[Kabar-indonesia] Testing the Limits in Singapore [+Legal Noose Tightens On Thaksin]

[Joyo at aol.com]

also: Legal noose tightens on Thailand's Thaksin

Asia Times
September 1, 2006

Southeast Asia

Testing the limits in Singapore

By Alex Au

SINGAPORE - When the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund (IMF) open their week-long annual
conferences in Singapore on September 12, the events
will not be attended by the usual anti-globalization
street protests, burning effigies or other
anti-establishment antics. Singapore's authoritarian
government guarantees that.

Police chief of staff Soh Wai Wah announced late last
month that "outdoor demonstrations and processions
will not be allowed, in keeping with current rules"
and that "a private secured area will be set up at the
lobby of the conference venue" for "accredited"
persons and groups to conduct their activities.

The Straits Times, Singapore's government-influenced
main English-language newspaper, obediently reported
the following day that this decision was "in keeping
with the tradition of these meetings". However, "they
must stick to the police rules, which include bans on
wooden or metal poles to hold up placards".

With the streets around the convention area forcibly
closed and accreditation nearly impossible to obtain
for activists and advocates, allowing for a select few
state-sanctioned civil-society folks to conduct indoor
activities will, to the government's approval, ensure
a polite and peaceful event.

To justify the restrictions, Singaporean police
officials have repeatedly invoked the fear of
international terrorism and the domestic need not to
"disrupt our compact, multi-ethnic and multi-religious
community". At the same time, by agreeing to hold
their meetings under such severe restrictions, the
World Bank and IMF are granting a de facto endorsement
of Singapore's mix of capitalism, authoritarian
governance and limited civil liberties.

Peter Stephens, the World Bank's representative to
Singapore, has publicly voiced his alleged
disappointment with the ban. He recently told local
reporters, "The bank's preference is that
civil-society groups should be able to peacefully
express their views outside of the conference facility
in a way that doesn't cause disruption."

The conflicting positions of the World Bank and
Singapore on freedom of assembly have led to some
speculation about what implicit or explicit promises
Singapore may have offered when pitching to serve as
the event's host, which the government later possibly
reneged upon after securing the contract. Singapore's
business-minded government is now bidding to win a
larger share of the lucrative global conventions and
conference market - though notably without
compromising on its laws restricting freedom of
association and assembly.

The World Bank/IMF meeting is bringing those seemingly
contradictory perceptions into sharp view - though
neither of the multilateral institutions, which are
currently promoting greater transparency and
inclusiveness as part of their new vision, has
threatened to pull out of the event over the
restrictions.

In June, Stephens wrote a public reply to a broad
coalition of activists that the World Bank was
"working closely with the IMF and with the Singapore
government - and [has] been for many months - to
ensure that diverse civil-society voices are very much
heard before, during and after the annual meetings'.'
Singaporean leaders have so far remained tight-lipped
about the controversy.

The World Bank and IMF annual conferences - along with
meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the
Group of Eight summit - have in recent years presented
a useful venue for global activists and
non-governmental organizations to express their gripes
about the inequities perpetuated by the prevailing
neo-liberal global order. With the rising cost of
living here, many lower-income Singaporean citizens
would likely find common cause with international
protest groups.

Therein, perhaps, is the rub. Some of the past
anti-globalization protests have escalated to
violence, where security forces clashed with and
arrested protesters, including the WTO's meetings in
Seattle in 1999 and in Hong Kong in 2005, as well as
the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. Singapore's government
is under unprecedented political pressure to justify
that its strict adherence to neo-liberal economic
prescriptions are benefiting the majority of the
island state's 4.4 million people and not just the
elite.

Earlier, there had been speculation that the
government might lift the ban on outdoor
demonstrations temporarily during the conference week,
but this spawned torrents of criticism over
Singapore's feisty blogosphere, including numerous
online jabs at the government's perceived double
standards in dealing liberally with well-heeled
foreigners and harshly with its own citizens.

Harsh interpretations

Singapore's laws and regulations are often interpreted
in anti-democratic fashion, even as Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Loong tries to promote a racier national profile
to foreign audiences and investors. Local police claim
that there are explicit laws on the books that ban
outdoor demonstrations, though the actual text of the
law is more nuanced.

