The annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are currently being held in Singapore. For the tiny city-state of Singapore, the meetings are a big deal – about 16,000 delegates, journalists and representatives from NGOs (or what the World Bank terms “Civil Society Organizations”) are attending, making it one of the biggest international gatherings ever held there.

The Singapore government pulled out all the stops to ensure a successful event: millions of dollars were spent beautifying what was already a pristine city (with blooming flowers in pot plants everywhere); hundreds of brand new BMWs chauffeured delegates around town; and a public campaign urged the republic’s four million citizens to smile at their visitors. In accordance with Singapore’s much praised standards of efficiency, the event has run like clockwork. To ensure the meetings weren’t disrupted by protests from activists, the Singapore authorities also made it clear that the country’s long-standing ban on public demonstrations would remain in place during the events.

So far, so good. But then the government went a step too far and decided to prevent 27 NGO activists, who had been accredited to the meetings by the World Bank, from entering the country. The reason given was “security concerns”.

The result? The World Bank accused Singapore of reneging on an agreement to allow activists in, made three years ago, when Singapore was chosen as the meeting venue. And the majority of the 160 NGOs accredited to the meetings, comprising a total of 500 delegates, decided to boycott the event.

In unprecedented criticism, World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz said the move had done “enormous damage” both to the Bank (which has been trying hard to cultivate a softer image and build better relationships with NGOs around the world) and to Singapore … “a lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it’s self-inflicted.”

The stinging rebuke and the outrage from NGOs became the focus of attention for the thousands of journalists attending the meeting. Despite the urgings of government ministers to look at the “big picture”, the efficient logistics of the conference were overshadowed by stories about the “repressive” and “authoritarian” nature of Singapore.

Two days later, the Singapore authorities partially reversed their stance and said they would allow 22 of the 27 banned activists into the country. But for most observers, this was a case of too little, too late.

The lessons from all of this? Little things count for a lot in the PR business. The 22 banned activists might represent only a tiny fraction of the total attendance in Singapore, but the symbolism of the banning overshadowed everything else.

Additionally, in today’s world engagement with stakeholders - no matter what their politics or attitudes - is critical to any successful PR campaign. Not to do so is a risky business – as Singapore has found out to its cost …

Submitted by Andrew Pirie