BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

[mau_lovers]

esp if mau_lovers go there with her artistic poses ... i'll go buy a new 5-step ladder ...:lovegrin:

Sigh ... I REALLY WISH I COULD - I want to protest on behalf of PETA!!:angry: SURE GET ARRESTED!

 

[satay16]

Yappy, you are totally missing the point. Again. So here's what's happening.

You have a nice house, and hear about some people that may or may not visit your area. You think -- it would be great for me to host these people, so you contact them and say 'Please come and stay at my house. I will do anything you ask for the privilege of housing you. Please, please, please.'

To continue with your awful metaphor, they say 'That sounds good, but there is a problem. You have a sofa set in the hallway and we need that in the kitchen. In fact it is very important that it go in the kitchen. Can you do that?'

"Oh yes,' you reply, 'we most certainly can do that. It is not normal for us to do so, but you are very important guests and we will do anything you need.' And so an agreement is struck -- you are to move the sofa set as a minor part of having these guests at your house. In fact it is so important, that you even sign a contract declaring a guarantee that you will do so.

And so in time the guest arrives, and to his dismay notes that the sofa set is in the hallway. You say nothing. He asks you why you didn't move it. You say nothing. He says this was an contractual agreement. You say nothing. He asks you to move it. You say nothing.

Eventually the guest walks outside and tells the neighbours in your block how you have broken an important contract. Suddenly you can speak! You agree to move the sofa set a foot, but it is too late -- a foot, a mile, it doesn't matter, all your neighbours know is that you cannot be trusted and that contractual agreements mean nothing to you.

The guest is unlikely to stay at your house again, and neither are other important guests who were thinking of coming to your house.



Sorry for dumbing it down so much, but some people just seem incapable of understanding that the ramifications have little to do with whether the sofa set was moved at all. What will be retained is your unwillingness to adhere to contractual agreements especially in front of the world stage and your inability to seek a reasonable and timely compromise.

haha, the most detailed analogy so far.:bsmilie:

 

[mau_lovers]

Consumption.

One major reason why so many Singaporeans do not believe/not want to believe in ideals that others have bled and died for.

Because it hurts and it doesn't give them an instant feel-good factor.

Shame on those who are guilty of this.

AH! FINALLY! A little spark of ENLIGHTNENMENT amongst the dullness of noise and anger ... OM MANI PADME HUM ...

Consumption and CAPITALISM - symbolized by the IMF and the World Bank - and Singapore is VERY VERY MUCH PART of these 2 C's ... sigh ... I am guilty of being a ****ing capitalistic consumer too ... unfortunately ...

 

[Reliance]

Sorry for dumbing it down so much, but some people just seem incapable of understanding that the ramifications have little to do with whether the sofa set was moved at all. What will be retained is your unwillingness to adhere to contractual agreements especially in front of the world stage and your inability to seek a reasonable and timely compromise.

Good point :thumbsup:

What are the probable economic consequences, if any?

 

[dawgbyte77]

Just to add that being the host, this is not as altruistic as some keep implying. Sure, the host spent money on the decor and cleaned a bit but he knows that the Visitor will bring a lot of VIP friends and this is his chance to network and show these other VIP how he can be a good friend with them as well.

Anyway... to further dumb it down. Its like this forum and we are happily exchanging opposite views. Some may get excited than others. Then suddenly the mod banned a few with no explanation. And later, after much prodding, says that those banned are a threat to the peace of the forum. The question is... how did the mod came up to that conclusion?

DISCLAIMER:
All mods appearing in this post are fictitious. Any resemblance to real mods is purely coincidental.

Yappy, you are totally missing the point. Again. So here's what's happening.

You have a nice house, and hear about some people that may or may not visit your area. You think -- it would be great for me to host these people, so you contact them and say 'Please come and stay at my house. I will do anything you ask for the privilege of housing you. Please, please, please.'

To continue with your awful metaphor, they say 'That sounds good, but there is a problem. You have a sofa set in the hallway and we need that in the kitchen. In fact it is very important that it go in the kitchen. Can you do that?'

"Oh yes,' you reply, 'we most certainly can do that. It is not normal for us to do so, but you are very important guests and we will do anything you need.' And so an agreement is struck -- you are to move the sofa set as a minor part of having these guests at your house. In fact it is so important, that you even sign a contract declaring a guarantee that you will do so.

And so in time the guest arrives, and to his dismay notes that the sofa set is in the hallway. You say nothing. He asks you why you didn't move it. You say nothing. He says this was an contractual agreement. You say nothing. He asks you to move it. You say nothing.

