We should consider having our own Anti-social Behaviour Act to deal with ugly S'poreans
THE Scottish Parliament passed the Anti-social Behaviour Act (ABA) in 2004 with the original intention of curbing noise nuisance.
This Act, which empowers authorised officers and the police to take summary action against an offender by imposing a fine and even confiscating the offending equipment, is effective in curtailing the noise problem.
We should have a similar Act in Singapore modified and expanded in scope to deal with the various anti-social behaviour problems here.
Here are some anti-social behaviour problems which can be corrected by this Act.
>>On MRT trains and public buses, it can be used to catch and fine those who fail to give up the designated seats for the pregnant, disabled and elderly. It can also be used to nab those who assault bus drivers when asked to produce their passes for identification.
>>On the road, it can be used to punish those who grab the oncoming taxi without consideration that another person is there earlier waiting for it. The cabby can be reminded that if he picks up the queue-jumper, he will be reported to the police for action to be taken against him under this Act.
>>In crowded car parks, it can be used to fine inconsiderate and discourteous drivers who go against the directional sign to occupy the empty lot, ignoring those who were there earlier.
>>At various places, it can discipline people who display anti-social and repugnant behaviours such as queue-jumping and spitting.
>>On the Internet, it can be used to punish and discipline irresponsible bloggers who are quick to insult a person by their libellous remarks or foul language. The police can fine the errant bloggers who usually operate under the cloak of anonymity and ask them to apologise and reveal their true identities including their photographs on their blogs.
This Act is all-embracing and can be applied in some way to eradicate any anti-social behaviour displayed by the ugly Singaporeans. Should there be any future anti-social behaviours, the ambit of the Act can be enlarged to deal with these new problems.
The ugly Singaporeans are a bane to society as they destroy our efforts in building a gracious society. They also tarnish our image as a First World country by their Third World behaviours.
National campaigns in the past have not yielded much results and we should not discontinue these ongoing programmes aimed at changing their values, attitudes and behaviours.
We should also seriously consider having our own ABA to reform those hard-core anti-social elements who cannot be changed by the persuasive approach of national campaigns.
An excellent suggestion! In fact I propose how the ambit should in fact be broader than the letter's author suggests!
- On MRT trains and public buses, it can be used to catch and fine those who fail to control their children who run amok. It can also be used to nab those who assault our senses with their horrible taste in fashion and music.
- On the road, it can be used to punish those who do not slow down at zebra-crossings without consideration that another person is there waiting. The driver can be reminded that if he does not slow down, he will be reported to the police for action to be taken against him under this Act
- In crowded food courts, it can be used to fine inconsiderate and discourteous persons who go against the accepted etiquette to occupy the empty seats, ignoring those who were there earlier.
- At various places, it can discipline people who display anti-social and repugnant behaviours such as speaking loudy or with improper English grammatical syntax.
- On the Internet or print media, it can be used to punish and discipline irresponsible letter writers who are quick to use faulty logic without due consideration of constitutional liberties to advocate improper social engineering measures. The police can fine the errant letter writer who usually operate under constitutional protection of free expression and ask them to apologise and reveal their true identities including their photographs in print.
For a while I wasn't quite sure if this letter wasn't a spoof itself ala the Sokal Hoax but a quick google search shows that the writer has made similar arguments before so it's likely he was serious.
That scares me....
Labels: civil liberties