Public Peace In Singapore

1135 Words5 Pages
disturbances of any kind on the streets of Singapore to maintain public order and peace. To me as an observer and critique, both just seems like playing cat and mouse. Strength of the Article 14 (1) (b) and its subjugation to clauses (2) and (3) The Singapore government is able to maintain public peace and harmony due to the strength provided by the additional parliamentary acts. Singapore is considered a miracle but very few people understand the reason behind. Strong leaders have made this possible; with the ability to do what is right for the people and the country. Singapore is a densely-populated city-state. Due to its geographical location and small size, it cannot afford to risk its vibrant economy by unwanted public assemblies or…show more content…
If I am to argue the unusual birth of the country, Singapore must mature after coming this far after independence as a civilized society and government. The constitution should not give the power to ban completely the rights of its citizen. The trust cannot be built without two-way exchange between the two parties. I think there was no threat to public security or to national interests in the above example case of Dr. Chee. Sometimes we need to listen to prove the opposition wrong. It seems like judiciary is failing to check the powers of the executive. Dr. Chee should have been granted the permit to hear his concerns in a controlled fashion. But this also demonstrates that most of the people in Singapore are law abiding citizens who do want the laws to remain that way so that the society can progress in a peaceful environment without disturbances to social…show more content…
The government has established the tripartite relationship between the government, the employers and the labour, represented by the union. Only after these attempts, if the labour grievances are not satisfied, the union can hold a secret ballot to vote for or against the industrial action. Even after this, workers in the essential services to go on strike or industrial action is considered illegal under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act Cap 67 unless they give employers 14 days' prior notice of their intent to go on strike. The Hydril strike happened only because the NTUC leader truly believed that the workers were in oppression and real justice was needed. The recent incident is on 28 Nov 2012 when several SMRT bus drivers from China were charged for striking. Not all the bus drivers were union members. Thus, National Transport Workers Union did not have the legal mandate to represent the workers. These workers failed to provide 14 days of notice prior to the strike. So actually, the Trade Disputes Act, the Trade Unions Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions Act) make a legal strike virtually impossible in

More about Public Peace In Singapore

Open Document