The recently concluded World Bank and IMF meetings provided Singapore an opportunity to reflect on itself, and its relationship with the rest of the world. So far, the local media has made much about the country's success in pulling off the mega event without any major logistical hitch. Indeed, the people involved, from cab drivers to ushers to tour guides, deserve recognition for serving as fine hosts to the 16,000 foreign delegates, many of whom were visiting the country for the first time. These Singaporeans have acted as de facto diplomats in forging impressions and perceptions that highlight Singapore's hospitality and efficiency.
Nonetheless, one must go beyond the seamless delivery of infrastructure and logistics when judging the success of the meeting. After all, surely we do not need a mega meeting like this to test Singapore's ability to deliver infrastructure and logistics?
Singapore has delivered excellence on a daily basis for years. Witness the sheer discipline, efficiency and commitment of resources that go into cleaning our streets, pruning our greenery, and managing our public transport every single day. Surely its more impressive to do the mundane and routine well. If so, then Singapore has only demonstrated to the world what we are already famous for - efficiency, orderliness, discipline, restraint and strictness. We have only reinforced our reputation on this count, no more, no less.
In the process we have missed the opportunity to value-add to our international reputation and image. With the global media descending on the city-state, Singapore had the chance to show off its stripes as a global city – dynamic, changing, open, messy, and vibrant. It was an opportunity to go beyond infrastructure and logistics to demonstrate the city-state's desire to mature into a city where the passions and inconveniences of human issues have space to manifest, where conflict and contradiction are not problems to be solved but accepted as part of an expressive culture in which ideas, both positive and uncomfortable ones, may find their own soap boxes. The opportunity was lost to show the world that the line between Singapore state and society can be blurred - a sure sign of a more responsible and responsive citizenry, and a more trusting government.
Instead, what the world took away from the event was the government's ban on out-door protests and its initial objection to the entry of accredited activists. However efficiently and smoothly the meetings, luncheons and tours went, they were quickly forgotten, replaced by sexier stories of an authoritarian regime and the silencing of peripheral voices.
The Financial Times sensationally plastered a picture of political activist Chee Soon Juan's face framed by burly policemen on its front page. Meanwhile, images of the "4 Million Smiles" campaign posters surrounded by ugly barbed wire fences circulating the Internet have sliced through the tireless efforts of countless local volunteers. These images and pictures have only further cemented Singapore's authoritarian reputation on a global scale.
The lesson here is two fold. Firstly, while the Singapore government and the local press can, to a great extent, shape local opinion and convince Singaporeans of local successes, the international media marches to a different tune. And the international media is more important than the local press in the journey to global city credibility.
Domestic opinion-makers are not as important as international ones when it comes to shaping ideas of the city-state for overseas audiences. It is no longer enough to retort that the "western media" has its agenda – which press organisation does not? – and that it is out to cast Singapore in as dim a light as possible. Such arguments mistakenly portray the "western media" as a monolithic and singular entity instead of an ideologically diverse one.
It also immediately erects an "us against them" siege mentality which can, unfortunately, be politicised as a reason for maintaining the status quo. Instead, the Singapore government should have gone on the charm offensive and looked for ways to engage foreign correspondents. In this sense, it would have been more pragmatic for the Singapore government to treat the international media as a useful tool to win recognition for the cultural vibrancy this city has to offer instead of just another western institution it must stand up to.
The second lesson is how logic and appeals to national sovereignty can stymie debate. Take for example the rationale for the banning of out-door protests and demonstrations offered by the Singapore government. It goes like this: Such protests have long been illegal for both Singaporeans and foreigners alike. We cannot make an exception for the IMF meeting because this would be a blatant U-turn and a case of double standards – one for Singaporeans, another for foreigners. If such protests are to be allowed, the decision must be left to Singaporeans alone to make, and not by foreign influence on the behalf of Singaporeans.
It is a perfectly logical rationale but when set against the background of local reality, two flaws quickly emerge. Firstly, it assumes that the Singapore government eschews U-turns and the practice of double standards. However, recent public policy decisions have shown that a key strength of the Singapore government is its ability to review coldly and rationally, past policies. The introduction of casinos in Singapore are a prime example of this. Hence it is not the case that the government was locked into a political impasse, but rather, it demonstrates the fact that ruling elite has always been more pro-active with economic concerns, while trapped by inertia when it comes to political change. As for double standards between Singaporeans and foreigners, this is already a fact of life. Singaporeans, regardless of income, will be expected to pay to enter the casinos while foreigners, also regardless of income, can enter free.
Secondly, by arguing that the decision to allow out-door protests should be left to Singaporeans alone, implicitly assumes that Singaporeans have the power to affect change. In truly democratic societies with a culture of lobbying, political bartering and referendums, this may be true. However, in Singapore, the government, for better or worse, claims absolute authority to govern on the behalf of Singaporeans. Most Singaporeans are comfortable with this and the way in which power is concentrated. They generally support the government's right to make decisions for them. Hence, if power lies overwhelmingly with the government, and if Singaporeans accept the government's authority to exercise this power on the behalf of all citizens, then there is no basis to argue that Singaporeans can un-do the out-door protest ban even if they wanted to.
The IMF and World Bank meeting has left us with many issues to consider. Some of these issues pertain to the way we construct our own realities and justify the status quo. It is important for such practices to take place because they help affirm our identity and our way of life in the long term. However, unless there are also counter-views and alterative discourses that challenge these perspectives, we would only be singing our own praises. The opportunity to look ourselves in the mirror would be missed.