PRESENT POINT POWER

Lee Kuan Yew one-hour head-to-head dialogue organised by the institution that bears the MM's name - the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

The social engineering that is taking place in Singapore indicates that as a Nation it is dying. Just look at is fertility rate and population. Left alone, its people are not producing – as its people are so highly stressed and in a constant state of fear - struggling for survival of the fittest, best and brightest. Its utopia to have a perfect system of governance does not exist for such state does not exist. Everything in the Universe is yearning for growth and change.

Many organizations and institutions assumed they have reached the perfect state – a state of fulfillment beyond which there is no further growth, but no such state exists. And in general they do not see their own “mistakes or shortcomings”.
To grow and develop it is absolutely necessary to consider all the feedbacks and suggestions.

Their institutions and disciplines are composed of individuals, each restrained by limiting ideas about their OWN private reality; and so it is with private reality that we will begin and always return, period.

The Singapore’s society with its laws and rules equates spontaneity with irresponsibility; abandon with evil. By denying spontaneity or fulfillment to individuals, ALL their institutions are based upon that premise.

They must learn to trust the people’s natural selves more often. But the many social institutions are set up to fence in the individual, rather than to allow the natural development and growth of the individual.

ENP: Firm, yet subtle, in doing things our way - Lee Kuan Yew

IT was the day before his 83rd birthday. And the Minister Mentor showed he has lost none of the fire in his belly.

Giving his take on 'good governance' before some 260 international policymakers and businessmen, MM Lee Kuan Yew rammed home a simple but forceful point: Singapore is a tiny dot, and we must do things our way - even if it means standing up to our neighbours and our critics.
'My main critics want me to be as liberal, open and contentious and adversarial with the opposition as the West. Free it all up... If Denmark can do this, why can't we? If New Zealand can do this, why can't we?

'For one very simple reason. They've got a different physical, economic, geographic and strategic base. Their neighbours are different.'

He had earlier said, 'I learnt about governance... through actual hard practice,' citing the Japanese Occupation when power 'came from the barrel of a gun' and the tough lessons learnt during the British colonial days.

But 40 years of hard-nosed nation-building later - including dealing with explosive issues like race and language - Singapore has evolved its own 'system' based on meritocracy and competence.

'(Ex-Indonesian President) Habibie called us a little red dot surrounded by green... But after being intimidated... we make it a special red dot.'

BEST AND BRIGHTEST

Mincing no words, Mr Lee said one key feature of that system is to have the best and brightest running the country. The PAP has such people, he argued, but not the opposition.

In fact, if the latter ever came to power, he told his audience, Singapore would 'collapse'.

'We have now reached a very odd stage. The people want the PAP to win the elections but they want an opposition in government to squeeze us and say: Don't up the bus fares, don't up the electricity rates... (So) our problem really is how to get the electorate sufficiently wise and sophisticated to understand that these are the limits.'

Seated next to him on stage and listening intently was former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, 51, who is now an economics professor at Harvard.

They were in a one-hour head-to-head dialogue organised by the institution that bears the MM's name - the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy - in conjunction with the IMF-World Bank meetings.

At one stage Prof Summers even asked Mr Lee point-blank: But if the PAP is still in power after another 40 years, is that good for Singapore?

'DON'T TINKER'

The MM's reply: 'My hope is that there will be a government that is equal to the job as the PAP was... We have structured the system such that a competent group that gets in will find a machine that works. Don't tinker with it.'

Gazing at his audience, he added: 'My ambition is not to preserve the PAP. My ambition, having created this Singapore, is to preserve the system that produces the answers we must have as a society to survive.'

And that includes a government that's 'firm' yet 'subtle' enough to deal with difficult neighbours who want to pressure us to build 'pretty' bridges without giving us 'commensurate benefits', he said in an obvious reference to Malaysia.

'You need a government that will be able to not only have the gumption but the skill to say no in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly.'

Audience members later told The New Paper they were glad the MM was so candid.

'It's vintage Lee Kuan Yew, isn't it?' That was the reaction of American fund manager Brian Hafner, 40.

Whether you agree with the MM or not, he added: 'It's refreshing to see someone talk so transparently.'

Filipino student Rowie Parungao, 25, felt the session was too short. What about Prof Summers himself?
The Harvard don told the media later that he's an admirer of Singapore and has 'great respect' for MM Lee.

But he fired this parting shot: 'There will always be cultural differences between countries... But I do believe that over time, Singapore's success will come with increased maturation, which will lead to (more) opening up.

'It's my hope that the government over the next half century in Singapore would come from more than one competent stream.'

As MM Lee celebrates yet another birthday today, he will no doubt respond just as forcefully when the next opportunity comes.

========================================

From The New York Times; Published: September 17, 2006
Singapore deters IMF protesters; By Wayne Arnold

BATAM, Indonesia. Even five hours of interrogation by the Singapore police and deportation was not enough to keep Chona Leah Ramos from coming here to join the protest meeting against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Ramos, a member of the antiglobalization group Jubilee South, and another Filipino activist were photographed, fingerprinted and then bundled onto a plane back to Manila last week when they tried to fly into Singapore to take the 45-minute ferry ride south to the Indonesia island of Batam.

Protesters at the he International People's Forum, a three-day meeting held to examine, criticize and ultimately convict by way of mock tribunal the two Washington-based institutions for allegedly worsening the plight of poor people everywhere.

