremely important and even critical to ensure the success of the dialogues. Even the World Bank president explicitly acknowledges that. It is undeniable that a small number of the demonstrators do turn violent and unruly, even as most of the demonstrations and protests end peacefully It would be relatively reasonable had the Singapore government just taken the preventive steps of only allowing for and providing an indoor venue for rallies, permitting only the use of cardboard poles and the erection of metal barricades. But the acts of blacklisting over 20 individuals from entering the country seem to border on overkill. Singapore did reverse its stance to later admit 22 of the 27 blacklisted activists, but without a clear apology for blacklisting the 22 of them in the first place.

Singaporean should understand the damage this incident could have on our reputation. Instead of being recognized for all the good work we have done to organize the meeting, the only thing that the world may remember is that our action of blacklisting activists has resulted in the first ever major boycott of the IMF/World Bank meeting ever by accredited reputable CSOs.

The international CSOs are much more powerful entities that what most Singaporeans perceive them to be.

First, they are unaccountable to anyone in Singapore. Unlike our national media or political organizations, the Singapore Government has no leverage against them.

Second, these international CSOs have a history of being very effective in sending their messages across to different media. The international CSOs can selectively paint us a country as illiberal and draconian, which we know is not true. However, there is little we can do about it, because the impact is on audiences outside Singapore, and the foreign press can choose to focus on the messages sent out by the international CSOs rather than the Singapore Government's replies.

Third, the larger and more well-known international CSOs are extremely well-organized with members from all over the world. They have successfully reversed a number of decisions by governments from larger countries. The CSOs are also well-connected, and have perfected the art of sending messages that punch above their weights against larger and more established organizations such as governments and IMF/World Bank.

A case in point of an international CSO effectiveness would be the reversal of Shell's decision in 1995 to dispose 14,500 tons of Brent Spar buoy into the ocean due to pressure from Greenpeace, an environmental CSO. Even though it has the support of the UK government and was also environmentally friendlier to dispose the buoy into the ocean than to haul it in onto land to dismantle, the average Joe does not appreciate the technical details, but finds it easier to focus on the tagline stating that Shell simply dumps its trash into the ocean. An effective boycott of Shell's gasoline across Europe effectively reversed Shell's decision to dump the buoy into the ocean, and embarrassed UK Government persistent stance with Shell's initial decision.

Singapore has a few more days to manage the potential snowballing negative backlash. What Singapore can and should do now is to treat these CSOs with the same respect she has given to IMF/World Bank, and to be more transparent in how she has to balance security with the freedom of expressions demanded by the CSOs. Even as a host, Singapore must work with the IMF/World Bank to engage with the CSOs to change their mind about the boycott. Taking the position that Singapore is ensuring security of 16,000 delegates by blacklisting 5 activists may not be the best way forward.

Yes, Singapore can argue that she has the right to enforce the blacklist because the foreigners are entering our country. Singapore can also argue that all foreigners must abide by her law not to hold outdoor rallies.

However, the more important question is whether the organizing committee should have a more well thought through strategy to deal with the international CSO and did the committee underestimate the CSOs' power to organize, advocate and influence the international community? However, as Singapore's economy becomes more connected to the rest of the world, her reputation is increasingly important. Maybe the Singapore Government has grown so used to docile local non-governmental players that it has forget there are individuals and organizations who will go out of their way (i.e. boycott an event after spending their time and resources coming to Singapore) to prove their point, even though it does not affect them.

Letter to the Straits Time forum published in 19th Sept:
Singapore's reputation has taken a beating

Recent articles by Reuters and Associated Press on September 17th which is now published on major news channels such as CNN.com etc.

Wolfowitz calls S'pore activist ban "authoritarian"

SINGAPORE (Reuters) -- World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said on Friday that Singapore had damaged its own reputation by imposing "authoritarian" restrictions on the entry of activists for the World Bank/IMF meetings.

Wolfowitz said the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund did not plan to postpone their annual gathering, but he had unusually sharp words for the Southeast Asian host country.

"Enormous damage has been done and a lot of that damage is done to Singapore and self-inflicted. This could have been an opportunity for them to showcase to the world their development process," Wolfowitz said at a meeting with activists.

"I would argue whether it has to be as authoritarian as it has been and I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they have reached, they would do much better for themselves with a more visionary approach to the process."

He said the bar on entry for some activists was "a violation of the understanding that we had drawn up" with Singapore.

Singapore objected to at least 27 activists who were accredited to the meetings on the grounds they posed a threat to security and public order, putting them on a blacklist of people to be assessed by immigration and possibly refused entry.

Some would-be participants in the have already been deported or refused entry.

