singapore did not breach the MOU with IMF-World Bank

Did Singapore breach the MOU with IMF-World Bank. Singapore did not. But Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank's President said Singapore did. And Singapore explained. The issue lies in between two conditions. One is for 'Singapore to '(assure) expeditious entry procedures including the issuance of visas... for any observers and other persons... who are accredited'. The other is for 'Singapore to take all necessary measures for the safe passage of all persons in and out of Singapore and for their personal security and safety of their property and the property of the organisations and delegations. The two conditions is like day and night. Having one will compromise on the other. You can't have day and night at the same time. For Singapore to ensure the safety of all delegates, it must have the full authority to exercise caution and take preventive measures. In this sense, if Singapore thinks that Paul Wolfowitz is a security threat himself, he can be barred from Singapore under the agreement. So Singapore is perfectly right to stop those whom it thinks will pose a danger to the Meeting. On the other hand, if Singapore is to abide by the first condition, to allow all and sundry to attend the Meeting, it will compromise itself, and safety and security of delegates, and any trouble Singapore will be blamed and be answerable. The devil is in the details really. It is like George Bush raising a red flag that Iraq is a danger, or the terrorist threat. So hiding behind the threat he can do anything he wants to protect America and its people. Paul Wolfowitz should be familiar with this kind of reasonings.


Anonymous said...

Now the world knows what is LKY's law.

redbean said...

Singapore is the ideal country for the rich and famous. Safe and secure. They can live here as PRs and enjoy all the human comfort.

And when they want to take a little risk elsewhere for a short holiday, they can make a quick exit and return to the safety of fortress Singapore.

When one is super rich, safety and security count a lot.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I agree with you on the safety and security stuff. I was referring to how the law is conveniently interpreted to suit the situation to the government advantage. This is purely playing with words.