For advertisement

Sample

4/14/2009

Criticism of Public Order Act 2009

Why so many criticisms against the Public Order Act? The law is for the good of the people, to protect the people. Singaporeans should welcome more of such laws that are good for them, ala GST. When things are done for the good of the people the people should be happy and accept them with open arms. Criticisms of good acts and intention are misplaced. My only concern is that what if these good laws were abused by a rogue govt or rogue enforcers of the law? Yes, Sylvia Lim is right on this, that it can become draconian. But with good leaders in charge, everything will be fine. Let's pray that we will forever be blessed with good leaders.

10 comments:

rookielim said...

Whatever law cannot suppress a public that is outraged... especially with the prevalence of the Internet (Youtube etc) and mobile video recording devices.

redbean said...

luckily 4 is illegal assembly does not apply to cyberspace. heng ah.

Anonymous said...

There will come one day when the writings of bloggers are deemed offensive. I repeat, the writings of the bloggers get the bloggers into hot soup. Cyberspace could be as dangerous as the highway.

patriot

redbean said...

let's talk about thailand and the usa : )

Matilah_Singapura said...

I fully support the POA and any police action needed to maintain the rule of law.

There is aa mistaken belief about free speech and expression: that somehow people who want to exercise their right to free speech can disrupt life, stop traffic and commerce, pose a danger to peaceful individuals minding their own business, and generally FORCE others (who could careless about political agenda) to take notice of some political issue.

Fuck it. Arrest any rioters, spray them with teargas and throw the motherfuckers in jail!

Anonymous said...

So the only means of dissent you support is the ballot box, then?

The French enjoy their revolutions and massive demonstrations for better or worse. It does affect change, and makes good history haha.

redbean said...

i also agree to a certain extent that violent demonstration should not be allowed in the streets here. but after all these years of education and prosperity, do we have confidence that our people have been civilised not to take violence to the streets?

can we have peaceful demonstrations where people be allowed to express their feelings on issues they feel passionate enough to want to be heard? or do we want laws that will not even allow cycling events in public parks or children selling t shirts?

my fear is that the laws that are so generous on the discretional use of power can easily be abused by unthinking enforcers of the law. or worst, the nightmare will come when a rogue govt takes over and use the law to its extreme to suppress the people.

pray that that day will not come. but i can assure you, it will come.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Sure you can have peaceful demonstrations. What is needed is the concept of private property.

Have a piece of private property. Whoever wants to "demonstrate" pays a fee and a bond. If the property is damaged, no one gets back the bond. If the protest is peaceful, the bind is refunded to each participant. The fee charged is just to cover costs — like advertising, organizing, security etc. Or you could charge a fee to make money. Up to whomever is organising the event.

In a market solution, the risk and responsibility is spread to whomever wants to participate, leaving those who don't alone an unpenalised.

If you use public property, people get penalised.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the satire or is it sarcasm?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The danger of such an act is that it can be used by a rogue govt in the future on the present good govt.