Asked by a civil society activist whether the IMF and World Bank would consider postponing the meeting and hold it somewhere "where it can be held with proper conditions," Wolfowitz said: "I honestly don't think that is feasible or I would consider it."

Responding to appeals, Singapore said it would allow 22 of the blacklisted activists to enter, but the remaining five would be "subject to interview and may not be allowed in."

Garry Rodan, of Murdoch University, Australia, said the World Bank and IMF had been naive about Singapore.

"Singapore has always made a virtue out of the fact it is different, and sticks to its guns, no matter how controversial, examples being the caning and execution of foreign nationals."
Ban a 'PR disaster'

While Wolfowitz and Rato were speaking, about two dozen activists staged a protest in the 8 x 8 meter (8.7 x 8.7 yard) area the authorities had set aside for protest in the cavernous Suntec City hall where the meetings take place.

Activist lined up wearing gags inscribed "NO VOICE," after duly registering with the authorities one by one.

"These limits are ridiculous. Singapore is a developed country; it needs a developed perspective on citizens speaking up," said Haidy Ear-Dupuy of the NGO Forum on Cambodia.

On Batam, an Indonesian island a 40-minute ferry ride south of Singapore, a few hundred activists held a protest meeting because of the curbs on protest in Singapore.

Analysts said the meeting is turning out to be a public relations disaster for Singapore, which has spent about S$135 million ($85 million) on the event, hoping to showcase its financial industry and tourism appeal.

Instead, the world press has focused on Singapore's restrictions on free speech and right of assembly.

"It is a PR disaster. It represents a certain blindness on the part of the Singapore government towards matters of public opinion, which can be traced to the fact that they are so used to ignoring it," said Singapore political commentator Alex Au.

Rodan said Singapore would have expected lots of feel good stories about the financial sector and investment opportunities.

"But it appears to have backfired," he said.

MF-World Bank criticizes Singapore for barring entry of some activists
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA
Associated Press Writer

SINGAPORE (AP) - Singapore breached an agreement by barring at least two dozen activists from entering the country to attend the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the institutions said Thursday.

"We're very displeased with the current state of affairs," said Kevin Shaw Kellems, senior adviser to World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. "There was not an indication until late in the game that there was going to be a problem."

The dispute highlighted tension between Singapore's strict controls on politics and expression, and efforts by the IMF and the World Bank to be more open to the views of grassroots groups that have accused them of elitism. It also threatened to taint Singapore's efforts as host of the Washington-based groups to showcase its economy and hospitality on a global stage.

Singaporean authorities said the city-state was "aware of its obligations under the MOU (memorandum of understanding) and would continue to honor them."

"However, the MOU also obliges Singapore to take all necessary measures for the safe passage of all persons in and out of Singapore and for their personal security and the safety of their property and the property of the organizations and delegations," a government statement said.

Singaporean police had earlier said 28 activists would not be allowed entry for the IMF and World Bank meetings on Monday and Tuesday, but the government said Thursday the number was 27. When asked about the discrepancy in the numbers, authorities would only say that the new figure was accurate as of Thursday.

Singapore said the activists had been involved in "disruptive activities" in other nations. They did not identify the activists, but said some had participated in anti-globalization protests that turned violent in Seattle, Italy and Mexico.

Kellems, however, said the IMF and the World Bank had accredited the activists, and that Singapore's rationale for denying entry was unclear.

"There's insufficient clarity. I see on-the-record comments from various (Singaporean) officials on various days," he said at a news conference at the convention center where the meetings will be held.

"You may have seen some of the flavor of those comments; words like 'security,' words like 'undesirable,' words like 'troublemaker,' that sort of general characterization, but never have I seen a consistent coherent explanation," Kellems said.

The World Bank official read a statement accusing Singapore of violating a Sept. 23, 2003, agreement on the attendance of accredited activists at the meetings, and he urged Singapore to let them come.

"We work with these representatives of civil societies, and we value their role -- even when we disagree with what they say," the statement said.

Some foreign activists already in Singapore for the meetings said they planned to boycott some official events in protest.

"It's such a shame that Singapore hasn't opened its arms to everyday people who just want to talk about the World Bank meetings and state their cases," said Sandy Krawitz, spokeswoman for South Africa-based ActionAid International.

Singapore's police said it objected to the accreditation of the 28 activists for the meetings, The Straits Times newspaper reported.

"If they decide to come to Singapore, we will assess their suitability to enter Singapore subject to a set of security criteria," a police statement said.

Singapore banned outdoor demonstrations during the IMF-World Bank meetings, saying they could lead to violence and damage to property. It set aside an indoor area where activists can gather to express their views.

In Indonesia, media said the government will allow activists to gather on Batam island, a short ferry ride from Singapore.