Outdoor protests and marches involving more than five
persons are required to obtain a permit under the
Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. However, for
decades the authorities have regularly refused to
grant such permits - despite the fact that the intent
of the law is to regulate public assemblies, not ban
them.

Oddly, perhaps, Singapore's constitution guarantees
freedom of speech, expression and assembly, though the
national charter also says parliament may impose
"restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient
in the interest of the security of Singapore or any
part thereof" as well as to uphold "friendly relations
with other countries, public order or morality".

In a recent attempt to test the limits of this
constitutional guarantee, four people tried to mount a
silent demonstration in front of the headquarters of
the government-run Central Provident Fund (CPF) in
August 2005. They wore T-shirts emblazoned with
slogans calling on the CPF to be more transparent with
pensioners' funds while standing in complete silence.
Soon thereafter, 40 or so police officers in anti-riot
gear confiscated their T-shirts and demanded that they
disperse because they were a "public nuisance".

Three of the four silent protesters mounted a court
challenge against the government for denying them the
freedom of assembly. However, Justice V K Rajah
dismissed the suit, ruling that the police could
reasonably have deemed the words on the T-shirts and
placards as "insulting and/or abusive apropos those
responsible" for managing the CPF, a public
institution, and that their being stationary in front
of the building represented harassment. "A persistent
course of conduct for a sustained period of time can
constitute harassment," the judge ruled.

Another closely watched case testing the bounds of
freedom of expression and assembly is now being heard
in Singapore's Subordinate Court system. Two
Singaporean citizens, Erh Boon Tiong and Ng Chye Huay,
are being tried for standing across the road from the
Chinese Embassy on July 20 holding a banner with the
words, "Stop persecution of Falungong in China." The
local media reported police saying that the banner's
message was likely "to cause harassment to Chinese
Embassy staff, visitors and passers-by".

These cases indicate clearly that the police,
government and courts in effect ban most sorts of
public assembly, particularly meetings with a
political flavor. Institutionalized curbs on civil
liberties continue to earn criticism from Singapore's
most important global allies, including senior US
officials.

Outgoing US ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin said
in his farewell speech in October, "It is surprising
to find constraints on discussions here. In my view,
governments will pay an increasing price for not
allowing full participation of their citizens." 

Lavin later made reference to a small group of
protesters against the Iraq war who tried to
demonstrate outside the US Embassy but were
immediately dispersed by police, who later asked him
if he wished to press charges against the
demonstrators. Lavin said he told police that he was
embarrassed by such a proposal, adding: "I said 'No.'
I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and say something if
you want to."

Neither the World Bank nor IMF has so far taken a
similar tough stand against their Singaporean hosts.
Still, there are indications that Singapore's police
may be put to the test during the September meetings.
INQ7, a Manila-based news site, recently reported that
200 activists from around the region plan to visit
Singapore during the meetings.

That's assuming, of course, that they can get past the
intrusive airport screening, on-the-ground
surveillance of their movements, and ban on entry to
the meetings' venue that they are certain to encounter
upon their arrival.

Alex Au is an independent social and political
commentator and freelance writer based in Singapore.
He often speaks at public forums on politics, culture
and gay issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Asia Times Online
September 2, 2006

Southeast Asia

Legal noose tightens on Thailand's Thaksin

By Shawn W Crispin

BANGKOK - Will the rule of law or martial law finally
prevail? That's the question circulating nowadays in
politically tumultuous Thailand as the country gears
up for what will likely be another round of
inconclusive general elections.

The run-up to the polls, tentatively scheduled for
October 15, have been overshadowed by legal
proceedings against and official investigations into
caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his Thai
Rak Thai political party, and his family's
controversial business dealings.

An electoral-fraud case pending at the Constitutional
Court threatens to disband Thaksin's party permanently
on charges of subverting this year's April 2
elections, which the Supreme Court has already
declared null and void. Thai Rak Thai officials have
twice requested extensions to court-set deadlines to
present their defense, which they now must submit by
September 19.

