Ss presentation

Editor's Notes

• #11: The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore.
• #12: RCH celebrated on 21 st july. To commemorate the 1964 racial riots
• #13: Bilingual policy-> Every student in school is required to learn English and their ”assigned” mother tongue, which is the language of their associated race.
• #20: On 18 January 1966, shortly after Singapore's independence, the President of Singapore appointed a Constitutional Commission helmed by Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin to consider how the rights of racial, linguistic, and religious minorities in the nascent nation should be protected. [9] Singapore had just been ejected from Malaysia, and had experienced an extended period of racial and religious tension resulting from the Maria Hertogh riots. This experience reinforced the need for a multiracial society based on equality among races. [10] The Commission, in its report on 27 August 1966, [11] found that such equality was best protected by giving minority rights equal footing with the fundamental liberties in the Constitution. [12] In addition, it recommended a "Council of State", an advisory body that would inform the Government of the effects its laws would have on minorities. This concept was based on the Kenyan Council of State which was established in 1958 during its phase of transition to African majority rule. [13] The idea of an advisory body which could not significantly impede the legislative agenda was viewed by lawmakers as a promising innovation. In addition, the creation of an advisory council ensuring equal treatment in legislation was very much in line with the idea that, as citizens become increasingly aware of racial and religious issues, national growth will very much depend on an approach to such problems that is not fraught with religious and racial tensions. [14]
• #22: In order to remain relevant, several amendments have been made to the Constitution in the 80s and 90s To preserve multi-racialism in Parliament, the Constitution was amended in 1988 to introduce the concept of Group Representation Constituency (GRC) so that Religious harmony is also not taken for granted. In August 1992, the Constitution was amended to provide for a
• #25: Money bills Bills that the Prime Minister certifies as affecting "the defence or security of Singapore, or which relate to the public safety, peace or good order of Singapore". Bills that the Prime Minister certifies to be so urgent that any delay in enactment would be detrimental to the public welfare. It has been argued that such exemptions are too wide and may be open to abuse. For instance, it is up to the Speaker to determine whether any bill falls within the definition of a money bill, and once he has certified his opinion on the matter in writing, that is "conclusive for all purposes and shall not be open to question in any court". [72] Moreover, grounds upon which bills may be excluded such as "public safety" and "peace", have been described as "nebulous" with potentially wide definitions that are open to abuse by the government in power. [73] As regards a bill that has been enacted on a certificate of urgency and assented to by the President, the Speaker is required to send the Act of Parliament to the Council as soon as possible for its report, which is then presented to Parliament. [74] However, the Constitution contains no provisions as to any steps that Parliament is required to take to amending the Act if an adverse report is made. [73]
• #26: In fact, it does not appear that any person has the power to do so. The door may be open for potential abuse with appointments based on some political agenda rather than merit. The counterpoint is that it is precisely those in power who are best placed to scrutinize bills for illegitimate differentiating measures, because "it is often those with political affiliations who can make the biggest contribution to the discussion; if nothing else, from the folly and error of their past ways".
• #27: In order to remain relevant, several amendments have been made to the Constitution in the 80s and 90s To preserve multi-racialism in Parliament, the Constitution was amended in 1988 to introduce the concept of Group Representation Constituency (GRC) so that Religious harmony is also not taken for granted. In August 1992, the Constitution was amended to provide for a
• #29: at least one of the MPs in a GRC must be a member of the Malay, Indian or another minority community of Singapore. In addition, it was economical for town councils, which manage public housing estates, to handle larger constituencies. The GRC scheme came into effect on 1 June 1988.