Eventually the guest walks outside and tells the neighbours in your block how you have broken an important contract. Suddenly you can speak! You agree to move the sofa set a foot, but it is too late -- a foot, a mile, it doesn't matter, all your neighbours know is that you cannot be trusted and that contractual agreements mean nothing to you.

The guest is unlikely to stay at your house again, and neither are other important guests who were thinking of coming to your house.



Sorry for dumbing it down so much, but some people just seem incapable of understanding that the ramifications have little to do with whether the sofa set was moved at all. What will be retained is your unwillingness to adhere to contractual agreements especially in front of the world stage and your inability to seek a reasonable and timely compromise.

 

[Reliance]

Its like this forum and we are happily exchanging opposite views. Some may get excited than others. Then suddenly the mod banned a few with no explanation. And later, after much prodding, says that those banned are a threat to the peace of the forum. The question is... how did the mod came up to that conclusion?

Good analogy.

The mods have the power to do so. But if they are perceived to be authoritarian and unfriendly, the forum users may leave and never return.

 

[Silence Sky]

Sorry for dumbing it down so much, but some people just seem incapable of understanding that the ramifications have little to do with whether the sofa set was moved at all. What will be retained is your unwillingness to adhere to contractual agreements especially in front of the world stage and your inability to seek a reasonable and timely compromise.

Please don't feel sorry, I am sure you took effort to write up such an educational analogy and yet so easy to understand. But if you still get any confutation from them, Please, it is time to give up and let go. If you think you see light at the end of the tunnel, let me tell you it is an on coming train.

Some people seems to be filled with knowledge, but if you squeeze their heads very hard, you know what you will get??? You will get Sheet. Beacsue they are so full of sheet.
:bsmilie: :bsmilie:

A few cowboys here, shooting from the hip, missed the target always.

Yappy is the best, firing a machine gun from his hip, hoping to hit the general targets.
Look at the speed he put up his postings, tackling so many points put up by us at one go.
Wondering did he put his brain to function while posting.

 

[AReality]

Aiya...
No point arguing here.
U guys won't change anything by bickering here.
If got enough courage, go Hong Lim Park now join Dr Chee. He's still there since saturday morning.


Actually, one of the activist commented that it is not Singapore's fault. He said IMF already knew Singapore's stand, but they decided to hold the meeting here anyway. He blamed IMF.


.

 

[DT_]

Actually, one of the activist commented that it is not Singapore's fault. He said IMF already knew Singapore's stand, but they decided to hold the meeting here anyway. He blamed IMF.


.

Actually many of the activists propose to take legal action against Singapore...

 

[dawgbyte77]

Aiya...
No point arguing here.
U guys won't change anything by bickering here.
If got enough courage, go Hong Lim Park now join Dr Chee. He's still there since saturday morning.


Actually, one of the activist commented that it is not Singapore's fault. He said IMF already knew Singapore's stand, but they decided to hold the meeting here anyway. He blamed IMF.


.

It is heartening to see post like yours where you value one person's opinion. This is what really matters, to be heard no matter how small the voice is. This is what CSO is all about. :thumbsup:

 

[Yappy]

Yappy, you are totally missing the point. Again. So here's what's happening.

You have a nice house, and hear about some people that may or may not visit your area. You think -- it would be great for me to host these people, so you contact them and say 'Please come and stay at my house. I will do anything you ask for the privilege of housing you. Please, please, please.'

To continue with your awful metaphor, they say 'That sounds good, but there is a problem. You have a sofa set in the hallway and we need that in the kitchen. In fact it is very important that it go in the kitchen. Can you do that?'

"Oh yes,' you reply, 'we most certainly can do that. It is not normal for us to do so, but you are very important guests and we will do anything you need.' And so an agreement is struck -- you are to move the sofa set as a minor part of having these guests at your house. In fact it is so important, that you even sign a contract declaring a guarantee that you will do so.

And so in time the guest arrives, and to his dismay notes that the sofa set is in the hallway. You say nothing. He asks you why you didn't move it. You say nothing. He says this was an contractual agreement. You say nothing. He asks you to move it. You say nothing.

Eventually the guest walks outside and tells the neighbours in your block how you have broken an important contract. Suddenly you can speak! You agree to move the sofa set a foot, but it is too late -- a foot, a mile, it doesn't matter, all your neighbours know is that you cannot be trusted and that contractual agreements mean nothing to you.

The guest is unlikely to stay at your house again, and neither are other important guests who were thinking of coming to your house.



Sorry for dumbing it down so much, but some people just seem incapable of understanding that the ramifications have little to do with whether the sofa set was moved at all. What will be retained is your unwillingness to adhere to contractual agreements especially in front of the world stage and your inability to seek a reasonable and timely compromise.