An official investigation is also under way into the
Shinawatra family's controversial US$1.9 billion sale
of their majority holdings in the Shin Corporation in
January to Singapore's Temasek Holdings, a convoluted
divestment that legal experts and opposition
politicians contend violated the Foreign Business Act,
which bans majority foreign ownership of certain
strategic industries, including telecommunications.

Thaksin also faces two possible perjury charges in the
Criminal Court from an unresolved business conflict
dating back to the 1980s with William Monson, his
former American business partner in a Thailand-based
cable-television venture that Thaksin himself
eventually listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.
The court has scheduled a total of six hearings for
September and October and will decide on October 16
whether to launch a full trial into the charges.

Opposition politicians contend that Thaksin should
also be held accountable for the more than 2,500
extrajudicial killings that occurred during his
government's 2003 "war on drugs" campaign, his
government's admitted complicity in the abduction and
disappearance of Thai Muslim human-rights lawyer
Somchai Neelapaijit, and his government's systematic
subversion and intimidation of the local media, which
are protected from political intervention by the 1997
constitution.

The Foundation for Consumers filed a lawsuit with the
Central Administrative Court on Thursday against
Thaksin for his role in issuing executive decrees that
paved the way for the controversial November 2001
partial privatization of oil and gas giant PTT Plc,
which sold out in less than a minute and saw relatives
of senior Thai Rak Thai members secure large
allotments of the listing while many retail investors
went empty-handed. PTT, which has a monopoly on
natural-gas distribution in Thailand, listed at 35
baht per share and now trades at 238 baht (US$6.33 at
the current exchange rate).

Significantly, Thaksin's mounting legal troubles come
in the wake of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej's
call on April 25 for senior Thai judges to find a
legal solution to the country's political crisis.
Thailand's judiciary has demonstrated a strong
independent streak since then. This has been
manifested in the Constitutional Court's decision to
nullify the results of the April 2 general elections
because of irregularities, and the more explosive
Criminal Court decision in late July to imprison three
election commissioners, widely viewed as Thaksin
allies, for four years for their role in mishandling
the nullified polls. At the time, Thaksin said he was
"shocked" by the decision.

Some Bangkok-based legal scholars, requesting
anonymity, contend that a conviction in any one of the
cases against Thaksin and/or his political party could
be enough to end his political career and possibly
even drive him and his family into self-imposed exile.
As the legal wheels turn, Thaksin, once politically
unassailable, now seems highly vulnerable.

To be sure, Thaksin has faced legal troubles before
and emerged unscathed. The National Counter Corruption
Commission in December 2000 ruled that Thaksin had
improperly concealed his assets by enlisting shares in
the communications companies he founded in the names
of his domestic servants. The Constitutional Court
famously overturned that conviction in August 2001 in
a highly controversial 8-7 verdict, which, unusually,
was judged on both legal and political merits and saw
Thaksin appoint a new judge to the court while the
case was being heard.

Now, as then, Thaksin's supporters predict a prolonged
period of political, economic and even social turmoil
if the courts rule against him.

Supavud Saicheua, a former personal adviser to Thaksin
and now head of research at Bangkok's Phatra
Securities, Thailand's leading investment bank, warned
in a recent report titled "Beware Unintended
Consequences" that if the investigation into the
Shinawatra family's sale of the Shin Corp to Temasek
Holdings finds they contravened Thai laws governing
the use of local nominees on behalf of foreign
investors, it would deter future foreign direct
investment in Thailand.

He cites two examples from the 1990s where Thai
leaders retroactively amended laws and allowed
transactions that had already been ruled illegal by
Thai courts to proceed. Supavud suggests that, for the
sake of future foreign investments, a similar
compromise be reached in the Temasek-Shin Corp deal.

In an earlier research note, the prominent economist
also ventured that a ruling against Thai Rak Thai for
electoral fraud would be "illogical".

Whose rule of law?