"I cannot understand the paranoia," she said of Singapore's refusal to let her even transit in the country. "I'm not a threat to the Singapore authorities or the country."

Undeterred, she and her travel partner took a more circuitous route, flying farther south to the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, and then north again to Batam. Many others were not so tenacious. Organizers here say Singapore's blacklists and deportations - as well as early indications that the authorities in Batam might also block protests - dissuaded many from attempting the journey.

"Many ended up not taking the financial risk," said Leo Van Mulekon, a campaign adviser at Oxfam, the international aid and lobbying group, who came to Batam from the Netherlands.
In the end, only about 500 of the 950 people who had been expected managed to make it to the International People's Forum, a three-day meeting held to examine, criticize and ultimately convict by way of mock tribunal the two Washington-based institutions for allegedly worsening the plight of poor people everywhere.

But if Singapore's aim was to ensure that no noisy controversy over economic policies would divert attention from its peerless performance as host, it appears to have succeeded. Even as the People's Forum held various meetings on serious issues, most of the talk in the hallways inevitably turned to Singapore's attempts to play bouncer at the World Bank's and IMF's annual party.

"They upset all of our plans," said Marivic Raquiza, the Asia convenor of the Global Call to Action against Poverty. Among the roughly 10 activists who organizers say were deported on arrival to Singapore were two Korean activists who were scheduled to serve as witnesses in Sunday afternoon's tribunal.

"They came armed with only stories, but they were treated like thugs, like common criminals," Raquiza said as a young Indonesian man waddle past, wrapped head-to-toe in a shroud and mourning "the death of democracy."

"Oh, you get used to that," said Raquiza, as a gang of drivers wearing masks painted with the flags of creditor nations pursued the man.

Indeed, looking around the Forum, it was difficult to see what Singapore was so worried about. Held in a hall normally used to accommodate Indonesian Muslims heading to Mecca for the Haj pilgrimage, the event this day had the atmosphere more like a college freshman orientation. About half of the participants were Indonesians, from solemn young Muslim women in head scarves to young men in dreadlocks and earrings.

The most menacing language coming out of the Forum was on the banners hung around the auditoriums and outside the building, like "Debt is Terror!" and "Go to Hell With Your Aid."

As a group of panelists held a session on whether developing countries should pay debts lent to dictators or other undemocratic regimes, a handful of Filipino activists in DayGlo vests emerged outside to mug for a clutch of photographers and chant, "IMF, World Bank, Out, Out, Out!"

Organizers chose this island as an alternative to Singapore after the authorities in the island-state said they would not allow outdoor rotests during the IMF and World Bank's annual meeting despite requests from the bank that it do so.

Citing security risks and its own laws prohibiting any gathering of more than four people without a permit, Singapore said it would limit protests to a small area inside the conference center where the meeting is being held.

From The Financial Times UK
Singapore relents over ban on activists; By John Burton in Singapore

Published: September 15 2006 19:54

Singapore bowed to international pressure on Friday and agreed to allow 22 of 27 banned activists to attend the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank, after Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank president, said the bar on their entry was “unacceptable”.

The move was meant to deflect mounting controversy that had threatened to become a public relations disaster for Singapore as it hosted its biggest-ever conference. But its refusal to admit five activists could keep the issue alive.

Mr Wolfowitz said Singapore had suffered “enormous damage” to its reputation – which was “self-inflicted” – by refusing to honour an agreement to allow the activists to attend the meeting. “This could have been an opportunity to showcase to the world [Singapore’s] development process,” he said, though he added: “I would argue whether it has to be as authoritarian as it has been.”

Singapore’s concession represents a rare policy reversal for a government that takes pride in refusing to back down on its decisions. Singapore’s initial decision to bar the 27 activists was “a violation of the understanding that we had drawn up” with the government, said Mr Wolfowitz. “I’ve read the language and it seems very clear to me.” The city-state had promised to faciliate the entry of invited
participants to the meeting. But it said this week that its decision to prevent some activists from coming also fulfilled its obligation under the agreement to protect the personal security of delegates.

Singapore alleged that those blacklisted posed a security threat. “While we annot disclose specific details about the individuals, we can affirm that the decision was carefully considered,” it said. However, Rodrigo Rato, the IMF managing director, said the activists invited were well known to the organisations, which had no doubts they would act responsibly. He warned that Singapore “would be making a mistake” if it did not reverse its decision.

Singapore’s actions have provoked anger among non-governmental organisations, which have questioned the IMF/World Bank’s commitment
to encourage their participation. More than 160 non-governmental organisations, many of which had been invited, called for a boycott of the meeting. More than 20 activists who attended a dialogue session with the IMF and World Bank heads walked out in protest, demanding that a harder line be taken with the Singaporean authorities.

“This has serious implications for future meetings of international organisations. If the

Singapore

decision is allowed to stand, it means other governments can ban invited delegates,” said Roberto Bissio, co-ordinator of the NGO network Social Watch. Singapore said it would consider admitting the remaining five activists, but would make a decision only once they arrived in the country.
Chee Soon Juan, a

Singapore

opposition leader who is planning a protest march today, said the authorities wanted to crack down on the foreign activists because “they don’t want local groups to pick up bad habits that would encourage Singaporeans to protest”.