Hi...

I agreed with you. It is not proper to breach a contract and it has to do with your ???????. Then why do Sg did it? Surely Sg knew the implications and consequences!

Let's take a look...

After noticing that the list submitted was not in the welcome list Sg reviewed them?

Oh.. Sg discovered that some of them not invited and Sg told "... I think they are not in the list. Would you like to review them? If you are very sure that they are OK?"

Then the story went on and on. It had appeared that Sg had given due to pressure from..but was it the case.

I doubt Sg ever agreed to having to shift the 'Sofa' to the kitchen as it had to do with logic? It was not meant to be there.

Some of guests decided to move else where and they were still heard.. why don't they do it in the first place.

26,000 registered how about those not registered? They will come and more will come because they know that this is the BEST place.

Many reasons for them to come and many reasons for many to come. They are logical people and they know what they want and what they need.

... would anyone wish to suggest the next good place to hold such gathering and why?

 

[DT_]

................ They are logical people and they know what they want and what they need.

... would anyone wish to suggest the next good place to hold such gathering and why?

once bitten twice shy, these logical people sure knows what they want and what they need in future.. how sad i think (based on some saying) this might possibly be the first and last time here...

if i were to suggest a good place... i definately still hope it will be here... not the reason because it's a good place for them, but imo vice-versa... their presence good for us, an external pressure that certainly influence us by at least something.. perharps freedom & rights... after this 'incident' i guess the smart pples' upmost concern will be not to bring in something that'll affect our 'culture' that they've been dying hard to preserve for decades...

 

[jdredd]

i think its speculation to see whether there was a breach of the MoU or not.

first off, its a MoU, so its "contractual" status is unclear.

secondly, its is unclear whether or not the wording in the MoU amounted to giving the government a a discretionary authority on whether to allow or not.
lets face it. none of us have seen it.
if of course in the MoU, singapore expressly agreed to allow allthe named protestors in with no qualification, then maybe your analogy re the sofa in the hallway would stand. but otherwise, it doesnt.

and knowing people in our legal service, and how serious the government are about protests, im quite willing to bet that would in fact have been no such express guarantees given in the MoU without at the very least some form of caveat, if at all.

 

[junnelt]

Just want to share (extract from Yahoo news)

Activists not convinced S'pore-bashing Paul Wolfowitz on their side

The irony is that he is normally the target, not the man on the high horse.
When World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz took it upon himself to champion the cause of the civil society organisations (CSOs) - by taking a swipe at Singapore - he did not convince too many activists that he was on their side. On the other hand, he has managed to irritate a number of Singaporeans.

When Singaporean authorities wanted to keep a number of activists at bay for the duration of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) -World Bank meetings here, Mr Wolfowitz publicly termed the move "authoritarian".

He went on to say that a lot of damage had been done to Singapore and that much of it was "self-inflicted".

While a compromise of sorts has been struck on the activists issue, some Singaporeans are outraged by Mr Wolfowitz's public comments.

Said Ms P L Tay, a manager in the tourism industry: "I found it rude and I feel very sad because the amount of preparations that we put in was humongous, be it retailers, the police, hoteliers or the airport staff. We literally closed down the country for you. You're a guest and you can be diplomatic even if you are not happy about something."

Echoing her sentiment was law graduate Siow Jia Rui, who felt that it would be na0Š7ve to think that the IMF and World Bank officials were unaware of Singapore's strict stance on protests.

He said: "The IMF and World Bank are in a position whereby they know their personal safety will not be in doubt and they look good when they say they want to engage the CSOs, but their hands are tied because, 'Sorry, Singapore does not want to let them in'."

The delegates are able to breathe easier this year because unlike at previous meetings, whereby they "get slammed left, right, centre", a lot of CSOs are firing their salvos at Singapore, which takes some heat off the delegates, he argued.

According to local media reports, World Bank officials are said to be privately "very happy"with the arrangements by the S2006 organising committee for the meetings.

Some observers also found it hypocritical that the World Bank, which is now stressing its liberal image, had picked an unobtrusive site for the protests even though Singaporean authorities had offered it more prominent venues.

So was Mr Wolfowitz right to criticise Singapore?

Ms Sandy Krawitz of ActionAid International said bluntly: "When it comes to democracy, the World Bank and IMF are no experts."

Describing Mr Wolfowitz as the "architect of the Iraq war three years ago" and touching on the controversy over his appointment to head the World Bank, as well as the anti-democratic manner that the IMF and World Bank hammers out economic policies for developing countries, Ms Krawitz argued that the two institutions knew exactly what they were getting into when Singapore was picked as a host venue in 2003.

