It’s really nice to have spirited discussions. Especially spirited discussions that, unexpectedly, will get recorded in the blogs that float around cyberspace. I’ve too many liabilities floating around in cyberspace (think petition). Maybe I had it coming but here goes, the extended discussion about IMF/WB in ad verbatim no less by dionysian:
Singaporeans, good trusty ol’ meritocracy-thumping, scholarship system approving Singaporeans, are confounded why do anyone in the right mind take to the streets? And so I imagine a conversation between Humanoid Interface (HI), and a liberal (L);
L, “What do you think about the IMF/World Bank meeting in Singapore?”
HI, “I like the flowers. They are so pretty. The government pulled out all the stops on this one, bending over backwards, so eager to please. But of course, that’s not the point, the point is how Singapore is treating those activists. We banned them.”
L, “So, you think that’s a good thing? That we banned them? These civil activists.”
HI, “Why do we have to bow down so much to them. We’ve already planted flowers. Anyway, why do these people have to take to the streets? “Why? Why? Who are they representing? Who ask them to represent them? Are those people here?”
L, “But surely we must allow for greater freedom if we truly want to be a global city. I mean, to attract more economic investments.”
HI, “You really think global corporations will care. I think they prefer we do not have any protests.”
L, “What about our freedoms? Surely people have the right to speech?”
HI, “Yes, but why can’t they have a roundtable, a discussion. Sit down have an intelligent reasoned conversation. What do you think can be achieved with protests in the streets? This is just lots of angst. And who do you think they are representing?”
L, “Who do you think will sit down with them and pay attention to their concerns? Many are marginalized because they do not have a voice. It is up to concerned global citizens to speak for them at world events like these. NGOs have an important role to play.”
HI, “Do they really have anything new to say? I mean really. Every year it’s the same thing against globalisation. Tell me what new. And the quality of this speech. You are telling me they can make a reasonable argument on placards?”
L, “Why should the quality of the speech make any difference to their right to speech? Surely you are not advocating that only important speech is allowed. Who is anyone to say what is important? And more importantly, even the IMF and World Bank agree we have been too autocratic.”
HI, “I think they understand that Singapore will also do more than what is required. And that by choosing Singapore, the activists and the World Bank can actually have a common ground/goal or enemy– Singapore. Thus uniting them when they can never be united. This will then distract them from the issues at hand, be it destroying Starbucks and MacDonald’s outlets. I think it’ll be very shrewd and cunning of them.”
And that was my conspiracy theory that was linked in http://thevoiddeck.org/. Yay. 
Hmm, and that’s the gist of the conversations that the UBC trio has when they go out for late night suppers. And it continued into an analysis of that conversation:
Despite being logical, HI is not going to see the perspective of L anytime soon. We are not brought up this way. When Jamie Han Li Chou spoke to MM Lee Kuan Yew, the debate that ensued in the ST was not whether Jamie Han made sense; the debate was, as I remember it, whether Jamie Han was rude. The argument was that MM Lee Kuan Yew is a great man and no small fry like Jamie Han should talk to him like that.
Well at least, I was deemed logical. This was more or less the conversation that transpired and conspiracy theories aside, I really do not see the point of allowing people to protest in the streets when other Singaporeans are not allowed to do so. The authorities are obviously in a bind. If they allow the demonstrations to take place, they are almost surely violating the unlawful assembly law. This is the same law that police charge Singaporeans under who want to demonstrate on other occasions, be it for anti-war campaigns and better lunch meat in the cafeterias. One cannot have double standards. So unless the law against unlawful assembly is lifted, it makes sense to me at least why demonstrations should not be allowed be it for IMF/WB or other international events. There doesn’t seem to be a distinction between assembly and demonstrations. Of course, there is the issue of administration, since one can’t possibly arrest all the demonstrators if the demonstration is on a large enough scale. That does not make it less legal in any sense, does it?
So why not scrape the law? It’s dumb after all, isn’t it?
I’m all for scraping that law, but come on, to scrape that law just to allow the NGOs to protest in the streets makes a mockery of sovereignty. Those are our laws, Singapore’s laws. And if they want to come to Singapore, then they have to adhere to Singapore’s standard of censorship which through democratic representation symbolizes the society’s standards of censorship. Every society has a qualified freedom of speech. Absolute freedom is theoretical. So by all means, scrape that law, through a law commission who has decided that Singaporeans should have those freedoms, but not because of international pressure.
