Talk:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act

Chinese Workers' "Illegal Strike"
Recently, a new chunk of info regarding China workers in Singapore going on a so-called "illegal strike" has been added, to supposedly give an example of the Act in use. I don't see how this should be included in this article. I'm sure there are many examples of the Act in use; why choose this one? Also, look at the recentism of tis piece of news. Is it historically significant to be added in? Does it have enough due weight? I think not. This article primarily focuses on the act itself. As an alternative, methinks a better way would be to transwiki the part about the China worker illegal strike into Wikinews, and we can hook the Wikinews link somewhere in a "See also" or "Further reading" section. What do you think? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, I have changed the subject heading as it comes across as derogatory and insulting to Chinese nationals. Please avoid using such language. Secondly, I do not see why this particular incident, which has already resulted in one conviction under the Act, should not be used as a very good illustration of the Act in use. The information amply satisfies the ten-year test, which asks: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" The information will still be relevant in ten years' time because until this year these provisions of the Act had not been invoked for decades. Moreover, the information, which is only one paragraph long, has not been given excessive emphasis compared to the rest of the article. I feel strongly that it should remain in the article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I've moved the writeup about the incident to the bottom of that section. Before my edit, it was right smack in the middle of the section's writeup, which is bad structuring. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I had placed the information after the description of the provisions of the Act under which the workers appeared to have been charged, but I have no objection to the current location. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Protest-FarEast-1989-5.jpg