Also, the two institutions should have started liaising with the Singapore authorities "way ahead" of this month's meetings if they were keen on engaging the CSOs.

Added Ms Krawitz: "I think that when you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing the other four back at yourself."

Ms Shalmali Guttal from Focus on the Global South has reason to be bitter. She is one of the five activists who will not be allowed into Singapore. She would like an explanation for that.

Even so, she does not buy the World Bank's efforts to ingratiate itself with the CSOs, when it is a target of much of their ire. Besides, she says she has nothing against Singaporeans.

"Singaporeans have been so nice," concurred Ms Krawitz. "I really do understand the Four Million Smiles campaign." - /ra

 

[seankyh]

Just want to share (extract from Yahoo news)

Activists not convinced S'pore-bashing Paul Wolfowitz on their side

The irony is that he is normally the target, not the man on the high horse.
When World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz took it upon himself to champion the cause of the civil society organisations (CSOs) - by taking a swipe at Singapore - he did not convince too many activists that he was on their side. On the other hand, he has managed to irritate a number of Singaporeans.

When Singaporean authorities wanted to keep a number of activists at bay for the duration of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) -World Bank meetings here, Mr Wolfowitz publicly termed the move "authoritarian".

He went on to say that a lot of damage had been done to Singapore and that much of it was "self-inflicted".

While a compromise of sorts has been struck on the activists issue, some Singaporeans are outraged by Mr Wolfowitz's public comments.

Said Ms P L Tay, a manager in the tourism industry: "I found it rude and I feel very sad because the amount of preparations that we put in was humongous, be it retailers, the police, hoteliers or the airport staff. We literally closed down the country for you. You're a guest and you can be diplomatic even if you are not happy about something."

Echoing her sentiment was law graduate Siow Jia Rui, who felt that it would be na0Š7ve to think that the IMF and World Bank officials were unaware of Singapore's strict stance on protests.

He said: "The IMF and World Bank are in a position whereby they know their personal safety will not be in doubt and they look good when they say they want to engage the CSOs, but their hands are tied because, 'Sorry, Singapore does not want to let them in'."

The delegates are able to breathe easier this year because unlike at previous meetings, whereby they "get slammed left, right, centre", a lot of CSOs are firing their salvos at Singapore, which takes some heat off the delegates, he argued.

According to local media reports, World Bank officials are said to be privately "very happy"with the arrangements by the S2006 organising committee for the meetings.

Some observers also found it hypocritical that the World Bank, which is now stressing its liberal image, had picked an unobtrusive site for the protests even though Singaporean authorities had offered it more prominent venues.

So was Mr Wolfowitz right to criticise Singapore?

Ms Sandy Krawitz of ActionAid International said bluntly: "When it comes to democracy, the World Bank and IMF are no experts."

Describing Mr Wolfowitz as the "architect of the Iraq war three years ago" and touching on the controversy over his appointment to head the World Bank, as well as the anti-democratic manner that the IMF and World Bank hammers out economic policies for developing countries, Ms Krawitz argued that the two institutions knew exactly what they were getting into when Singapore was picked as a host venue in 2003.

Also, the two institutions should have started liaising with the Singapore authorities "way ahead" of this month's meetings if they were keen on engaging the CSOs.

Added Ms Krawitz: "I think that when you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing the other four back at yourself."

Ms Shalmali Guttal from Focus on the Global South has reason to be bitter. She is one of the five activists who will not be allowed into Singapore. She would like an explanation for that.

Even so, she does not buy the World Bank's efforts to ingratiate itself with the CSOs, when it is a target of much of their ire. Besides, she says she has nothing against Singaporeans.

"Singaporeans have been so nice," concurred Ms Krawitz. "I really do understand the Four Million Smiles campaign." - /ra

Wah.. now we see the other story.. Thanks very much for sharing.
In the end, whether singapore is right or IMF/WB is right, it saddens me that the party they are trying so hard to help is not benifitting ie: the poor and needy.

 

[dawgbyte77]

Wah.. now we see the other story.. Thanks very much for sharing.
In the end, whether singapore is right or IMF/WB is right, it saddens me that the party they are trying so hard to help is not benifitting ie: the poor and needy.

Just to add to your comment. The reason why IMF has a lot of detractors is because their main concern is not really for the needy but for a global financial stability (sometimes even at the expense of the needy like when international loans has to be paid by imposing the country to reduce expenses like subsidies). One recent example is the Argentina crisis in 2001.