Even though its a restriction of freedom.
1 While an individaul is rational,crowd reaction is unpredictable. Some people may lost control of themselves and cause damage to public and private property. Innocent bystanders may be hurt in scuffles.
2 A street protest may cause inconvience to the public such as traffic jams and noise disturbances. The views of a vocal few may not reflect that of the silent majority.
3 There are other channels available for people to voice their disagreement and unhappiness.
It is likely to end in violence.
See Middle east countries for examples
Right of assembly doesn't translate into having power to produce an effect
I REFER to Mr David Lok Seow Kang's letter, 'Want to hear the silent majority? Let them assemble' (ST, Sept 10), in which he called for Singaporeans to be given the freedom to assemble and protest.
I urge Singaporeans not to be seduced by the powerful images of mass demonstrations in countries such as the United States, Russia and Australia.
It is often very easy and convenient to overlook the smallness of our nation and it is dangerous to chal-lenge the status quo blindly. We should understand that unlike the many vast Western democracies, a little instability could spell the end of our country.
It is a fallacy to suggest that being able to assemble and protest translates into greater political efficacy. Take the recent demonstrations in Italy, where tens of thousands urged their government to withdraw the 3,000 Italian troops in Iraq to save the lives of two Italian women aid workers held hostage by Iraqi militants. The result? The Italian government reaffirmed its commitment to keep its troops in Iraq till the job is done.
We need to be clear whether demonstrations are the means to an end or an end in themselves. Often, protesters demonstrate for the sake of demonstrating. Take the anti-Bush demonstrations in New York during the recent Republican convention.
What did they achieve? President George W. Bush pulled ahead of Democrat John Kerry after the convention. Americans merely saw the demonstrators who were trying to disrupt the convention as a nuisance and security hazard.
Recently, 7,500 school cleaners in New South Wales (NSW) walked off their jobs for one week, calling for better job security. They descended upon the Town Hall in central Sydney to voice their displeasure.
Many schools across NSW had to be closed because the principals did not want their students to fall sick due to poor hygiene conditions.
Instead of achieving their aim of getting greater concessions from the NSW Premier, the protesters only incurred the wrath of many parents whose children were affected by the protest, especially those whose kids would be taking the Higher School Certificate (A levels) in about a month's time.
These examples show that being able to assemble and protest does not translate into having the power to produce an effect. There are other more productive avenues for Singaporeans to provide constructive feedback to our leaders.
Instead of blindly clamouring for change, I urge Singaporeans to make an effort to comprehend the rationale behind policies and laws, in the context of a small, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.
Anyone who has studied governance would know that it is the 'bread and butter' issues that are of most concern to the people of a country. In this regard, I cannot agree more with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's remark at the Global Brand Forum that political reform need not go hand in hand with economic liberalisation.
In my previous career, I had the opportunity to travel to many less-developed countries, such as Kenya, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Through such travels, I came to realise the crucial role of law in providing a framework for an orderly society. I saw how a country's people could suffer when abuses of political power were not curbed by the rule of law.
Singapore must never abandon its fundamentals - political stability, meritocracy and an incorruptible administration - in order to safeguard a strong economy and a secure environment.
I was heartened to read in a recent speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong that our Government 'will not change just to please some Western-influenced liberals who apply their notion of democracy, pluralistic politics and freedom of the press unthinkingly to Singapore'.
Singapore is our home and, together, we must make the right choices for the Republic.
SIOW JIA RUI
New South Wales, Australia
17 Sept 2004 ST Forum
Cannot stage mass protests? So be it
THE letter by Mr David Lok gives the impression that the only way for the silent majority to be heard is through mass protests.
In most instances, protests serve only to disrupt public life and damage property, and even claim lives.
I had a bad experience of one such protest last year. I was rushing to perform the last rites for my mother, who died in another country. On the way from the airport, we came upon a mass protest.
Our vehicle was not allowed to pass, in spite of our pleas. We were threatened with physical violence if we proceeded before the group completed its procession.
If lack of political efficacy means not holding mass protests, let it be so. I prefer an orderly and peaceful life to worrying every day about riots and fearing for my life.
ARJUNAN RAVIPRAKASH