The noisy anti-government street protests that last
year and early this year rocked Thaksin's government
have notably gone quiet since King Bhumibol in April
called on senior Thai judges to resolve the country's
political crisis. Nonetheless, the political
temperature has risen dramatically in recent weeks -
coincident with the legal proceedings and
investigations against Thaksin, his political party
and his family.

Thaksin made big waves in late June when he vaguely
referred to "charismatic people outside the
constitution working to impose changes" and said his
"opponents are now attempting various
extra-constitutional tactics to co-opt the will of the
people". He made similar shadowy references in an
April letter addressed to US President George W Bush,
in which he tried to explain to his US ally that Thai
democracy was under unconstitutional threat.

Many media outlets interpreted Thaksin's jab as being
directed at King Bhumibol's top adviser, Privy Council
chairman Prem Tinsulanonda - though the embattled
premier later denied that Prem was the charismatic
figure he had in mind. Prem soon thereafter traded in
his civilian clothes for his old military garb to
administer a speech that reminded cadets that they
first serve King Bhumibol, not elected politicians.

Prem later lent his moral authority to a sweeping,
surprise military shakeup ordered by army commander
Sonthi Boonyaratglin, which acted to remove many known
Thaksin loyalists from positions of authority inside
the army's 1st Division, which crucially during times
of political crisis is charged with overseeing
Bangkok's security.

Bangkok-based security analysts and a senior Western
diplomat who spoke with Asia Times Online on condition
of anonymity interpreted the move as a preemptive
strike against any designs Thaksin may have had on
declaring a state of emergency and suspending the
legal proceedings now under way against him. The move,
they say, also dispelled any lingering doubts about
where the top brass's ultimate loyalty lies - with the
monarch.

Still, the political rumblings and high-stakes
maneuvers continue. A whopping 49% of Bangkok
residents considered that last week's car-bomb
assassination plot against Thaksin by a rogue military
officer was in reality a government-orchestrated hoax,
according to a recent Bangkok University poll.

Thaksin and his supporters have spun the murky
incident as justification for imposing greater
security measures around the premier, raising
speculation that another alleged attempt on Thaksin's
life, real or imagined, would give him the pretext to
declare a state of emergency, suspend civil liberties
and consolidate his slipping political power through
force rather than the ballot box.

The hypothetical question, of course, is whether top
military commanders would obey Thaksin's orders in his
politically wounded state. Thailand's armed forces
have come great distances in rehabilitating their
public image since the 1991 coup and 1992 crackdown on
pro-democracy demonstrators. Bangkok's elite and their
associated protest groups now favorably view the armed
forces as King Bhumibol's last line of defense against
any potential challenge to his authority.

Some Bangkok-based security analysts even contend that
if respected former or current military leaders
preemptively moved against Thaksin - and King Bhumibol
did not publicly demur - the move would be welcomed by
a large cross-section of Bangkok's educated elite and
middle classes, who now widely view Thaksin as an even
bigger threat to the future of Thai democracy.

Thaksin and his supporters contend that upcoming
democratic polls should serve to resolve past
conflicts and pave the way toward national
reconciliation. If the polls proceed as planned,
political analysts predict his Thai Rak Thai party
would notch another landslide victory, winning about
300 of the possible 500 parliamentary seats, based on
his party's still-strong popularity in the country's
northern and northeastern regions.

A newly elected Thai Rak Thai-led government would,
perhaps ironically, oversee a 12-18-month process of
political reform, where a cross-section of elites,
academics, activists and opposition politicians would
push constitutional amendments aimed at legally
diminishing the party's dominance over politics and
implementing new, stronger checks and balances on the
executive branch.

However, it's just as likely that next month's polls
will perpetuate, and even accentuate, the current
political conflict that is centered on Thaksin's
strong and divisive style of governance. Thaksin's
critics remain adamant that he first step down from
power and answer their allegations of massive
corruption, abuse of power and the particularly potent
charge of disloyalty to the throne - all charges
Thaksin has persistently denied.

Even if Thai courts take the extraordinary step of
convicting Thaksin, his political party, or possibly
even his family members, on any of the said charges,
it's not altogether clear that Thailand's
democratically elected premier will bow out without a
fight.

Shawn W Crispin is Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia
editor.