• #30: In order to remain relevant, several amendments have been made to the Constitution in the 80s and 90s To preserve multi-racialism in Parliament, the Constitution was amended in 1988 to introduce the concept of Group Representation Constituency (GRC) so that Religious harmony is also not taken for granted. In August 1992, the Constitution was amended to provide for a
• #31: Social and political backdrop There were several prevailing social and political conditions in the 1980s which prompted the introduction of the bill. These were detailed in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony white paper. First, there had been an increase in religious fervour and assertiveness among religious groups, which was part of a worldwide religious revival. [59] This had led to an increase in inter-religious tensions. [60] Secondly, intra-religious tensions had also been observed. [61] Thirdly, several incidents had taken place suggesting that religious groups and leaders were entering the realm of politics. [62] [edit] Inter-religious tensions Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple, a Hindu temple along Serangoon Road Inter-religious tensions were largely attributed to aggressive and insensitive proselytization by religious groups, mostly Protestant churches and organizations. [63] Examples cited in the ISD report annexed to the white paper included tensions in August 1986 when Hindus found posters publicizing a Christian seminar pasted at the entrance to their temple, and when Christian missionaries distributed pamphlets to devotees going into temples along Serangoon Road. [64] There were also two disputes in July 1988 and January 1989 involving the funerals of non-Muslims who had converted to Islam. The non-Muslim families had wanted to cremate the bodies according to their respective non-Islamic religious rites, but a Muslim organization applied for court orders to claim the bodies and bury them according to Islamic rites. Both these disputes were eventually settled out of court. [65] [edit] Intra-religious tensions Hostility between sub-groups under the same religious umbrella also became apparent in the 1980s. [66] In October 1989, for instance, a Hindu sect called the Shiv Mandir burnt an effigy of Ravana, a Hindu mythological king, during a religious festival. This caused outrage among Tamil Hindus, who wanted to retaliate by staging a protest demonstration and threatened to retaliate by burning the effigy of Lord Ramachandra. [67] Intra-religious tensions among Christian groups surfaced after the distribution of pamphlets and booklets denigrating the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope by some Protestants. [68] [edit] Mixing of religion and politics According to the ISD report, the mid-1980s also saw Catholic priests engaging in social activism and using Catholic religious gatherings and publications as platforms to comment on political issues. [69] Following the arrest of Vincent Cheng and others associated with him and their detention under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"), [70] several priests spoke out against the arrests at masses, describing it as an injustice and an attack on the Church. [71] Several foreign Muslim theologians such as Imaduddin Abdul Rahim, Ahmed Hoosen Deedat and Mat Saman bin Mohamed were banned from entering Singapore after they delivered lectures or speeches inciting the Muslim community in Singapore against the Government. [72]
• #33: However, there are also notable differences between the Sedition Act and the MRHA. The first relates to the consequences of violation. Under section 4 of the Sedition Act, an offender is criminally liable. In contrast, under the MRHA, the imposition of a restraining order does not per se carry criminal liability. It is only when this restraining order has been breached that criminal liability will attach to the offender. [106] This difference reflects the varying approach towards disruption of public order – the punitive approach of the Sedition Act contrasts with the pre-emptive approach of the MRHA. Such an arrangement allows the Government to mount a calibrated response against perpetrators. [107] If the Sedition Act was the only relevant statute in operation, it might result in disproportionately harsh action being taken against minor public order disturbances. The second difference relates to the mischief that both statutes address. Tt is clear that the MRHA was meant to address mischiefs of a religious nature. In comparison, the Sedition Act encompasses a broader category of mischief. This is seen in section 3(1)(e), where only hostile actions relating to race and classes of people have a seditious tendency. Whether "classes of people" includes religious groups has yet to be directly commented on by the courts. However, the District Court case Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin (2005) [108] suggests that a perpetrator can be charged under the Sedition Act when the acts committed connote anti-religious sentiments. [109] This effectively subsumes the mischief of the MRHA under the Sedition Act.
• #37: Chinese educated low income
• #49: Play and work together
• #56: First government-run Chinese medium school Common school syllabuses Civics was introduced into all schools Under colonial rule separate language medium schools existed and government kept their involvement in education to a minimum. These segregated schools not only prevented students from different racial backgrounds from interacting, they also differed greatly in terms of breadth and depth of instruction and resources. The English medium mission schools and clan supported Chinese medium schools were largely better funded than the Malay medium schools and Tamil medium schools.
• #57: National rally 1986…
• #58: keep in touch with their heritage and cultural values. http://stupidchicken.com/comic/2006/08/06/chicken-vs-speak-good-english/
• #61: inculcate values and build competencies in our pupils to develop them into good individuals and useful citizens.
• #62: Many Singaporeans, especially pupils and younger Singaporeans, knew little of our recent history. They did not know how we became an independent nation, how we triumphed against long odds, or how today's peaceful and prosperous Singapore came about. The worry was over whether this lack of knowledge would adversely affect young people‘s commitment to Singapore.
• #66: Every child, regardless of race or religion, can study in schools and tertiary institutions. http://ceres.ca.gov/cert/linkages/
• #67: http://social-tinkering.blogspot.sg/2011/01/meritocracy.html